The Rise of the Global Surveillance Profiteers 33
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."
I don't know if 'profiteer' is the right term (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
But we already know, that "profiteering" is bad (heck, to nearly half the country "profit" is bad [creators.com]!), so why not use the word as a dirty term against someone we dislike?
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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...
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (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.
I'm not sure that's really the canonical use of the term [wikipedia.org]. 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 conc
Only at an inflated price. No profit at sticker (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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
But can you trust them? (Score:2)
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.
Re:But can you trust them? (Score:5, 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
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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 Chen
Re: (Score:2)
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
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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...
No, you can not [princeton.edu].
Nope [princeton.edu]
And, before you ask, it is not "terrorism" either...
Law of unintended consequences... (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 syndicate
Re: (Score:2)
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/... [politico.com] 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
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Same tired old line (Score:4, 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.
When to track and who to use. (Score:2)
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 the
Vulture Capitalism (Score:3)