Slashdot Mirror


British Companies Are Selling Advanced Spy Tech To Authoritarian Regimes (vice.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Motherboard: Since early 2015, over a dozen UK companies have been granted licenses to export powerful telecommunications interception technology to countries around the world, Motherboard has learned. Many of these exports include IMSI-catchers, devices which can monitor large numbers of mobile phones over broad areas. Some of the UK companies were given permission to export their products to authoritarian states such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Turkey, and Egypt; countries with poor human rights records that have been well-documented to abuse surveillance technology. In 2015, the UK's Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) started publishing basic data about the exportation of telecommunications interception devices. Through the Freedom of Information Act, Motherboard obtained the names of companies that have applied for exportation licenses, as well as details on the technologies being shipped, including, in some cases, individual product names. The companies include a subsidiary of defense giant BAE Systems, as well as Pro-Solve International, ComsTrac, CellXion, Cobham, and Domo Tactical Communications (DTC). Many of these companies sell IMSI-catchers. IMSI-catchers, sometimes known as "Stingrays" after a particularly popular brand, are fake cell phone towers which force devices in their proximity to connect. In the data obtained by Motherboard, 33 licenses are explicitly marked as being for IMSI-catchers, including for export to Turkey and Indonesia. Other listings heavily suggest the export of IMSI-catchers too: one granted application to export to Iraq is for a "Wideband Passive GSM Monitoring System," which is a more technical description of what many IMSI-catchers do. In all, Motherboard received entries for 148 export license applications, from February 2015 to April 2016. A small number of the named companies do not provide interception capabilities, but defensive measures, for example to monitor the radio spectrum.

57 comments

  1. So does France by AncalagonTotof · · Score: 1

    And probably most of "advanced" countries.
    Accountability ? Close to zero.

    Look for Amesys and Qosmos here : https://reflets.info/ (French)

    --
    Totof
    1. Re:So does France by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not necessarily, ITAR is a thing after all.

    2. Re: So does France by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So does the US..

    3. Re:So does France by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not necessarily, ITAR is a thing after all.

      ITAR is directed at countries that have an adversarial relationship with America. It has nothing to do with authoritarianism. For instance, Saudi Arabia is a brutal and repressive country, whipping dissidents to death and beheading apostates. There is no moral difference between the Saudis and ISIS. Yet ITAR does not affect them because they are a staunch American ally.

    4. Re:So does France by lgw · · Score: 0

      Britain is a panopticon police state, and the US is getting there, though we only have total surveillance of the internet, phone calls and travel by air. I'd say most Western nations are selling to authoritarian regimes these days.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    5. Re:So does France by muffbagmuffbagmuffba · · Score: 1

      If it only it were just that - The UK navy cannot maintain the propulsion systems on Type 45 destroyers by itself because of ITAR!

  2. Like their own government? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So British companies are selling advanced spy tech to authoritarian regimes, like their own governemnt? and the americans?

    1. Re:Like their own government? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      So British companies are selling advanced spy tech to authoritarian regimes, like their own governemnt? and the americans?

      No. Neither Britain nor America is authoritarian. If you are free to question and ridicule the government, they you do not live in an authoritarian country. The USA and the UK both have problems, and both excessively spy on their own citizens. But that is not authoritarianism.

    2. Re:Like their own government? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you are free to question and ridicule the government, they you do not live in an authoritarian country.

      That's a ridiculously simplistic view of authoritarianism.

      The ideal authoritarian government would allow anyone to say anything, as long as nothing the say puts the government at risk.

      IOW, everyone would be closely monitored with sufficient laws that everyone has been established guilty of something. Then, if anyone's rabble-rousing becomes too effective, you can take them away.

      Everyon feels free, but nobody is free.

      That's essentially the brand of authoritarianism that British Home Secretary Theresa May has been pushing to implement the infrastructure for.

      She is now Prime Minister, having just pushed the Investigatory Powers Act through the Commons and beginning the process of removing legal obligations under the Human Rights Act. This last Act brings the European Convention on Human Rights into British law, and - contrary to its name - has nothing to do with the EU, but was proposed by Churchill and framed mostly by British lawyers, and is the nearest we have to a written constitution (our unwritten constitution is more about procedure than substantive law).

    3. Re: Like their own government? by bestweasel · · Score: 1

      "IOW, everyone would be closely monitored with sufficient laws that everyone has been established guilty of something. Then, if anyone's rabble-rousing becomes too effective, you can take them away."

      That's what happens in most authoritarian states, whether they pretend to be democratic, like Egypt, or not, like China. In the modern world it's easier to at least give the appearance of the rule of law so one may continue to oppress and plunder free from outside interference.

      Even in the best democracies, because of sloppy drafting (intentional or not) most penal codes have big holes in their laws into which the unlucky may fall or be pushed but you're a lot less likely to be unjustly punished in Sweden than you are in Saudi Arabia (down Julian! Back in your box).

      Many countries too are relaxed in some ways and authoritarian in others - see for example France and their attitudes to alcohol on the one hand and the burkini beach babe ban on the other.

    4. Re: Like their own government? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      France has strong secularism called laicism. It's different from the American/British version because no religion is allowed to have political parties or schools. Schools must learn about all religions. This laicism can also be found in Turkey (although Erdogan is slowly removing strong secularism on his way to an Islamic state) and the Islamic countries in the former USSR.

      The burkini is seen as a uniform, a symbol of a fascist Islamic political ideology. Uniforms are forbidden in France (I think since WWII for well known reasons). The burkini only exists for about 10 years and is even developed from an economic opportunistic perspective, which invalidates the argument that it is a fundamental part of Islamic religion. In fact it is a symbol of the free market capitalism that creates new markets through viral marketing (which is normally hated by fundamental Islamic scholars). But despite this fact, it is a useful weapon to provoke and to show how racist non Muslims are towards Muslims.

      Of course the burkini is used for what it is meant to be used for: to provoke non fundamental Muslims and non Muslims in general. The 'beach event' was by chance photographed by a professional photographer with a telephoto lens who donated the pictures anonymously to a British news paper. When the story was published the Muslim organization screamed discrimination and racism and the 'brutal police intervention' helped them to get the Gutmensch on their side.

      So now there is a problem. The French were right when they claimed that the burkini was just used to bring unrest in the society because it brought unrest in the society. They were also right that it would be used as a weapon for an Islamic political agenda, which can be forbidden by the French version of secularism (laicism). But now the 'useful idiots' from abroad come to help undermine French strong version of secularism towards one particular religion, namely Islam. I wonder how this will end, but I do know that France as a real problem with totalitarian Muslims who simply don't want to integrate...

    5. Re: Like their own government? by Sesostris+III · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately 'laicism' seems somewhat partial in it's application. It seems that nuns, in full habit, are not being banned from the beach or forced to undress.

      People share photos of nuns on the beach in response to burkini ban in France

      But then, this isn't really about secularism or laicism, or even about the banning of uniforms (and a nun's habit is much more of a uniform than a burkini). Incidentally, the burkini was created by a Lebanese-born Australian, in Australia. In her own words...

      I created the burkini to give women freedom, not to take it away

      --
      You never know what is enough unless you know what is more than enough. - Blake
    6. Re: Like their own government? by bestweasel · · Score: 1

      I am pleased my example's out of date.

      The latest court ruling, says the ban "seriously and clearly illegally breached fundamental freedoms", underlining tolerance in French society.

      Wearing a burkini on a beach or a hijab in a hospital should be no business of the authorities and is not an assault on or a threat to a secular democracy.

  3. Do as I say and not as I do. by ITRambo · · Score: 1

    Western governments are using this technology, often illegally. I doubt that they care what other countries do with it as long as it pads the bottom line of the home grown corporations that sell it abroad.

  4. And weapons of human destruction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like cluster-bombs and daisy-cutters

  5. Authoritarian regimes... No! really? by hackwrench · · Score: 2

    Because all world governments are a lot more authoritarian than they let on. Just stop and think about the list of things you can't do. Ever thought you could try and reason your way out of punishment because you really didn't harm anyone?

    1. Re:Authoritarian regimes... No! really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just stop and think about the list of things you can't do.

      Like what? I live in the USA, I can do pretty much any damn thing I please. If you start going down the path of things deemed illegal you're just stupid.

      I can talk about anything I want to and never get into any trouble, it's call free speech, something people who live under an authoritarian government don't have. See China, Russia, most middle Eastern countries and numerous other non-free countries. I can speak poorly of my government, any and all politicians and I won't go to jail or worse.

      So what's your point?

    2. Re: Authoritarian regimes... No! really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You mean how like in most US states if you have a little weed on you they remove your right to vote, travel, rent most housing, or holding most jobs?

    3. Re:Authoritarian regimes... No! really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For now.

    4. Re: Authoritarian regimes... No! really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Then what are the "free speech zones" in various US cities for?

    5. Re: Authoritarian regimes... No! really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why did they set up free speech zones in Washington DC then?

    6. Re:Authoritarian regimes... No! really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Try carrying a large amount of cash on you. If you get stopped by the cops, it'll be confiscated and you'll have to prove your innocence.

      You can be imprisoned for using drugs recreationally, even though you didn't harm anyone in the process.

      Some people have their constitutional rights removed from them, sometimes permanently, even after their prison sentence has ended and they are deemed "free".

      Stop kidding yourself. All nations today exhibit varying degrees of authoritarian regimes. Just because you haven't found yourself on the wrong side of justice yet, doesn't mean its all smiles and sunshine.

    7. Re:Authoritarian regimes... No! really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I can talk about anything I want to and never get into any trouble, it's call free speech,

      As long as you don't repeat anything copyrighted.

  6. IMSI Catcher by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is why I use a flip-phone with a removable battery and hardware power button. I've also removed the microphone and camera, and only attach an external headset to make a call. This makes it more difficult for the NSA to spy on me or listen in to my position because I only power up the phone and attach the headset to make brief calls, than I remove it and move to another location.

    1. Re:IMSI Catcher by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is why I use a flip-phone with a removable battery and hardware power button. I've also removed the microphone and camera, and only attach an external headset to make a call. This makes it more difficult for the NSA to spy on me or listen in to my position because I only power up the phone and attach the headset to make brief calls, than I remove it and move to another location.

      That's nothing. I use two tin cans connected by a length of string to communicate. The range is a little limited, but it's a small price to pay for the assurance that I'm not being spied on by the NSA.

    2. Re:IMSI Catcher by Fragnet · · Score: 1

      Why the fuck would the NSA want to listen to you? You people need to get over yourselves.

    3. Re:IMSI Catcher by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I use TA-312 field telephones exclusively. When there's nobody to talk to, I use the phone to electrocute fish.

    4. Re:IMSI Catcher by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, HELLO!!!!

      Have you been *** paying attention *** the last three years???

      There was this guy named Edward Snowden who below the lid off the the NSA'S ***GLOBAL*** spying operation.

      ***ALL*** phone calls, text messages, and URL requests are RECORDED INDEFINITELY to be USED AGAINST YOU at a future date. NOTHING YOU SAY is SAFE.

    5. Re:IMSI Catcher by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Why the fuck would the NSA want to listen to you" they don't want to listen to you, they just want to get to the pictures on most young peoples phones.

    6. Re:IMSI Catcher by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cause they're bored and they've nothing else to do? What else explains the frickin' Department of Homeland Security investigating the hack of actress Leslie Jones' website and leaked personal information and noods?

    7. Re:IMSI Catcher by fustakrakich · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why the fuck would the NSA want to listen to you?

      For the same reason they do every night, Pinky - We're trying to take over the world!

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  7. So does Canada by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    In fact, the armored car bodies and basic weapons platforms are sold by Canada to them.

    Not just the spy stuff.

    Human rights?

    Hah.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  8. If you can't deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    MOVE! There's always some place for you bleading heart tree huggers to go, so just GO ALREADY!

  9. respect my authoritah by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    yeah, it's all o' 'em.

  10. Better headline by chispito · · Score: 1

    A better headline is that the UK Government authorized the companies to sell to authoritarian regimes.

    --
    The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
  11. Meanwhile by JThundley · · Score: 1

    And the U.S. is trying to sell arms to Saudia Arabia, what else is new?

  12. Turkey is an authoritarian regime?? by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 2

    Turkey is a parliamentary representative democracy. The president is elected for a five-year term by direct elections. There are human rights issues, but "authoritarian" is strong a word.

    --
    Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    1. Re:Turkey is an authoritarian regime?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good one, 10/10.

    2. Re:Turkey is an authoritarian regime?? by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      And who tf are you?

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    3. Re:Turkey is an authoritarian regime?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who says authoritarianism and democracy are mutually exclusive? The Turkish people appear to be quite willing to vote for a man who will implement authoritarian measures such as eliminating free media and arresting or dismissing tens of thousands from their positions in pursuit of a personal vendetta.

    4. Re:Turkey is an authoritarian regime?? by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      Maybe, but taking some authoritarian measures (like in France currently after the terror attacks) doesn't make an "authoritarian regime", especially when its leaders are elected democratically.

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    5. Re:Turkey is an authoritarian regime?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exhibit B is the USA.

    6. Re:Turkey is an authoritarian regime?? by Bearhouse · · Score: 1

      You're right to point that out, but even before the recent coup attempt many reasonable commentators were concerned about Erdogan's "authoritarian" ways, including his attempts to increase the power of the presidency. He is currently ruling by decree; not very democratic...

    7. Re:Turkey is an authoritarian regime?? by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      By your logic the Gaza government isn't authoritarian because people voted for a terrorist organisation to rule them.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    8. Re:Turkey is an authoritarian regime?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True, I suppose it is a matter of degree. France certainly has become more authoritarian and I suppose that there is a gray area, but I think that closing down newspapers which are not sufficiently pro-government and arbitrary detention places a government firmly in the authoritarian camp, whether these measures are supported by the people or not.

    9. Re:Turkey is an authoritarian regime?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know about the government of Gaza, but if a government does not implement authoritarian/terrorist measures against its citizens then it is not authoritarian. Authoritarianism and terrorism directed against an outside entity are orthogonal but possibly correlated.

    10. Re:Turkey is an authoritarian regime?? by OricAtmos48K · · Score: 1

      Right on spot. We are tired of the West calling their pet regimes as "democrats" and others "authoritorian"

    11. Re:Turkey is an authoritarian regime?? by dwye · · Score: 2

      , especially when its leaders are elected democratically.

      No, he means that it is less likely to be authoritarian if democratically elected. If the Germans in the 1930s GODWIN RULE ALERT! CONTENT REMOVED AS IT IS VERBOTTEN IN DEUTCHLAND.

      Also, if the government is elected repeatedly, occasionally loses and is out of power, then gets re-elected, it is even less likely. This still does not mean that they cannot be authoritarian, just less likely to be.

      Besides, the Gaza Arabs wanted terrorists against Israel, and probably would still, even if they weren't inundated with anti-Jewish messages by their own media. Some people just like their hates. Ask a Bostonian about the Yankees, or a New Yorker about DeflateGate.

  13. So many great choices for customers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Too bad Hitler is gone. I am sure he'd be a great customer for these folks.

  14. Oligarchy SOP by globaljustin · · Score: 2

    This is Standard Operating Procedure for the English oligarchy/monarchy.

    England is not a democracy...it has exactly as much democracy as will keep the subjects from rising up.

    If you understand the truth of the statement above, a lot of history makes sense, and this move in TFA is completely predictable.

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
    1. Re:Oligarchy SOP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Monarchy is the oldest form of government in the United Kingdom.

      In a monarchy, a king or queen is Head of State. The British Monarchy is known as a constitutional monarchy. This means that, while The Sovereign is Head of State, the ability to make and pass legislation resides with an elected Parliament.

      Although The Sovereign no longer has a political or executive role, he or she continues to play an important part in the life of the nation.

      As Head of State, The Monarch undertakes constitutional and representational duties which have developed over one thousand years of history. In addition to these State duties, The Monarch has a less formal role as 'Head of Nation'. The Sovereign acts as a focus for national identity, unity and pride; gives a sense of stability and continuity; officially recognises success and excellence; and supports the ideal of voluntary service.

      In all these roles The Sovereign is supported by members of their immediate family."

      - https://www.royal.uk/role-monarchy

    2. Re: Oligarchy SOP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      %s/England/$any_country/g

      FTFY

  15. No France doesn't by globaljustin · · Score: 1

    So does France

    this is completely false, your link is bullshit nonsense and not credible

    English monarchy are selling this tech to other monarchies so they can manage their human capital (aka the populace of the country)

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
  16. Meanwhile, US Suppliers ISIS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Disney's parent owns Vice Media. Domestic propaganda is legal in the USA again. The rich and powerful people are spending time and money manufacturing consent on sites just like this. Meanwhile, the US government is literally sending supplies to ISIS under our noses. I wonder why this piece is coming out of vice right now.

    "We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries."

    - David Rockefeller's[p]urported remarks at a Bilderberg Group meeting in Baden-Baden, Germany in June 1991, The remarks are said to have been printed in several right-wing French publications shortly thereafter; as quoted in Programming, Pitfalls and Puppy-Dog Tales (1993) by Gyeorgos C. Hatonn, p. 65. Skepticism is in order for the accuracy or attribution of alleged remarks from these exclusive meetings, particularly those which could be manifestations of either satire, sarcasm — or outright fraudulence.

  17. BurEAH HeaD FBI Bureau Head FBI NEWS HERE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Believe nothing of it.

  18. Obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In other news, water wet, grass green.