Slashdot Mirror


How Tech Vendors Help Governments Spy On Their Citizens

jfruhlinger writes "Most Slashdotters — even those living in democratic countries — would probably be unsurprised to know that their governments are spying on them. But most people are not aware of how complicit security vendors, who publicly work to protect the public from such electronic eavesdropping, are complicit in such monitoring. All this and more is revealed in the latest Wikieaks document dump, the Spy Files."

27 of 102 comments (clear)

  1. Ok. analyze THIS. by unity100 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Can you come up and say that wikileaks hasnt done anything useful now ?

    1. Re:Ok. analyze THIS. by cobrausn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Most people I know (all over the political spectrum) don't say they haven't done anything useful. Most think they could have done their job better and the organization could be more successful if it was more about transparency and whistleblowing and less about Assange and satisfying his ego.

      --
      How does it feel to be a liar with pants constantly on fire?
    2. Re:Ok. analyze THIS. by countertrolling · · Score: 5, Interesting

      ...Assange and satisfying his ego

      All that is mass media's (apparently successful) attempt to divert attention away from the leaks and to focus more on the "crimes" of the leakers.

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    3. Re:Ok. analyze THIS. by masternerdguy · · Score: 3, Funny

      Oh come on, the fact your government has all your phone calls on file and knows every website you've ever visited is so shockingly predictable it doesn't even need to be leaked.

      --
      To offset political mods, replace Flamebait with Insightful.
    4. Re:Ok. analyze THIS. by Lazy+Jones · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It has certainly demonstrated the apathy of the public after such leaks...

      --
      "I love my job, but I hate talking to people like you" (Freddie Mercury)
    5. Re:Ok. analyze THIS. by forkfail · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's those who would shut it down that made it about Assange. His name was basically unknown compared to WikiLeaks until the bogus sexual harassment character assassination thing hit.

      --
      Check your premises.
    6. Re:Ok. analyze THIS. by forkfail · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Proof. It's what differentiates between bonafide conspiracy and tin foil.

      --
      Check your premises.
    7. Re:Ok. analyze THIS. by gmuslera · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The fact that you consider that a necessary evil, that should be happening everywhere just because surely happens in US, is already a bad thing.

    8. Re:Ok. analyze THIS. by Kagura · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Can you come up and say that wikileaks hasnt done anything useful now ?

      Are you kidding? These are a bunch of company brochures and a few publicly released reports from 160 intelligence contractors. Where is the leak? It's convenient that they put these all in one place for us, but these were already readily available. Wikileaks is now leaking public documents to the public.

    9. Re:Ok. analyze THIS. by marcroelofs · · Score: 2, Insightful

      .. Ron Paul

    10. Re:Ok. analyze THIS. by haruchai · · Score: 4, Interesting

      For starters, there is the "Collateral Murder" video they released - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0 ; this was after Reuters, who lost 2 reporters in the shelling, were unsatisfied with the "investigation" that concluded it was a legal engagement of war and requested the video from the lead chopper, which was denied.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    11. Re:Ok. analyze THIS. by Kagura · · Score: 2

      That video is probably the worst Wikileaks example you could bring up! Let's talk about it.

      1) I think this was a good video to have released. This is a real leak, and something that probably should be in the open and not hidden, especially when you consider the details of the situation. However...
      2) It was an internationally legal military engagement, even without considering the greater context of the incident.
      3) Wikileaks released an edited version of this video as its MAIN release (making the unedited version secondary), introducing blatant spin on the editor's part. It's even in the title, calling it "Collateral Murder"! If someone really thinks the edited video is just for brevity and not for spin, you aren't looking at it with ANY sort of objective eye.

      I had been a real supporter of Wikileaks up until the release of that video. I didn't agree with the prior leaking of the gate guard and force protection SOPs for Guantanamo Bay or the release of the US Army's equipment manifest for Afghanistan, but I still felt Wikileaks held an important place. None of those things are whistle-blowing actions, but they weren't overly harmful to these parties, either. Yet when they finally get a REAL whistle-blowing video of Reuters reporters to release, they couldn't help but put spin on it. I was shocked at that release and no longer supported Wikileaks after the fact. This ended up being good timing, because then they released two SIGACTS databases and then the diplomatic cables in their entirety, which I couldn't possibly support. You don't release thousands of confidential documents just to get a few dozen risquè cables to the public. That is just irresponsibility or naivety to the extreme.

      I call myself a skeptic and an objective person with strong critical thinking skills. I have an open mind, and I really, truly want to see these crimes that are in the diplomatic cables. I'm not talking about "scandalous stuff that you and I both know is going on behind closed doors during US diplomacy"! I want to see actual examples in cables. You have an opportunity to broaden my mind.

    12. Re:Ok. analyze THIS. by haruchai · · Score: 4, Interesting

      A "legal" international military engagement is not a license for live target practice by the armed forces of a purportedly civilized nation.
      The conversation between the pilots and the base clearly indicates that there are no US personnel within easy range of a small bunch of men, only 2 of which appear to be armed. The helicopter is itself in no danger from these men - who were clustered in a circle all facing inward when the firing began. That's a pretty weak battle formation -were they planning a mass suicide? The delay between the sound of the chopper's guns and the bullets' impacts is nearly 2 seconds, which, according to the postings I've seen by guys with combat experience puts the chopper a mile out ( which seems to be standard procedure ) and well out of range of AK-47s and even RPGs. But, while the first set of firing could potentially be excused as there were individuals with weapons, you would really have to burn any "objectivity" out of your eye to defend the firing on the van. I'd be curious to read your explanation as to how that bit of slaughter was warranted. Before you reply, might i trouble you to read http://www.hrweb.org/legal/geneva1.html#Article 15 ?

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    13. Re:Ok. analyze THIS. by haruchai · · Score: 2

      Having a fairly strong viewpoint doesn't mean you're right, but it might mean that you've closed off your mind to further evidence.

      Yes, I did read and apply it - "AT ALL TIMES, and particularly after an engagement, PARTIES to the conflict shall, WITHOUT DELAY, take all possible measures to search for and collect the wounded and sick, to protect them against pillage and ill-treatment, to ensure their adequate care, and to search for the dead and prevent their being despoiled." It does NOT say that only the winning side has the right save the wounded; no-one in the van was armed, their only concern was recovering the wounded man. Are soldiers incapable of judgment?

      But even some who don't support Wikileaks disagree with the military's actions in this incident - here's one from someone who claims to have been in a position to affirm or deny requests to open fire and fought in Iraq: http://blog.ajmartinez.com/2010/04/05/wikileaks-collateral-murder/

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    14. Re:Ok. analyze THIS. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As a former Marine who served in the first Gulf War, I am disgusted that anyone can defend this. We were NOT AT WAR in 2007. So I don't give a shit what you think about the rules of warfare. We were a peace keeping force at that time, which changes the circumstances significantly. It is clear from the recordings that the culture that had taken root within these units was corrosive and the leadership of those units needs to be held to account for it.

      You can't blame this on the "fog of war". That is a bullshit excuse. This was bloodlust, pure and simple. This was the result of a military that had completely lost focus on the task and had a clear contempt for the people that they were supposed to be helping. I understand how it gets that way, it is a natural turn of events when you watch your fellow service members die every day. I don't blame the individuals involved (though I do hope they bear the burden of what they did on their conscience).

      It is the responsibility of the military and civilian leadership to ensure that discipline doesn't break down the way that it so obviously did here. This happens by having people serve too many tours in a combat zone. It happens by pulling guardsmen and reservist into foreign conflicts so that you don't have to take an accurate budget accounting of the cost of combat. It happens by underestimating the size and scope of the operation you are undertaking. It happens by lying to yourself and your electorate over and over and over again enough times until you believe your own lies.

      I've heard the arguments... Releasing this kind of video stirs up anti-American sentiment. Bullshit. Recklessly shooting unarmed combatants stirs up anti-American sentiment. Having an immeasurably high tolerance for collateral damage stirs up anti-American sentiment. Releasing this video just means that we can't stick our head in the sand and continue the "They hate us for our freedoms" bullshit. If the shoe were on the other foot, I would guarantee that the vast majority of U.S. service personnel would end up being "insurgents".

      I'm sure you think I am some anti-American asshole for this. Feel free to think that if you choose, but nothing could be further from the truth. I believe that we ARE the greatest country on earth. I believe that, and I enlisted in the Marine Corps, because I hold dear the principles of liberty and human rights that our country embodies. We have not been pure, and we have failed to uphold these virtues from day one. The fact that it took us almost 200 years to truly end slavery is but one of a multitude of our failures. But we have always advanced in the direction of righteousness. When we sugar coat or cover up those failures, whether it is the My Lai massacre the propping up of dictators by over throwing democratically elected governments (Iran, Chile, etc), or acts of wanton and unnecessary violence such as those under discussion, then we violate the fundamental principles that are the foundation for our greatness. That is not Assange's problem. That isn't Wikileaks' problem. That is ours. And we must face it, and correct it, and take every reasonable effort to ensure that we don't repeat it.

      I will agree with you with respect to the diplomatic cables, and they lost a fair amount of my goodwill with that one. There was nothing of significance there, IMHO, to justify damaging relationships between countries. Certainly unleashing all of them the way they did was reckless and irresponsible. But no matter how unethical Wikileaks may or may not have acted, it does not change the fact that the actions shown in the videos are indefensible, and have nothing to do with Wikileaks other than the fact that they are the only reason we even know about them.

  2. Simple solution... by ackthpt · · Score: 2

    Initiate several processes on your desktop to just go about the web looking at random sites, following links, etc. You don't even need to load all content from pages, just do it like Lynx would and scan for HREF tags. Enough people do this and the government's storage will become overbudened. Probably could do this with a minimal effort to code.

    Now, doesn't that just sound like all kinds of fun?!?

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  3. Turnabout is Fair Play by Phoenix666 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Every government, including the American one, has limited resources. Every government, especially the American one, has bureaucratic constraints. Think of the slowest, dumbest Fortune 500 company you can, and then think of the slowest, dumbest PHB within that corporation, and then multiply that by 1000. That's the caliber of people who work for governments. It's the nature of the beast: create a system where ass-kissing, not merit, determine career progress, and then divorce that entirely from a mitigating profit motive, and you have government.

    These are the people who are buying the services/products of these surveillance companies. These are the people who don't read the user manuals of the products/services that these companies sell. These are the people who boss around the "technical" staff who are tasked with reading the user manuals but who frankly don't get paid enough to put up with this shit.

    That is the reality of the surveillance net.

    Now, consider that these days you, me, and every Tom, Dick, and Harry out there has access to virtually the same tech the governments and their corporate enablers do. Consider that even the cost factor for said tech is racing to zero. That is, the governments and companies are not using some secretly acquired alien technology that uses physics that the rest of the world doesn't grasp yet. You and I can understand the same physical laws and technology that the governments and the corporations in their employ do. And we do.

    So why don't we turn it all around and crowd-source surveillance of them? Why not minutely track the exact location of every Congressman sneaking off to boink a 20 year old intern? Why not put Jamie Dimon's cell phone conversations on a streaming service, available to anyone in the world to listen to? Why not put them under the same microscope that they want to put us under?

    After all, if the technological balance of power is at or near parity, then the deciding factor becomes how many people can you get to make sense of the data; and there are vastly more of us than there are of them to do that.

    Let's once and for all shatter this venomous illusion of authority and competence that governments and corporations have cultivated and exploited for millenia. Let's excise the incalculable damage they have done to human advancement and win a better world for ourselves.

    I for one am so very tired of the stunted one they have forced on us.

    --
    Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
    1. Re:Turnabout is Fair Play by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Now, consider that these days you, me, and every Tom, Dick, and Harry out there has access to virtually the same tech the governments and their corporate enablers do. Consider that even the cost factor for said tech is racing to zero. That is, the governments and companies are not using some secretly acquired alien technology that uses physics that the rest of the world doesn't grasp yet. You and I can understand the same physical laws and technology that the governments and the corporations in their employ do. And we do.

      Unlike the government, we don't have the ability to force ISPs and such to cooperate with us by coercion. "Give us your logs or you're going to prison" carries a lot more weight than "Give us your logs or I'll complain about you on Slashdot".

    2. Re:Turnabout is Fair Play by masternerdguy · · Score: 5, Funny

      You could threaten to mod him down, if he's a karma whore he'll flip out.

      --
      To offset political mods, replace Flamebait with Insightful.
  4. And by the way by unity100 · · Score: 2

    dont you find it weird that governments are spying on their own citizens MORE than they spy on the enemy ? and even do it more effectively ?

    1. Re:And by the way by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'm pretty sure they're convinced that they're spying on their enemy.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:And by the way by LVSlushdat · · Score: 4, Interesting

      dont you find it weird that governments are spying on their own citizens MORE than they spy on the enemy ? and even do it more effectively ?

      Don't you realize WE are now enemies of the government? When DOJ/FBI puts out pamphlets saying that loners/Constitutionalists/Teapartiers are terrorists, you KNOW we are now considered the enemy of this current regime...

      --
      THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
    3. Re:And by the way by tqk · · Score: 2

      dont you find it weird that governments are spying on their own citizens MORE than they spy on the enemy?

      Not really. Because, when you get right down to it, the only real enemy of government officials are their own citizens who might fight to displace them.

      Try harder. NAZI Germany wasn't taken offline by the German people.

      Yeah, yeah, Godwin. Bleh.

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
  5. ..."unregulated..." by John+Hasler · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Oh! Oh! People doing things without permission!

    What the hell do you think that "regulation" of the security industry is going to do except guarantee that the only companies allowed into it are ones that are willing to cooperate with the intelligence agencies of the goverments doing the regulating?

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  6. Re:Really... by Jeremi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Just dont do anything to make them wanna fire/investigate you and you will be fine.

    Isn't this another way of saying, "do whatever your government tells you to, without objection"?

    I'm not sure that attitude is compatible with democracy. Sometimes the boat needs to be rocked.

    --


    I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
  7. egos and whistleblowing by reiisi · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think it takes a certain amount of confidence in one's own point of view to go blowing whistles.

    To do what Assange has done takes quite a bit more of it.

    Ego is not the primary problem, even if the people who think they have something to hide want to distract us by pointing at the ego.

    --
    Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
  8. This is the other side ... by PPH · · Score: 2

    ... of corporate control of the government. In reality, its a two way street. Corporations want a privileged position in our society. And we think that money is the only payment the politicians get? Its like the Godfather. Ask him for a favor and some day, he'll expect something of you in return.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.