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.
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.
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
Point the finger where the finger is due.
LI (Lawful interception) has been a requirement from the major western governments since the dawn of cellphone networks. You are not allowed to sell to the major customers without including it.
Are you surprised this functionality is included as standard in all systems now?
Swedens government wanting a major swedish company to be successful, yeah, big woop.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Homeland security does not have a budget of a trillion dollars. They don't even have a budget of 100 billion. In 2011, they had a budget of $55 billion.
The entire US military doesn't have a budget of a trillion dollars (though depending on which defense-like categories you throw in, you can get it up over 900 billion).
Now, I will readily agree that we could FAR better spend that by sending it directly to 3rd world dictators and Taliban militants, who would do less to oppress the US populace with the same money. But the DHS' budget really only amounts to one more tiny drop of blood pulled from our veins.
Point the finger where the finger is due.
Agreed.
Why isn't EU proposing to ban use, sales and manufacturing of all surveillance tech in it's own member countries? There's something to think about.