British Companies Are Selling Advanced Spy Tech To Authoritarian Regimes (vice.com) 57
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.
So does France (Score:1)
And probably most of "advanced" countries.
Accountability ? Close to zero.
Look for Amesys and Qosmos here : https://reflets.info/ [reflets.info] (French)
Re:So does France (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:1)
No France doesn't (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:Like their own government? (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).
Re: Like their own government? (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, beca
Re: (Score:2)
People share photos of nuns on the beach in response to burkini ban in France [globalnews.ca]
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 creat [theguardian.com]
Re: Like their own government? (Score:1)
I am pleased my example's out of date.
The latest court ruling [bbc.co.uk], 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.
Do as I say and not as I do. (Score:2)
Authoritarian regimes... No! really? (Score:2)
Re: Authoritarian regimes... No! really? (Score:1)
Then what are the "free speech zones" in various US cities for?
Re: (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'
Re: Authoritarian regimes... No! really? (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?
Re: (Score:1)
I use TA-312 field telephones exclusively. When there's nobody to talk to, I use the phone to electrocute fish.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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!
So does Canada (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.
respect my authoritah (Score:2)
Better headline (Score:2)
Meanwhile (Score:2)
And the U.S. is trying to sell arms to Saudia Arabia, what else is new?
Turkey is an authoritarian regime?? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
By your logic the Gaza government isn't authoritarian because people voted for a terrorist organisation to rule them.
Re: (Score:3)
, 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
Re: (Score:2)
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...
Re: (Score:1)
Oligarchy SOP (Score:3)
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.