Slashdot Mirror


The Rise of the Global Surveillance Profiteers

blottsie writes "A new report takes a deep dive into companies like Hacking Team, which have sprouted up in the years since 9/11 sparked a global war on terror and a wired technological revolution. As the U.S. developed the online surveillance tools that, over a decade later, would eventually be revealed to the world by National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden, savvy businesses across the globe realized there were plenty of countries that might not be able to afford to develop such sophisticated technology in-house but still had money to burn."

33 comments

  1. I don't know if 'profiteer' is the right term by TWX · · Score: 4, Insightful

    While I may disagree with the business of data-mining and collection on a large scale, I don't think that 'profiteer' is the right term.

    I always looked at someone that was profiteering as someone putting forth little to no effort in order to make the money that they make, and often it's a result of peddling someone else's work. A war profiteer was someone that stole military materiel and sold it, as an example.

    These companies, while engaged in a business that I don't agree with, have had to develop the tools and techniques that they use to practice their craft. Depending on what they're monitoring or how they're doing it that might be a fairly substantial task, so I'm not going to downplay their efforts just because I disagree with them being engaged in to begin with.

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    1. Re:I don't know if 'profiteer' is the right term by mi · · Score: 1
      It certainly is not the right term. The dictionary definition reads:

      The verb profiteer has 1 sense (no senses from tagged texts)

      1. profiteer -- (make an unreasonable profit, as on the sale of difficult to obtain goods)

      But we already know, that "profiteering" is bad (heck, to nearly half the country "profit" is bad!), so why not use the word as a dirty term against someone we dislike?

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    2. Re:I don't know if 'profiteer' is the right term by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      war profiteering could just as easily be any person selling weapons to parties at war.

      you're an idiot.

    3. Re:I don't know if 'profiteer' is the right term by hey! · · Score: 2

      Just because *some* or even *most* profit is reasonable, doesn't mean all profit is reasonable.

      The term "profiteer" is used for people who put profit above a higher ethical claim; for example a citizen selling arms to an enemy during wartime. It's not that profit per se is unreasonable, but that the citizen has a higher duty of loyalty to his country than to his profits. Likewise people who profit by helping governments undermine civil liberties can reasonably be called "profiteers".

      The issue isn't *that* we dislike them. It's *why* we dislike them that makes them profiteers.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    4. Re:I don't know if 'profiteer' is the right term by mi · · Score: 1

      The issue isn't *that* we dislike them. It's *why* we dislike them that makes them profiteers.

      You got it, my good man! We dislike them, because their software is used for surveillance. We would've disliked them for that reason, if they were giving it away for free.

      But since they are making a profit it (presumably, they do), we hate (on) them even more...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    5. Re:I don't know if 'profiteer' is the right term by khallow · · Score: 1

      Just because *some* or even *most* profit is reasonable, doesn't mean all profit is reasonable.

      I really hate all those imaginary people who make that argument. Grrrrr.

      The issue isn't *that* we dislike them. It's *why* we dislike them that makes them profiteers.

      Sure.

    6. Re:I don't know if 'profiteer' is the right term by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was a wrong example for 'War Profiteer'. A war profiteer is any person or organization that profits from warfare or by selling weapons and other goods to parties at war. In WWII ALL businesses were expected to produce goods AT COST for the US war effort and making a profit was very evil.

    7. Re:I don't know if 'profiteer' is the right term by grcumb · · Score: 1

      Just because *some* or even *most* profit is reasonable, doesn't mean all profit is reasonable.

      The term "profiteer" is used for people who put profit above a higher ethical claim; for example a citizen selling arms to an enemy during wartime.

      I'm not sure that's really the canonical use of the term. I would think that selling said arms to one's own government at extortionate prices would be closer to the standard definition.

      But niggling aside, the real problem with this article is that it equates the control of technology with control of behaviour, and assumes that it's even possible to usefully control the proliferation of technology.

      Instead of advocating a software proscription list, why not seek to promote international legal standards concerning the right to privacy, and a respect for the rule of law among all nations?

      Actually, don't answer that. I know why. Because building democracy is hard and even the purportedly enlightened, 'free' nations are busy backing away from individual human rights.

      --
      Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
    8. Re:I don't know if 'profiteer' is the right term by hey! · · Score: 1

      Well, it is possible for someone to do something we don't like because they disagree with us. It's possible to respect such a person in a way you can't respect someone who lets money trump his principles. There's literally nothing some people won't do for money.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    9. Re:I don't know if 'profiteer' is the right term by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      A war profiteer was someone that stole military materiel and sold it, as an example.

      Not really. Someone who steals military hardware during time of war and sells it is usually charged with treason and hung, if convicted. A war profiteer is ANYONE who raises prices simply because there is a war, using the war as an excuse. If costs actually go up because a needed resource is in a contested area may or may not be considered war profiteering depending on how much more the profit increases over the actual cost increase of obtaining the resource.

      Halliburton was the stereotypical war profiteer during the Iraq war with their now infamous sailboat fuel scam. They drove large convoys of trucks around in the desert and charged the US Government thousands of dollars in shipping costs plus hazardous combat pay (which the actual drivers didn't see a dime of) per convoy for moving the strategic resource "sailboat fuel" (empty trucks) around between port cities along routes known to have insurgent activity. The only reason Chaney was never charged and imprisoned was corrupt politics.

    10. Re: I don't know if 'profiteer' is the right term by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Half of the country? I don't believe it for a second. Not that I should care anyway: the ones who think profit is bad are those to stupid or lazy to make it on their own. They're irrelevant.

  2. But can you trust them? by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

    The question is, can you trust a 3rd party with your national interest, when they already owe loyalty to other governments? After all, unlike your citizens, if they sell your secrets for money, it's not treason.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    1. Re:But can you trust them? by RingDev · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There is a way to fight back though.

      I work for the State. I am involve in our "advanced traffic management system", part of which will include systems to interact with the new SRCR systems the feds are mandating on 2017 model year cars.

      There are other people on this project who have proposed all manor of things like, "We should be able to turn off a car that is speeding excessively", and "We should be able to track a vehicles movements and tax them based on miles driven", which basically just hearing makes me feel like I need a shower.

      But since I am involved in the process, I can push back on these things, I can point out that we shouldn't be tracking vehicles, that we should be tracking rotating GUIDs that make it virtually impossible to identify an individuals travel patterns should our system be compromised. That we shouldn't be enabling a system that would kill power steering and power breaks on a vehicle traveling 100 mph. That we should be focusing the ATMS efforts on systems that have proven trends to reduce accidents and prevent fatalities.

      Believe it or not, your government is nothing more than a collection of citizens. And while politicians are generally the scum of the earth, there are many great state and federal employees who are doing their best to make the country a better place.

      -Rick

      --
      "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
    2. Re:But can you trust them? by zlives · · Score: 2

      great let me know what Dick Cheney (or anyone else in power making the actual decision) says about your points. O wait, your points are not listened to by decision makers. Any consumer/citizen protection or privacy is overruled and all tracking is on by default.

      thanks for trying though, I really appreciate the thought.

    3. Re:But can you trust them? by RingDev · · Score: 2

      Funny story, Dick Cheney and the like don't make decisions at this level.

      When it comes to actual implementation projects with open bidding, there is a selection committee that handles the decision making. With scoring criteria based on measurable metrics.

      Those selection committees contain a variety of stake holders. Typically you have someone from the brass, a couple of middle managers from the primary departments involved, an engineer, a business area expert, and management from IT.

      Do you really think Cheney came up with an idea for a secondary email system to allow the Bush administration to get around the open records laws? No, it was a group of middle managers, brown nosers, political hacks, and someone from IT.

      Now, there are serious issues when you wind up with no-bid contracts where senior political figures side step process and implement crap without regard for the law. But there is a lot of heat and pressure that comes along with those moves (as my own Governor has discovered).

      But in other cases, IT leadership in state governments has a lot of pull on implementations. So yes, I do have the ability to shape the direction of our ATMS selection.

      So if you want to do something about it, get off your pessimistic duff and get involved in government. If you don't trust others to do it right, then do it yourself!

      -Rick

      --
      "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
    4. Re:But can you trust them? by zlives · · Score: 1

      I was more pointing to the fact that during G. W. Bush's term, it was infact the office of the VP that instigated (and if you believe) pushed the NSA to get EVERYTHING. And when the question of constitutionality of the surveillance was mentioned it was the white house counsel that signed the documents making it "seem" all legal when the Attorney General refused to go along.

      The question is not about technical design, because if there is the will to force the issue, Technical design is slave just to money. I guess technically some one in NSA IT could have refused to implement such systems, and then been pushed aside, blacklisted or worse, and watch from side lines as others fall over themselves to make it happen.

      It is political will that decides which liberties to piss upon. IT is just holding the dick.

  3. Economics 101 by matbury · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The simplest feasible explanation is that the Bush regime made huge amounts of funding and credit available to defence software and IT subcontractors to develop this stuff. They're now taking govt./publicly funded R&D and selling some highly questionable tools to oppressive regimes around the world. So the govt./public funds the R&D and the subcontractors sell it at a profit. I think you can call that profiteering... or racketeering... or whatever you like. It's how they operate: Everything to do with war and resource extraction is a dirty business.

    1. Re:Economics 101 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there is software for taking down fences now? WHY DID I BUY ALL THOSE SHOVELS?

      you're an idiot.

    2. Re:Economics 101 by mi · · Score: 1

      Everything to do with war and resource extraction is a dirty business.

      Everything, where the payer and the decision-maker are different entities is a dirty business. Fixed that for you... For example, just about anything tax-paid — whether it is road-construction or software-writing — is a dirt-magnet...

      I think you can call that profiteering.

      No, you can not.

      or racketeering

      Nope

      And, before you ask, it is not "terrorism" either...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  4. Law of unintended consequences... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Of course, with all this data coming in, be it license plates, transcripts of recordings, or anything else, this means that there are a lot of eggs in one basket. If the "good guys" (LEOs) know stuff, that is one thing. However, that same toll tag data that is used to pay a fee can be hacked, slurped up by a criminal organization, then sold to another criminal organization who is willing to use that data for burglaries and home invasions.

    Right now, there isn't that much interaction between crime syndicates in one country and a local gang in another... but this can change. If the economy goes south again, two groups colluding over the Net can make some major profit on both their parts. The hacker group from Elbonia could sell a dump of people with high percentages of when they would not be home, and a local gang go in and do the "boots on the ground", perhaps splitting the spoils somehow (assuming they found a way to prevent either party from double-crossing the other.) It might even get fences to use BitCoin as a payment mechanism because even though coins are quite well tracked, wallets are anonymous.

    Right now, with major security breaches seeming to be a daily news item, all this profile data might be in the right hands originally... but it can easily wind up in the wrong hands. For example, data on locations of a country's soldiers and their families would be quite valuable to an enemy. Couple this with data that showed what people knew/did what, and it wouldn't be surprising to see family of key infrastructure operators vanishing in order to coerce the operators/admins into doing something. Add behavioral analysis data to that mix, and it wouldn't take strongarm tactics... just find the people who are in it purely for the money and can be easily bought and stay bought.

    1. Re:Law of unintended consequences... by postbigbang · · Score: 1

      Everyone wants to throw their hands up, powerless to do anything real about the big slurp data problem because we feel we're powerless against our government, lest we be traitors, seditionists, or get put on a no-fly list. Blacklisted, barred, or simply fucked in the data mines.

      The Koch Bros are financing even more, see http://www.politico.com/story/... for questions, so that we can all be individually profiled beyond what we're already hooked to.

      Breaches and security can't hold back the lakes and oceans of data we're amassing and hoarding, and sooner or later (if it hasn't been already), various of your personal events will be conflated to something that puts you on a radar screen somewhere. Liberty is in the crapper, and the hacker groups are financed by taxpayers, who are unwitting or willfully ignorant of the influence of big money on their legislatures. Behavior analysis will be light and soft, but the consequences deep. Just wait and see.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    2. Re:Law of unintended consequences... by SternisheFan · · Score: 2

      An Ohio mother is trying to take on the NSA right now... http://arstechnica.com/tech-po...

    3. Re:Law of unintended consequences... by Atryn · · Score: 1

      I agree in principal, but look at it from this angle...

      Assume that information wants to be free. Furthermore, that it wants to be organized and easily searchable by anyone in the world. Or at the least, that there are sufficient forces at work to make that happen. This can be seen as a irreversible trend manifested by the very advances in technology that we love.

      Now, if you start with that assumption, you can also assume that Bad People will have this wonderfully organized data and will do Bad Things with it.

      If you make that leap, then you can, as a government, see why you would want All The Data on the Bad People so that when they inevitably do the Bad Things, you can catch them.

      Now, assume all the above and figure out your place in this world that will manifest for our next generation.

      For example, I generally assume that by the time my kids are my age, genetic sequencing will be common and cheap and probably also done without permission (think Gataca). It will be done by Bad People and will also be done on everyone by our government in the name of catching the Bad People. It isn't what I want, its just what I expect to happen...

      --
      Come play Moral Decay!
  5. Only at an inflated price. No profit at sticker by raymorris · · Score: 2

    Suppose war causes a shortage of water in an area.

    Someone had a 10,000 gallon tank already full, and they sell the water at $10 / gallon. They bought the water at $0.01 / gallon, so they are making a 100000% PROFIT.

    On the other hand, if someone is buying goods at normal price and selling them at normal price, there's no PROFIT. You don't have PROFITeering without PROFIT. Such a person might be an arms dealer, they might might even be a smuggler, but they wouldn't be a profiteer.

    1. Re:Only at an inflated price. No profit at sticker by TWX · · Score: 1

      Does the real chance of being targeted for airstrikes by both sides count for anything?

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  6. Same tired old line by Rigel47 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    “There is a real question here about the public’s need for privacy and our need for security. If we come down 100 percent on the side of privacy, which seems to be in vogue in tech right now, we are putting ourselves at very legitimate risk. And to ignore that is foolhardy. I think, by and large, we and the other people who are protecting this software are working to keep people safe.”

    Translation - STFU or the big bad terr'sts will come get you. We know what's best.

    Same as Obama's mealy-mouthed "we need to balance civil liberties with our security." No, in point of fact, we don't. A whole lot of men died in the Revolutionary War specifically to give us independence and the bill of rights. Now the very same would-be guarantors of our "freedom" (as such) will trot out the "balance" argument to do whatever the fuck they want. And sadly we've become such a nation of distracted pussies we go along with it.

  7. rise & fall of wmd on credit glowbull genocide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    end of inbred psychopath crown royal zionic nazi roaming empires at hand.... oil gluttons feeling squeezed (carbon nation)... moms of the nile conference will be a real awakening... polymer polymore polyman is not our intended destiny... spirit of creation (all +++++++++++++++) remains undefeated...

  8. When to track and who to use. by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    The UK faced that years ago with its GCHQ links to the National Technical Assistance Centre, Government Technical Assistance Centre and other domestic efforts after the 1980's, 1990's.
    Once the use of tech tracking enters the courts and legal system the tech tracking news is then public.
    Sealed courts for every case with tracking? Hope parallel construction protects the role of contractor cell-site or other tracking?
    A lot of interesting people can just stop using digital networks. All the mil, govs and their new contractors have set up is the ability to track digital networks globally.
    Telco databases track consumers after a court order. That same database shows who is been tracked.
    All the contractors can do is keep selling products that help law enforcement with parallel construction and try keep all investigations hidden.
    That works well until open court or the press using FOIA finds the local use of extra cellular phone surveillance devices.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  9. free world energy not an option? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    unreported, must be an oversight https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=free+world+energy using our resources against us? https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=wmd+weather phewww

  10. And go read what happened to many of the ones... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    who didn't.

    They got thrown in debtors prison, harassed, taxed without representation, or given substandard benefits, despite being the people who made America possible.

    Anybody who thinks that America is less free now than it was then really is viewing it through rose colored glasses.

    Just like the revolutionary war, any rights or freedoms we had/have/will attain will be hard won and much more easily lost just like it's been since time immemorial.

    As such, if you want your rights either get out there and fight for them, or find somewhere that better appeals to the rights you hold dear.

  11. Vulture Capitalism by JimSadler · · Score: 2

    Profiteering is a gentle term for a disease that plagues America. The right wing does not feel that capitalism has anything to do with economics. They view capitalism as a religion. To them raking is huge sums for the least effort is the meaning of life. Materialism is a natural fruit of capitalism. This is what happens when you restrict the faith community in the schools. We have all heard of the Israelites worshipping the golden calf. It should be called the gold calf. It represented and abandonment of God and a worship of wealth. Today we see people worshipping money in every way. Worse yet governmental forces enforce this greed by requiring people to have money. One way or another the govrnment will insist that you agree to have money. If you want to wander about with a tent and not sign up as a member of modern nonsense the land will be called either private or public and your little tent will not be allowed. As my Haitian friend remarked those corporate types belong to Satan. She is sort of right.

  12. Re:GayWADs unite!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are the ass-master of your fate, the Captain of your hole.