Slashdot Mirror
EU Moves To End Surveillance Tech Sales To Repressive Regimes
superglaze writes "The European Union is asking companies that sell surveillance and law enforcement tech to repressive regimes to stop doing so. The EU is not taking concrete action yet, but has warned that sanctions may be applicable. All this comes little more than a week after Wikileaks published the Spy Files, a name-and-shame list of the companies offering tools for mass surveillance and interception to despotic regimes, but also to Western governments."
Who exactly defines repressive and from which side is this judgment passed?
They'll find a way. If you can't buy direct, buy via proxy - and failing that, it only takes one oppressive state with the resources to design and manufacture their own and a willingness to sell to the others. China comes to mind as the ideal supplier, as they already have extensive experience with censorship and surveillance technology, government-controled telecoms and networking companies with engineering knowledge and the manufacturing capability to produce it for export.
You can buy GPS trackers from China.
Indeed, much of what you buy from China supports slavery.
Hypocritical move is hypocritical.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Why sell it to the evil regimes of the world when you can much better use all those pretty toys at home to check what your own citizens are doing?
In all fairness, some of the countries in the EU (esp. the UK) have the highest density of surveillance cameras and other equipment in the world - both per capita and per surface area. It's sad that the EU don't see a need to stop doing that, but wish the situation in dictatorships to improve.
Any shills care to defend Microsoft then?
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
Despotic... yes?... no?... We only do surveillance in the name of the baby Jebus and the sanctity of apple pie. In fact its not even surveillance... we only watch the little brown people because we care... and we hug them with our laser guided missiles.
They are trying but sweden vetoed it, and I think it's a good thing. How would protesters organise and send videos etc without cellphones (and internet)?
These comes with "surveillance tech" as standard.
http://www.stockholmnews.com/more.aspx?NID=8116
Funny that you are British, and you say you never asked for a Unites States of Europe.
With statements such as Winston Churchill's 1946 call for a "United States of Europe" becoming louder, in 1949 the Council of Europe was established as the first pan-European organisation. In the year following, on 9 May 1950, the French Foreign Minister Robert Schuman proposed a community to integrate the coal and steel industries of Europe - these being the two elements necessary to make weapons of war. (See: Schuman declaration).
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_European_Union#1945.E2.80.931957:_peace_forged_from_cold_steel
I believe Winston Churchill was the democratically elected representative of the British people at the time?
The "conservative" government of Swedens wants Ericsson to make lots of money selling mobile networks to Syria:
http://www.stockholmnews.com/more.aspx?NID=8116
http://www.thelocal.se/37720/20111203/
PEN club is diappoint:
http://www.pen-international.org/12/2011/ericsson-in-syria-statement-from-swedish-pen/
Fuck you, Swedish government.
Some of my favourite people are from th US; Vonnegut, Chomsky, Bill Hicks.
Most of these boxes are made BY the repressive regimes! Stupid! Stupid! Stupid!
The purpose of existence is to make money.
Hey, it's a bear market!
Don't kid yourself. Cities in the US have got just as much CCTV, *and* you've got armed police everywhere too. Not to mention the proliferation of metal detectors in public buildings.
Scary stuff.
Yeah, it's not so lonely at the top when it comes to having the most surveillance.
The funny thing is that if they allow selling the tech to countries without "repressive regimes" how can they be sure is not used for evil?
Or are "good" countries allowed to use surveilance tech for all the purposes they want including spying their own citizens even if its for the "noble" goal of combating intellectual property theft?
Yes, I am cynical
Certain US companies will happily step in.
now they can 'arb' the 'spread' between morality-free tech producers in the US and the pantywaists in Europe.
If you are recorded doing something criminal in front of a CCTV camera in Britain, you will (maybe, if the police can be bothered to deal with it, or if they don't just give you a warning) be hauled off to a justice system that is the product of a reasonably fair democracy.
The article talks about surveilance software that identifies disloyalty so that the local goon squad can have their daily list of victims.
Comparing the two is a huge insult to people who live under genuinely repressive regimes. "Oh so you were tortured for your political views were you? Well we have it almost as bad here! I keep getting this creepy feeling that somebody's watching me! Oh, and we're not free to stab people in public either, because the cameras are watching! It's terrible!"
In Tunisia right now a Muslim party has one the elections and this leaves women in fear that they will LOOSE the freedoms GAINED under the OPPRESSIVE regime of Ben Ali. Freedom is not a simple on/off switch. Are the people in Russia now better or worse off then when it was the USSR? What time period of the USSR? What people?
Cuba is rather famous for having better healthcare then the US and a far lower infant death rate. If you are a dying infant, communism apparently can save your life but that life will be less free. Then again, if you were the suspicious kind you might wonder whether the higher infant death rate is evenly distributed or concentrated in certain groups/classes of people. Free but only if you are rich?
The images of a cop peperspraying sitting protestors made the world. Does that make the west un-free? The cops were suspended and while true justice might not be done, there are far far worse examples.
Microsoft dealed with a regime that in western eyes wasn't terribly nice but a LOT better then a lot of other places and we yet have to see what the alternative will turn out to be. In many ways, if you want to blame companies for dealing in oppression they not only have to boycot the entire world but often themselves. Oops, Windows 8 is closed source, that is not free, so MS has to boycot its own software!
Of course, by accepting these exceptions you pretty soon are on a slippery slope were everything becomes an exception.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Italy is about to throw democracy down the toilet so that they can implement 'austerity measures' to pay for Berlusconi's corrupt decade+ rule (a dude who ruthlessly censored the media, put protestors into the hospital, helped the US invade Iraq, etc etc).
European companies like Deutschebank, UBS, Credit Suisse First Boston, NYSE Euronext, etc, are every bit participants in the US 'oligarchy' and in the crash of 2008 and the bailouts. All of those Credit Default Swaps were invented in London, AIG's FP group was in London, JP Morgans derivatives group was in London, because London has virtually no regulation of finance, because it is just as corrupt as New York City, or, say, Bombay or Zaire, when it comes to the crimes of the super rich.
those 'far far worse' things in the rest of the world are often happening for the benefit of European and US corporations - Coltan mining in Africa for example, or the sweatshops in China that directly support Wal-Mart and , basically every other retailer on the planet.
That was before it was set up... and had we joined then we'd be up there as a senior member, but the French wouldn't let us join... finally, when we are now in, a large number of us in the UK want out, but they won't let us have a referendum as they know how we'd vote on it... we really want to go back to how it should be; a common market... not an EUSSR which it is turning out to be dominated by unelected and unaccountable committees and where Merkel and Sarkozy cozy up in secret little conversations while the EU President is basically a Bilderberger figurehead who doesn't actually seem to have any say in the current crisis
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
Ask about the beatings and imprisonment for Chinese netizens grumble continuously about the restrictions on the net and some, beaten or imprisoned for discussing AIDS infections from dirty hospital syringes, and the way hany discussion about train crashes, parents not being able to discuss the earthquake safety of schools in Sichuan or safety of high speed trains.
Or Syrians who have been arrested or beaten for having an iphone.
The standard is universal, and if persecution happens to you or people you know you will have no doubt at all.
Where this is assisted by Western technology the companies should be named and shamed. A few weeks ago a big USA networking company was found to be assisting the Chinese with software to identify particular net users who talk about specific subjects.
Naming and shaming them makes shareholders, suppliers, distributors and CUSTOMERS consider the extra information.
They're spying on something.
Oh and by the by... Quantum Computers + wiretapping = http://isohunt.com/torrents/?ihq=sneakers.
I get so sick of the people who say that "I have nothing to hide, so I don't care about my privacy".
Time and time again, this crappy argument shows up again in a different form.
My point was (a sarcastic remark) about the EU's desire to check on its own citizens. I did not condone torture or dictatorships, and I said nothing about any comparison. The fact that there are worse regimes out there than the EU does not mean that we're doing a good job in the EU.
While 'we' in the west (and on slashdot) may see many freedom of speech and surveillance problems, comparing them to more serious situations isn't fair to citizens of countries like Burma and Syria. Just because the west isn't perfect, doesn't mean that we should just sit by and watch while people are killed and tortured. Rather than invading them and telling them how to live their lives, European politicians are trying to at least make it more difficult for these governments to obtain what they need.
I agree completely, stop selling cameras and drones to the UK already, there are more of them than people.
I would be more enthused if they would take the action of not allowing any trade with repressive regimes. No aid, no trade, nothing.
The problem is, some repressive regimes are excused based on their status in the world either financially or militarily
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
... we're going to stop exporting technology to the US?
Those cameras are in public spaces and private businesses, the latter operated by the property owner. These are not places where you have any reasonable expectation of privacy.
I have no expectation of privacy when I am in public spaces. You know... the outdoors, where people are allowed to travel with their eyes open, where private citizens are allowed to watch other people, or even take photos of them!
People - dissident or otherwise - should not for their safety rely on technology that can be listened to.
Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
The funny thing is that if they allow selling the tech to countries without "repressive regimes" how can they be sure is not used for evil?
That easy! You just include "shall be used for Good, not Evil" in your EULA like jsmin
http://wonko.com/post/jsmin-isnt-welcome-on-google-code
They can't, just like they can't be 100% sure that repressive regimes won't find ways around this restriction. That doesn't mean it's not still right to take a stand.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
More likely the police won't even bother reviewing the tapes - "because they'll just be kids wearing hoods so we can't make out their faces anyway. We've got far more important things to do than look for your stolen motorcycle" (like stopping people from taking photos of buildings from public places for example).
Happy, happy, joy joy!
They should use ITAR as a model. Though the A stands for Arms, it covers a lot more than firearms from my experience.
Not to mention the proliferation of metal detectors in public buildings.
Thats neither "surveillance" (what are they seeing? What right is being violated?) nor is it government (theyre almost all privately owned buildings).
Surveillance in the US is nowhere near at the level that you are saying it is, unless DC is some anomaly and other cities are very different. I have never seen a surveilance camera in DC, and I actually look for that kind of thing.
Go to Shanghai, and THEN try to tell me "the US is just as bad". And there, the government really DOES listen to everything you say, and have access to all the cameras.
I can't find the link any more (a few years ago, so sue me...), but the cost of the CCTV network was totalled and the criminals caught because of the CCTV footage (i.e. there would have been no case without it) were counted up and the cost per arrest was VASTLY higher than the average cost to apprehend a criminal.
So rather than pay for the CCTV network, they could have spent the money on other procedures and caught more criminals or saved the money.
Thats not what he said, he was pointing out the fact that most surveillance in democratic countries is at the behest of a worried population. That doesnt mean the surveillance is a good thing, or that parent was condoning it (in fact, he stopped short of that in his comment); its just that its not in the same ballpark as cameras in China or a truly repressive country.
EU President is basically a Bilderberger
Ok, I think we're done here.
Does that include the U.S.?
Aren't the majority of CCTV cameras in Britain (and most other places) private, though?
I mean, a lot of this seems like an unfortunate collusion of events. Businesses want to protect their property and therefore they will install security cameras on the interior and/or exterior of their buildings. (I'm 90% certain that there are bonuses in insurance coverage for having a functional CCTV system, so there is yet another incentive.) There are very few places where businesses have exactly 0 presence (such as the suburbs or rural areas), so there would naturally be a large area of CCTV coverage under a lot of different private entities. If a crime were committed under the view of a camera, wouldn't it be irresponsible of the police not to try to legally acquire the video as evidence?
Now if we're talking a situation where there's a government-owned camera on nearly every street corner, then yes we have a problem. But for the majority of places, it seems less like a government conspiracy to watch everyone and more like the government (of whatever country you may choose) electing to make use of the CCTV cameras that are already there anyway.
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
The US has the monstrous crime rates to justify it.
Because Americans have nothing much in common except location, our society is loosely bonded and subject to group competition including predation.
Not only are economic classes enemies by nature, competing cultures are enemies by nature, and nature takes its course. The US needs a police state situation in many areas to prevent anarchy. It's blashpemy to point that out, but that doesn't negate its truth.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
More profits for US companies, hooray!
What? No emoticons here, oh, well.
Nate
I was trying to imply that fear and hatred of CCTV cameras has gone way beyond the rational response to a relatively unimportant issue. If a council puts up cameras in a town, overlooking a public area, not even anywhere near a residential street, people start raving as though somebody had just installed a two-way telescreen in their bedroom.
While it's nice to hear the EU wants everyone to stop selling surveillance gear to the US and other repressive regimes, I fear the US makes much of its own.
I can't speak for Britain, but obviously your not someone who has ever been involved in political work in the U.S. Especially in work that is viewed as part of an opposition movement. When we are planning protests, actions, or acts of civil disobedience part of their effectiveness is our ability to plan them out in private. I'm not saying every action needs to be planned privately but some do.
Having government and political entities watching who is coming in and out of buildings, getting counts of meeting participants, etc. is particularly unnerving. When politicians get a heads up on actions we are taking they can easily disrupt them. Often politicians, etc. will try to send infiltrators into community planning events, etc. These infiltrators alert the politicians to who was at the meeting, i.e. heads of organizations, etc., what exactly they are planning, how much support is there, etc. With cameras in strategic locations, its not only easier for them to monitor these events but also they can get an idea of where we are getting support. For example, if we are doing home visits or door knocking, a politician can monitor us and then make sure that they focus their propaganda on those areas.
You don't know how many people I know who would love to be involved in actions to express their views, but won't because they are afraid they will be seen. Your probably thinking so what if they are seen? Well, if your employed and protesting, you often do face pressure. If you work for the government and are seen affiliating with opposition, your career will be in jeopardy. If your working for a company, even if it isn't the target its possible a political phone call is all that it takes to put pressure on you. Ever come home and see strange people driving around your home or receive a warning from a local gang member because someone in power doesn't like what your doing?
I can't say its as bad as it is in other countries. I really don't know what its like in other countries, as I've only lived here. The same stories, I've heard in other countries about police brutality, political oppression, etc. are similar to what I hear in impoverished communities in the states. I hear stories about torture in other countries, but then of course I've heard stories about police torturing suspects to get confessions here. Maybe having police beat the hell out of you is different than having them cut you up, etc. Maybe having them burn you is worst then the psychological torture of sitting in a cell in isolation for years.
I'm not really trying to compare who has it worst. All I'm trying to do is say that what we have isn't working and its getting worst. In other countries the government doesn't control the people enough to be able to do what they please and have to resort to violence. However, when this violence occurs its blasted in Western media outlets, well if its from a nation they oppose. In the U.S. they control the people enough where the violence is limited and when it does occur, nobody hears much about it and it is watered down.
Just some thoughts.
No, no, no. You continue to sell repressive regimes surveillance tech. Then you sell the citizens under the regime circumvention means. Double the sales!
Now if you wanted to look at it from a higher moral standpoint: these regimes will get surveillance tech one way or another, if you do not sell it to them someone else will.
The money from the sale will further surveillance tech development by your immoral competitors.
Not only that but they probably will not provide any means for the citizens to circumvent them.
I've been to Shanghai. I've noticed cameras in banks, company buildings, grocery stores... but on the streets? Nope, not really. I'm sure the government could have access to the cameras I've mentioned previously, but what makes you think that's impossible in the western world? How do you know the government there does listen to everything you say, and that this does not happen in the US?
Shame Shame the UK Govt.
In non-repressive regimes we elect that folks that use surveillance on us ourselves.
Does that make us a bunch of stupid fucks? Yes it does. Does it make our governments repressive? Only to the extent that we want to repress our fellow citizens.
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
European countries, USA, Canada, etc, are all practicing classified mind-control programs against their own citizens. The programs include abductions and non-consensual implants while the subjects are unconscious and unaware of what is happening. Google "targeted individuals," "gang stalking" or "synthetic telepathy" and see what you find. The only difference is that third-world dictators are way more obvious. The western countries are just far more subtle.
I add two and two together: I already know that the government in China DOES monitor every cell phone call, and require a national ID for a SIM card. HMMM, wonder why that could be?
And that they also monitor basically everything you do online, have been known to issue phony SSL certs, have been known to hack into google, requested identifying info on blogger identities, have cameras in every church, etc etc etc.
None of this is the case in the western world, and to get access to a surveilance camera basically requires a warrant or court order-- each of which is SUBSTANTIALLY harder to get in the US than in China. Not sure if you are aware, but warrants arent even required in China to imprison you-- they can hold you for 2 years with no charges.
The comparison fails on so many levels its absurd.
In the United States, the President has said, "We're for freedom of speech everywhere. We're for freedom to worship everywhere. We're for freedom to learn... for everybody."
No, wait, that was only on TV. In real life, we sell the tools to eliminate freedom of speech everywhere. And also guns.