It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

U.S., U.K. firms selling spy gear to repressive regimes, says report

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 04:00 AM
link   

U.S., U.K. firms selling spy gear to repressive regimes, says report


news .cnet.com

he Guardian reports that a group called Privacy International said it has identified at least 30 British companies it believes have exported surveillance gear to Bahrain, Iran, Syria, and Yemen, among other countries. The group also said 50 firms were exporting such technology from the U.S. and that Germany and Israel are also big exporters of spy gear.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 04:00 AM
link   

The technologies for sale at ISS World conferences are so sophisticated and ambitious in the scope of their invasions that many of them are only suitable for use in combating terrorism and serious crime, within strictly defined legal parameters. They include devices that intercept mobile phone calls and text messages in real time on a mass scale, malware and spyware that gives the purchaser complete control over a target's computer and trojans that allow the camera and microphone on a laptop or mobile phone to be remotely switched on and operated.


Greetings ats members and veiwers from far and beyond, within this thread you will find material that might shock you or might provoke you or simply might engage you to click on and move to another thread or will engage you to post and earn your keep as this is what some of you have been trained to do. Tread carefully is all i can say and i warn those who will intentionally do as directed to distract.

news .cnet.com
(visit the link for the full news article)
edit on 8-4-2012 by cerebralassassins because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 04:00 AM
link   

New surveillance industry database reveals small-town US police departments browsing surveillance tech alongside Libyan and Egyptian intelligence agencies




The link provided within this reply has a list of 160 nations and their respected offices that are engaged and active as to what the title above reads. With bigger fish to fry in the upcoming weeks we strongly recommend that each member take a good hard look and prepare for the future as it is shaping up to be. To those who have questioned who and why hacktivists are and if they are gov lintel sent in to distract from real issues i highly stress and point to this whole thread and to familiarize yourself with as much information you can possibly retain.


'' We expected to see the Department of Defense on this list, but not a local police department with just a handful of employees. Small town law enforcement seems to be just as fascinated by the new spy technologies as the Bahraini intelligence services. There is definitely a question of public spending here – thousands of taxpayers’ dollars are being spent on just visiting these trade shows, and how many more are used to buy the spy technologies exhibited there? In the current economic climate, US citizens should be asking whether purchasing mass surveillance capabilities is the best use of local government resources.




posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 04:18 AM
link   
Not really a surprise. British PM was travelling the middle east recently with 8 of Britain's biggest arms traders. Pimping off our wears to corrupt dictators and despots.


David Cameron was last night accused of using his Middle East tour to promote Arab democracy as a cover for arms sales.
The Prime Minister was branded a ‘disgrace’ after it emerged that he has taken eight defence firms with him on a four-day visit to the region.


Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk...


The tear gas canisters used on protesters are usually made in the UK or US. But it's good for our economy right?



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 04:21 AM
link   
reply to post by woodwardjnr
 


I guess if you need to control a large number of civilians you will need to purchase in bulk right ? , well its what i have been informed as of a week ago, so yes, i do agree with you.


P.S.
Make sure your firewall is up and running.



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 04:28 AM
link   
Vice did a documentary on this

SOFEX: The Business of War - Full Length

www.vice.com...



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 05:23 AM
link   
I am going to link another thread that covers more than US/UK firms. I actually took part in translating a video about companies like Bull-Amesys and BlueCoat that covers this very topic. The write up on the video we translated is here in another ATS thread. Thank you for posting this article, the digital arms race is something we should all be concerned about. With the new laws they are trying to pass in the UK, and the building of the new NSA facility in Utah, this is something people really should be paying attention to.

Viz



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 07:20 AM
link   
Off topic post, sorry
edit on 8-4-2012 by Iamschist because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 08:23 AM
link   
So people complain when the west refuses to sell items to a country and people complain when the west does sell items to a country. Typical fearmongering aside why should law enforcement agencies not be allowed to use items that other agencies use?

The more prevailient some of these items become the more they are going to be restricted / covered under law to prevent / set standards to use it. Case in point gps tracking devices. We had a hodge podge of state laws that either allowed gps tracking on vehicles without a warrant and other states required it. It went to the Supreme Court and their ruling was police must have a warrant in order to use the devices on vehicles.

Dash Cameras / Body mics / Taser cameras - audio recording / duty weapon cameras etc...
All are surveilliance devices....

Don't get me wrong technology has a potential for abuse, but to use generic language and make comparisons between local police agencies and intelligence services of countries is a bit extreme to say the least.

Local issues aside the other argument comes back around to how a particular item is used. Why should a business be held responsible for an item whan it is misused by the person / government who made the purchase?

Again we seem to embrace the idea that its always somebody elses fault.

Is the death count in Syria caused by Russia supplying the government with weapons or is the death count in direct relation to how the syrian government is using those items?

Any item can be misued by the person who owns / is in possession of it.

At some point its going to become a 4th amendment issue as well as the possibility of a pretextual stop violation if the action extends the length of the trasffic stop.
edit on 8-4-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 09:23 AM
link   
This is hardly news. This sort of practice has been highlighted for years by groups like Amnesty International, and by courageous broadcasters like John Pilger John Pilger Website



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 12:36 PM
link   
Yea and then we wonder why they hate us



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 11:35 PM
link   
Those 'shadowy elite' behind the scenes will always ensure all sides of desired conflict are funded and prepared according to their aims.

They have all the 'front' companies/intelligence networks, technological superiority and all the money in the world to achieve such manipulations of humanity with plotted events.
edit on 8-4-2012 by PrimeLight because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 02:50 AM
link   
It is issues like these why I keep a piece of scotch tape over my cameras on my computers, (if they are built in), not figured out how to kill (non permanent) the mic's yet though. I also use wired LAN when I can, and unplug, I also switch off the wireless on my laptop when not using it, and use encryption. I turn off the GPS on the cell, and after a call to emergency (if and when I make one) pull the battery. Again, I have nothing to hide, but my business is my business.



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 05:05 AM
link   
I would be far more shocked and disgusted, if any of this came as a suprise to me. However, it does not. It is a coldly logical step along a path wreathed in shadow and obsfucated with the intent of keeping the majority unaware, or apathetic towards the facts related to it.

For many many years, the West has been churning out weapons and selling them to the highest bidder. Since there is often a large amount of money floating around in repressive regimes, most of it held by the people who already weild the biggest stick in thier nations, it is only logical that in order to sell the items being manufactured, one must stifle ones morality and sense of justice, and bite the bullet to improve the appearance of the order book, and the accounts of the business being credited with the agreed sale sum.

However, I do not think that the people who do this work are seeing the big picture, or at least if they are, they care not for it, and only for the weight of thier pockets. The fact is that selling guns and intelligence gathering gear to a dictatorial regime or an extremist group is tantamount to murder. Unless there is evidence that outweighs every other consideration, that the organisation, AND EVERY PART THERIN, to whom the items are being sold is pure of heart, and without evil intent toward any person, and only arming itself with these items out of a need to DEFEND itself. Further a promise must be obtained, legally binding in all states and nations, which prohibits the use of these items in raids or attacks of any nature, anywhere on the globe, and in the case of intelligence gear, it must only be used on people that ANY nations laws would prosecute, and consider criminal.

Any breakage of that promise, must lead to immediate sanctions and forced reclamation of the goods provided. It is actually very simple. Any evidence which leads a supplier, be they a nation like the UK flogging its surplus, or a company within the UK selling goods to order, to the conclusion that the equipment sold is being used to gain an unfair advantage in a political setting by way of intimidation, murder, ethnic cleansing, or any other means involving items sold by the supplier, to the purchasing organisation, must result in unfettered and absolute removal of those items by force if required.

Another quick point to make. If the only people who HAVE guns and bombs and spy gear, are the nations that are building them in quantities which make them a selling item (the western nations mentioned i.e.) then would that not make the world a supposedly safer place? We are always being told that the wars we fight are just, as we pound from the air the dug in positions that our guns,bombs, and tech are defending. We are always being told that it is terrorism that is the danger here, not the outrageously lax attitude some suppliers have to ensuring responsible use of the items they are selling on the part of the buyer. Lets prove it, by discontinuing sales of ammo, guns, and intelligence gear to anyone outside the agencies of the nation in which the item was manufactured? That would get rid of the issue!

And to all those who claim that this would damage the arms market, I say jolly good. For those who want a decent piece for home defense in the states, this will make virtually no difference. Your needs will still be met. It will just mean that arms manufacture will have to be done in the nation of intended sale, FOR the nation of intended sale. Similarly, spygear creation should be done by the government, not by companies which serve it. Only the intelligence agencies in a given nation should have any idea what goes into building thier gear, what its operating limitations are, and so on and so forth, and all nations should use thier own people, from thier own country, to design and build these things, as well as thier own labor to produce them.

That would keep the weapons and gear out of the hands of the nutters, and restrict the uncontrolled proliferation of dangerous gear and weapons into places they have no place being.



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 09:40 AM
link   
famous british hypocrisy
money dnt smell for them!



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by leosnake
 


Did you miss the fact that the US is also included in this deal?



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by RyanFromCan
It is issues like these why I keep a piece of scotch tape over my cameras on my computers, (if they are built in), not figured out how to kill (non permanent) the mic's yet though. I also use wired LAN when I can, and unplug, I also switch off the wireless on my laptop when not using it, and use encryption. I turn off the GPS on the cell, and after a call to emergency (if and when I make one) pull the battery. Again, I have nothing to hide, but my business is my business.


Perhaps one day i will show you how its done regardless of what buttons you push or what programs you install. To be 100% safe, you must physically remove the wire that connects the camera and wifi connection and yes, when the cell is not in use, you must remove the battery. To make it clear, i am not a paranoid person but i am more than aware of what one is able to achieve as what i am referring to is what i have actually achieved in the past and perhaps if and when the need arises i will do so again in the future.

c.a.
edit on 9-4-2012 by cerebralassassins because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


But we should make a distinction here, that there are several law enforcement agencies that do have hardware that far exceeds on a rational level what they deem as priority of use in respect to what part of the public they serve. Some hardware is actually used by intelligence divisions and for the life of me have no idea why a local enforcement agency would be granted and be approved in using such hardware.

I guess it ticks them off when machines are hit and hit from kilometers away via a wifi without going through zombie machines and are left scratching their heads they then turn to the same paragraph as "hackers attacked" "x" company a machine. What i sit back and laugh at is how they deliberately misinform the public as to how easy it is to jump on a wifi from 10 or 20 km radius without zombie's. But enough of what i talked as we should also keep within the t&c, so i merely pointed out obvious flaws in security and how the media portrays people who provoke themselves by not following or reading the manual of a product on "how to use this product"



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by cerebralassassins
 





Perhaps one day i will show you how its done regardless of what buttons you push or what programs you install. To be 100% safe, you must physically remove the wire that connects the camera and wifi connection and yes, when the cell is not in use, you must remove the battery.


You would find me very amicable to that, Thanks, I often wonder about the security of the mic on my laptop (any headset, plug in mic is removed when not in use) and the Wi-Fi switch on the laptop, does switching it off REALLY disable the Wi-Fi, as in a physical disconnect, or does it just send a digital signal to disable the drivers/card. as far as my Cell, I am aware that to "kill" it effectively means removing the battery. ven turning it off does not fully disable it.

Thanks for your reply.



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by RyanFromCan
reply to post by cerebralassassins
 





Perhaps one day i will show you how its done regardless of what buttons you push or what programs you install. To be 100% safe, you must physically remove the wire that connects the camera and wifi connection and yes, when the cell is not in use, you must remove the battery.


You would find me very amicable to that, Thanks, I often wonder about the security of the mic on my laptop (any headset, plug in mic is removed when not in use) and the Wi-Fi switch on the laptop, does switching it off REALLY disable the Wi-Fi, as in a physical disconnect, or does it just send a digital signal to disable the drivers/card. as far as my Cell, I am aware that to "kill" it effectively means removing the battery. ven turning it off does not fully disable it.

Thanks for your reply.


The mic on your laptop continues to receive sound regardless of what you do. The program or combination of buttons you press does notswitch off the microphone, as i said before you must physically remove the wires attached to that microphone and to that of the web camera. This is achieved by unscrewing the laptop case and finding the wires then clipping them from the fore mentioned items. This is how you can only be assured that noone is listening or viewing you via your laptop. As for the cell phone, yes, only the removal of a battery can ensure your not being listened or tracked. Then again with millions of smart phones being sold on a daily basis, your more likely to be tracked by a friends cell phone rather than your own.




top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join