Slashdot Mirror


How Spyware Reaches Oppressive Governments

New submitter blando writes "Between February and March of 2011, at the height of Egypt's tumultuous revolution, protesters stormed the offices of their feared State Security Investigations Service in Alexandria and Sixth of October city, on the edge of Cairo. It was there, amongst evidence of detentions, torture and surveillance at SSIS's headquarters, that information first came to light regarding a sales pitch by UK-based Gamma Group to Egypt's security agency for their FinFisher spyware."

35 of 109 comments (clear)

  1. Stalin once said ... by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I dunno if Stalin did said the following or not, nevertheless, it does sound valid for this case

    Stalin once said: " A Capitalist will sell you the rope to hang him with. "

    The creation of spyware and the selling that spyware to governments will only end up with all people in all countries being denied their basic human rights - including England, where the maker of the spyware, the Gamma Group, originated from
     

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:Stalin once said ... by Evtim · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Don't want to be obnoxious or flaming, but isn't "putting profit over all else" the very foundation of the free market capitalism? Why this behavior surprises anyone is beyond me...

    2. Re:Stalin once said ... by CadentOrange · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Putting profit over all else isn't necessarily evil.

      The problem is that those pursuing profits tend to operate a greedy algorithm. They're constantly chasing after short term goals (local optima) at the expense of long term benefits (global optima). You see this at every level of government & corporations where they chase quarterly targets without ever considering that something that might be hugely beneficial in the future may cause pain in the short term.

      It's a sad state of affairs when we've spent decades formulating non-greedy algorithms in machine learning when the real world is full of people who operate in a greedy manner. If you ever needed evidence that humanity is doomed come the robot revolution ...

    3. Re:Stalin once said ... by rohan972 · · Score: 5, Informative

      isn't "putting profit over all else" the very foundation of the free market capitalism?

      No, at least not according to Adam Smith. As with all ideologies practice can vary considerably from the theory. I would guess that not many people who read The Wealth of Nations take the time to first read The Theory of Moral Sentiments, and presumably can not then understand the context it was written in.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Theory_of_Moral_Sentiments
      The Theory of Moral Sentiments is a 1759 book by Adam Smith. It provided the ethical, philosophical, psychological, and methodological underpinnings to Smith's later works, including The Wealth of Nations (1776)

  2. Re:Another revolution? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2

    Nah, they've had it already. One election and done. MB in charge, with no further need for those pesky campaigns or democracy. Just pure Islamic jurisprudence from now on. They're already replacing America with China is the main foreign sponsor as they don't like the strings that come with American foreign aid (i.e. "bribes"). Whatayagonna do? The people apparently genuinely support the MB.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  3. if you are capitalist in a western nation by circletimessquare · · Score: 3, Insightful

    the fruits of your labors are made possible by, and are protected by, a certain set of ideals

    it should not be legal that you be engaged in a business which actively undermines those ideals

    you should have your business punished, fined, shut down, or, at best, you, asshole, should have to relocate your business to the kind of country that would use your products against you. if they don't like that idea, maybe they shouldn't be pedaling their products to tyrants

    there is a line, that any company will face, when engaging in business in foreign lands with bad attitudes about fundamental human freedoms

    if you cross that line, i, and others in your home country, will not forget it, and will not let you get off the hook for your championing of profits over principles that made your riches possible in the first place

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:if you are capitalist in a western nation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      cute, now what are you going to actually do about it?

      yea ... thought so

    2. Re:if you are capitalist in a western nation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ... the fruits of your labors are made possible by, and are protected by, a certain set of ideals ... it should not be legal that you be engaged in a business which actively undermines those ideals ... principles that made your riches possible in the first place

      The ideals and principles that made the British wealthy were to oppress and exploit places like Egypt. So this particular British company seems to be perfectly aligned with those principles.

    3. Re:if you are capitalist in a western nation by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Funny

      i'm going to hide my name and lurk on internet forums and cast mindless negativity and hateful judgments at anyone who proposes anything concrete or positive in the world, without knowing anything about the person or what they are doing

      what do you think? because i think a person like that is awesome

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    4. Re:if you are capitalist in a western nation by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Insightful

      some day, certain loudmouthed useless assholes will learn to judge nations as they currently behave, not as they behaved in ancient colonial or cold war history

      let's put it this way: in the era of the british empire, whatever nation you are proud of, was doing nasty things you should be ashamed of. i know this for a certainty, because there exists no nation on this planet without a black stain on its past

      therefore, randomly picking a dark era and judging a country entirely from that just makes you a useless asshole. because on the measure of a nation's past nasty behavior, all nations suck in this world

      how about what the british actually think today, and their actual policy today? how about judging them on that?

      i know: crazy, wacky idea

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    5. Re:if you are capitalist in a western nation by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Insightful

      how about what the british actually think today, and their actual policy today? how about judging them on that?

      For the same reason I never forget anything you've ever screwed up: It comes in handy when there's a fight and you need to lose. Granted, it's a dysfunctional way of doing things, but it's popularity remains unchallenged. If the British pipe up and say "Oi there, over there in the colonies, you sure ronnied that bit up!" we can just shout back "yeah, how's Palestine working out for you?" See? No different than a couple arguing... each side loads up on ammo, and blasts at the other until nobody, not even the participants has a clue what's going on. It's a convenient way of maintaining the status quo -- neither side loses face, and anyone with an emotional interest in the outcome will bury themselves in the rhetoric until exhausted. Problem solved.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    6. Re:if you are capitalist in a western nation by antifoidulus · · Score: 2

      Not to mention a lot of countries don't do (nasty deed x overseas) not because they are somehow morally superior to a big country but simply because they were never a major power. It's easier to say, "if I was in power, I would never EVER do X" than to actually not do X if you have power.

  4. IBM and Nazi Germany by drkim · · Score: 4, Informative

    This has been going on for decades.

    IBM assisted the Nazi Holocaust by providing the card reading/sorting technology which Nazi Germany used to locate and kill the ethnicities that the Germans wanted wiped out. (Jews, Gypsies, Catholics, etc.) "IBM's German subsidiary (was) known as Deutsche Hollerith Maschinen Gesellschaft"

    The actual punch card code for each concentration camp were:
    Auschwitz — 001; Buchenwald — 002; Dachau — 003; Flossenbürg — 004; Gross-Rosen — 005; Herzogenbusch — 006; Mauthausen — 007; Natzweiler — 008; Neuengamme — 009; Ravensbrück — 010; Sachsenhausen — 011; and Stutthoff — 012.

    1. Re:IBM and Nazi Germany by mug+funky · · Score: 2

      i've heard this.

      one thing i've noticed in business, is you are seldom asked by a supplier what you would like the equipment for.

      given it took a computer far more sophisticated than IBM's efforts at the time (and Alan Turing himself) to reveal just what the Godwins were doing, one could find a doubt that IBM could be given the benefit of.

      just saying - i haven't researched the topic in depth, just seen it referred to in a documentary.

    2. Re:IBM and Nazi Germany by guruevi · · Score: 3, Informative

      But that goes in all directions. Germans were killed using German-made guns and ammo, Americans were killed by Germans using American-made guns and ammo. As a matter of fact, most of the companies that are still around today had some kind of hand in the atrocities of WWII (which was on all sides, concentration camps were in the UK, US, Japan, Russia as well as Germany). Just to throw some names around who were on all sides: Krupp (sold weapons on both sides), IBM, Kodak, Hugo Boss (clothiers), JPMorgan, Chase, Goldman Sachs, Ford, Bayer, Iveco (truck manufacturer, delivered portable gas chambers), Coca-Cola, Standard Oil, Boeing, Mitsubishi.

      In the end, the only people benefiting from war are the corporations that sell the goods.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    3. Re:IBM and Nazi Germany by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Just vague recollection here, but I seem to recall the german subsidiary solely designed it for this task.

      I think the opposite is true. The technology in question was developed for the US Census. Germany wanted such equipment for its own census. A census is a quite legitimate thing for a government to undertake. That this census information was useful in locating jews was tragic, but it seems a misuse of the data.

      From the wiki article the GP cites: "Richard Bernstein, writing for The New York Times Book Review, wrote that Black's case "is long and heavily documented, and yet he does not demonstrate that IBM bears some unique or decisive responsibility for the evil that was done."

    4. Re:IBM and Nazi Germany by artor3 · · Score: 2

      They're obviously in alphabetical order.

    5. Re:IBM and Nazi Germany by guttentag · · Score: 4, Informative

      The Hollerith Machine was developed for the task of processing the massive amounts of data for the census in the United States. It was the only solution in the world that could handle the job. Decades later, Germany was using these machines for its own census. Most of the data the Nazis compiled with IBM's technology was between 1934 and 1939. While the Nazis were collecting this information to track "undesirables," IBM was so proud of itself it had a plaque affixed to greet visitors to its Madison Ave (NY) headquarters in 1938 which read: WORLD PEACE THROUGH WORLD TRADE.

    6. Re:IBM and Nazi Germany by circletimessquare · · Score: 2

      "concentration camps were in the UK, US, Japan, Russia as well as Germany"

      uh... the germans had extermination camps for the purpose of mass murder of millions. other countries had internment camps. small difference (as in, a sarcastic way of saying really fucking huge difference)

      i'm not excusing the usa's treatment of japanese americans, for example. but i am saying equating camps like those in the same breath with germany's killing machine is pretty lame. the germans were purposefully engaged in the systematic extermination of a race of people. all the other guys were committing various brutal and vile crimes of war. again, it's not excusing the other guys, it's just to note that what germany was doing was uniquely and especially evil, above and beyond

      you could bring up european colonist's treatment of native americans, or stalin's soviet atrocities, but now we are leaving the realm of world war ii

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    7. Re:IBM and Nazi Germany by drkim · · Score: 2

      IBM made small arms for the American side. M1 carbines, IIRC... among other things.

      If the nazis did one thing right, partnering with hugo boss might have been it. As much as I hate fascists, I have to admit that the black SS uniforms looked pretty sharp.

      But yeah, war is a racket. Even the cold war, 'humanitarian missions' and non-war are big money for the military industrial complex. Wonder what sort of ROI they get on their lobby dollars.
      Quite the setup... Unless of course, you're the taxpayer footing the bill.

      Great post. Of course, this went on constantly in almost every conflict. During WWII we were selling scrap metal to Japan.

      My point was only about how technology and tyrants have been in bed from the beginning.

      Great reference to "War Is A Racket." For those of you who've never read it, it's a brilliant skewering of the military industrial complex, before the term even existed.

      Written by a U.S. Marine Corps Major General, who received the Medal of Honor twice, and the only man to be awarded the Brevet Medal and two Medals of Honor, all for separate actions. He is a bad-ass who does NOT mince words.
      Read it here:

      http://www.scuttlebuttsmallchow.com/racket1.html

  5. Re:Another revolution? by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's a depressing fact that oppressed people rise up against their oppressors, only to show that what they really wanted was just what the former rulers wanted: to oppress others.

    --
    http://www.rootstrikers.org/
  6. Re:Another revolution? by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

    Except no one really believes the MB is in charge.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  7. Re:Democracy as a permanent form of gov't by Formalin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The rich took over the govn't, and then voted to quit taxing themselves and their interests. They even voted to bail out their companies on the backs of middle class citizens. Is that what you are referring to?

    Because it sounds to me like you are implying social programs are bleeding us dry, which is a joke. Drop in the bucket.

  8. Re:if you are capitalist in a homey nation by circletimessquare · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So which "home country" should a multinational corporation be beholden to?

    the proper question in today's world is what multinational corporation should your home country be beholden to?

    i say this with sadness, not snark

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  9. IBM were HINDERING Nazi Germany by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Anyone whose used IBM kit knows that actually they were trying to HINDER Nazi Germany by slowing down the efficient Germans with business speak and Business Process Gurus.

    They almost succeeded too, if only they'd held that last six sigma analysis pre-meeting agenda discussion review, they'd have made it through the war!

    Have you ever heard of any project IBM has been involved in, that actually HELPED the customer???? ...QED.

  10. Re:It reaches them like software reaches anyone el by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The idea of such sanctions is technically the bleed the populance dry to the point where they uprise against the regime, we see how well that worked in North Korea.

  11. Re:When audiences do the selling. by tqk · · Score: 3, Informative

    So what you're saying is that companies should adopt the same ethics as the reading audience ...

    How about we individuals adopt the same valueless ethics in our dealings with them for as long as it takes us to take them down? We can then go back to treating other individuals with the respect they deserve. Whatever works? It's basic game theory. I'll treat you like !@#$ until you stop treating me like !@#$, ...

    --
    "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
  12. Re:Another revolution? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That's pretty much how history works. Anytime that doesn't happen is special and different.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  13. Capitalism is neither good nor evil by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Don't want to be obnoxious or flaming, but isn't "putting profit over all else" the very foundation of the free market capitalism? Why this behavior surprises anyone is beyond me...

    Yes, "profit over all else" is one of the cornerstones of free market capitalism, but you have to remember that capitalism is neither good nor evil.

    For the situation at hand, it would appear that, at the time Gamma Group made the sales pitch:

    1) There was a possibility of short-term profit
    2) There was a fair likelihood that the sale would not be discovered
    3) If discovered, there was a fair likelihood that it would be so far in the future that the persons responsible would be unaccountable
    4) Well-connected companies tend to get lenient, slap-on-the-wrist penalties anyway

    It is not capitalism per-se which is the problem here, it is items 2 through 4 which allows capitalism to be used for immoral ends. If we really value morality over profit, then we should strongly discourage immoral acts which use capitalism as a tool.

    We don't. Blaming capitalism is avoiding the real issue, which is that morality is more important than capitalism (or rather, it should be).

    It's like the old adage - any technology can be used for both good or evil.

    1. Re:Capitalism is neither good nor evil by khallow · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "capitalism is neither good nor evil." says the capitalist who wishes to keep sleeping at night without having to even think about the effect of his/her way of life on his fellow man and the planet as a whole.

      And that capitalist is right. Let us not forget that the bullshit about holistic thinking is another pseudo-moralistic gimmick. It's an easy way to introduce fairly unprovable statements into an argument.

      But it's worth noting that when one actually attempts the exercise, one sees that the rest of the world has seen a remarkable rise in standard of living and wealth, not just for their wealth, but for the rest as well. Capitalism and global trade are far more likely to be responsible for that.

      Everything from the consumption of resources to the concentration of wealth is both inequitable and distorting of politics and world trade to the detriment of every country and individual in those countries that happen to not be at the top of the chain.

      To the contrary. A lot of those effects from those who claim to be "fixing" capitalism. If there's a lot of regulation, then the big company that can navigate the regulation (say by have a huge legal staff for doing so) and bribe the right people, is going to fare better than the small company that can't.

      Distorting politics and world trade? There's a ton of single issue voters out there doing a far better job of political distortion than any bribe. Distorting world trade? That's a traditionally anti-free market job.

      You view the capitalism as it stands is not evil either means you are at the top or the crumbs that fall from the table of those that are have left you smug and contented and intentionally blinkered, (just like me.)

      And the traditional whining about crumbs from tables. Until you can make those "crumbs" yourself, you'll always be subservient to those who can. It doesn't help your case that all those attempts to regulate and constrain businesses also make it harder to make your own "crumb".

      Frankly, I think this is a disease that is mostly a result of the attempted cure rather than of capitalism.

    2. Re:Capitalism is neither good nor evil by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But it's worth noting that when one actually attempts the exercise, one sees that the rest of the world has seen a remarkable rise in standard of living and wealth, not just for their wealth, but for the rest as well. Capitalism and global trade are far more likely to be responsible for that.

      You must be referring to the way that capitalism led to a cure for polio. Except that it did not, and Jonas Salk gave the cure away to improve the world. In fact, the improvements in standards of living around the world have more to do with the hard work of scientists and engineers than with capitalism.

      No, capitalism did not pay for that research; capitalism is bad at paying for long-term projects that have no clear or immediate profitability. Most of the major scientific breakthroughs that have really improved the standard of living in the world -- cures for diseases, better ways to grow food, etc. -- were paid for either with tax money or with some private endowment/gift money.

      A lot of those effects from those who claim to be "fixing" capitalism.

      No, those are the effects of unregulated capitalism. Unless you think that everyone is equally ruthless, intelligent, educated, and that they have equal amounts of capital, the "little guy" is going to be crushed by the "big guys" in an unregulated market. That is why, every so often, we break up monopolies (though lately we seem to be forgetting to do that): so that we can reset the market and start the competition again.

      If there's a lot of regulation, then the big company that can navigate the regulation (say by have a huge legal staff for doing so) and bribe the right people, is going to fare better than the small company that can't.

      If there is no regulation, the big company will crush the little company by selling its products/services at a loss until the little company has no customers left. The big company will also offer grossly inflated salaries to the most intelligent people at the little company. The big company will make deals with other big companies, to lock the little company out of the market.

      That is what happens when one player has vastly more capital than the rest.

      Until you can make those "crumbs" yourself, you'll always be subservient to those who can

      That's funny, because in capitalism, the people who bake the bread are usually subservient to the people who own the oven. The winners in capitalism are those with capital, not the scientists and engineers who solve societies problems and not the workers who put those solutions into action.

      Frankly, I think this is a disease that is mostly a result of the attempted cure rather than of capitalism.

      Meanwhile, in the real world, the regulations we placed on businesses stopped child laborers from being killed and maimed, gave smaller, more innovative businesses an opportunity to compete, and raised our standard of living.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    3. Re:Capitalism is neither good nor evil by khallow · · Score: 2

      You must be referring to the way that capitalism led to a cure for polio. Except that it did not, and Jonas Salk gave the cure away to improve the world. In fact, the improvements in standards of living around the world have more to do with the hard work of scientists and engineers than with capitalism.

      As the AC replier noted, the money for researching polio didn't come out of thin air. It came from taxes on a capitalist system or from capitalist actions such as private endowments and gift money (keep in mind that the definition of capitalism is private ownership of capital and one consequence of that is the ability to gift that capital to causes of your own choosing).

      And such was the case with the Salk vaccine for polio. The research was originally funded by the National Foundation for Infant Paralysis (which is now known as the March of Dimes). It was a capitalist creation.\

      A lot of those effects from those who claim to be "fixing" capitalism.

      No, those are the effects of unregulated capitalism. Unless you think that everyone is equally ruthless, intelligent, educated, and that they have equal amounts of capital, the "little guy" is going to be crushed by the "big guys" in an unregulated market. That is why, every so often, we break up monopolies (though lately we seem to be forgetting to do that): so that we can reset the market and start the competition again.

      There's no such thing as unregulated capitalism in the world today.

      If there is no regulation, the big company will crush the little company by selling its products/services at a loss until the little company has no customers left. The big company will also offer grossly inflated salaries to the most intelligent people at the little company. The big company will make deals with other big companies, to lock the little company out of the market.

      And yet, the big company often loses that fight because they can run of money faster than the little, often more efficient company. All the above strategies lose money. The only reason they can work is if the big company manages to keep market share and higher profit in the long run. It's worth noting for example, that most big retail companies started as little fish. They overcame such tribulations as the above.

      All that capital isn't useful, if all you're doing is losing it in failed strategies to keep market share.

      Until you can make those "crumbs" yourself, you'll always be subservient to those who can

      That's funny, because in capitalism, the people who bake the bread are usually subservient to the people who own the oven. The winners in capitalism are those with capital, not the scientists and engineers who solve societies problems and not the workers who put those solutions into action.

      In other words, the people who bake the bread can't make the business happen. That's why they're picking up "crumbs" as you put it. There are too many workers and not enough employers. One doesn't fix such a problem by knee-capping the employers further.

      Meanwhile, in the real world, the regulations we placed on businesses stopped child laborers from being killed and maimed, gave smaller, more innovative businesses an opportunity to compete, and raised our standard of living.

      How's that been working out? You even had to admit earlier that monopolies supposedly weren't been stopped as readily. That's one of the symptoms of overregulation. Namely, that existing regulation isn't enforced as intended either due to too few resources to cover the demands on the regulators, or because the regulated industries would cease, if they were regulated to the letter of the law.

      Also, the US is creating a generation of young adults who have never had a job nor understand how to hold one. That's a direct result of child labor laws, a high minimum wage (in a recession), and the general infantizing of young adults as a whole.

  14. Not *op*press, *de*press! by zooblethorpe · · Score: 2

    It's a depressing fact that oppressed people rise up against their oppressors, only to show that what they really wanted was just what the former rulers wanted: to oppress others.

    When I heard news on the radio about the Egyptian elections, I was utterly baffled why they had elected Morrissey as their new President; I thought they must have taken a turn from oppression to depression.

    Then I saw the headlines -- "Oh, Morsi , not Morrissey. Muslim Brotherhood, not Emo. That makes more sense."

    :-P

    --
    "What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
    "A four-foot prune."
  15. Re:When audiences do the selling. by Gavagai80 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The "I'll treat you like !@#$ until you stop treating me like !@#$" theory of life simply results in a whole lot more !@#$, most of it heaped on those who weren't offenders but are presumed guilty due to being part of the same group (i.e. companies or corporations), who in turn are jaded into heaving more !@#$ back at everyone.

    --
    This space intentionally left blank
  16. Re:When audiences do the selling. by tqk · · Score: 2

    What the fuck is !@#$?

    Anything the !@#$ that you want it to be.

    --
    "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.