BAE sold cyber-surveillance tools to Arab states | Hacker News Reader

BAE sold cyber-surveillance tools to Arab states

bbc.com

158 pointsCPAhem58 comments

Open articleView on HN

Not just BAE.

Facebook only a few months ago began helping Pakistan "fight blasphemy", sending a team to the country.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-39300270

Only for a man to be sentenced to death for committing blasphemy on Facebook a little while later.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-40246754

Facebook say they are not responsible for this but it's obvious they have blood on their hands.

Plenty more here too https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/the-uk-companies-.... IMSI catchers exported to Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc.

If this is real then wow.. do Facebook employees know this is happening? Or are they just okay working for a company like that?

If you work for Zuck I'd love to hear your take on this.

Btw. are you a US citizen? Do you feel personally responsible for what your fellow citizens did there? Have you already packed your stuff and moved to Brazil?

I'm totally aware that asking these questions there is a chance >0 that you are actually not American and/or already living in another country. Let's just agree that you can still follow the intended purpose: People in a huge group don't really feel responsible for what other people on the other end of the world do unethically for the same group.

I agree. I wonder if people who work or looking to work for companies which make ad/surveillance software and get huge salaries are always different than people who rail against these companies. Or is it just different mode of same people?

I'm willing to bet that there are far more people concerned about increasing corporate surveillance than work at FB.

For a lot of people the salaries are too good to pass on. And its not hard to rationalize what you are doing. This is kinda why a broader education seems very important to me, so that smart people understand exactly what they are contributing to and can take a reasoned stand.

In other cases, it may be just a small part of an otherwise great organization. e.g. Palantir is used by CIA to track bad actors, but it can also be misused by police depts (hypothetically?). So the developers of the software think they are helping protect their citizens but it may be misused.

I assume most people working in these industries think the stuff they're working on is fine (or at least represents a benefit to the world on balance) but they choose not to debate this stuff online.

They probably think (a) there's a risk of embarrassing their employer, as such companies often rely on nuanced arguments to justify their actions; (b) they're unlikely to convince anyone, let alone change the community's collective opinion; and (c) they're likely to garner downvotes and similar expressions of disapproval.

Right, since I choose to remain on earth I'm complicit for the actions of everyone on earth. The logic doesn't check out.

The reason I'm asking about FB in particular is because employees didn't sign up to build "blasphemy traps" (as opposed to Palantir employees for example). If I were an employee of FB and realized what my work was being used for - I'd demand my employer stop the behavior or resign.

Edit: It's interesting that every day Uber is being trashed in the media yet here we have Zuck getting innocent people killed just to push his ticker up a fraction of a point. Uber is sexist but Zuck will kill you.

Yes, but that doesn't fit the lib agenda.

>"Btw. are you a US citizen? Do you feel personally responsible for what your fellow citizens did there?"

What did US citizens do? And where is "there."?

I'd say an awful lot of things in many places, but parent is probably talking about the employees of Facebook in Pakistan.

So every nationality present at FB is guilty? The home country of every H1-B Visa holder is automatically guilty too right?

Or does it only matter where the company is head quartered?

The post you are quoting from is in a discussion thread about FB supporting governments in suppressing their people. FB is a US company.

The post is actually about BAE. I was responding to the question posed:

>">"Btw. are you a US citizen? Do you feel personally responsible for what your fellow citizens did there?

FB may be an American company but they recruit employees from countries around the world via H1B visas. The OPs suggestion that all Americans ares responsible for FB is completely ridiculous.

Didn't Zuckerberg claim "Je Suis Charlie"?

All of you programmers working on "cool" technology understand that this is going to be turned against your own children? Doesn't matter, does it? We all had a good time!

Its really amazing to watch iron chains form from digital crystals. Did we learn nothing about history while our young people studied algorithms? Did taking "Computer Science" classes seclude us from the reality of how all of this would be used?

We should feel some shame and remorse. If you're in this industry, start telling us here everyday what you've done so that some can have a chance to deal with the coming digital dictatorship. It will be worldwide, it will be unjust, and people will not be able to run away from it because it will cross borders.

They lied to you when they told you they "needed" it for safety reasons, or for the children, or other soundless reasons to deceive you into building invisible prisons.

>Did we learn nothing about history while our young people studied algorithms? Did taking "Computer Science" classes seclude us from the reality of how all of this would be used?

Obviously the answer to your questions is, "Enough people don't learn those lessons, don't believe it will apply to them, or simply don't care."

The time for analysis and hand-wringing was years ago, now it's just a pump-and-dump scheme at every level. The fools just think they have a place to run to, and that's the big flaw in the plan.

In other news: West funds oppressive Arab states. Really, if we didn't want them spying on people, we shouldn't be giving them all that oil money. Funding terrorists is illegal, why is funding oppressive governments OK and then it's suddenly not OK when they spend that money to oppress people?

Let's not fool ourselves. We need that oil to keep business as usual going. Gigatons of liquid energy that fuels most of our civilization.

Let's not forget the material for our modern age : plastic

Don't forget Fertiliser - comes from gas not oil - but we'd be screwed without it: http://grist.org/article/2010-02-11-tracking-u-s-farmers-sup...

Importing goods from non-democratic countries is not an all-or-nothing proposition. The externality created by giving non-democratic countries cash issued by democracies can be partially corrected by assessing a unilateral scaling tariff on imports, in proportion to the level of human rights abuses created by the country of origin.

So, democracies are exempt from human rights abuses?

Would you support a tariff on IP exports (music, movies, tv shows)?

>"Importing goods from non-democratic countries is not an all-or-nothing proposition. The externality created by giving non-democratic countries cash issued by democracies can be partially corrected by assessing a unilateral scaling tariff on imports, in proportion to the level of human rights abuses created by the country of origin."

So lets apply that to Chinese imports. Let say that the US places one of the highest tariffs on Chinese imports since its one of the least democratic countries[1]. So China's economy grinds to a halt. But China is one of the largest purchasers of U.S debt so now both China and the U.S economies completely tank[2]. And then that has knock on effect on Africa where China is buying up minerals and investing in infrastructure projects. This would effectively tank the economies of North America, Asia and Africa. Does this still strike you as a viable idea?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index

[2] https://www.thebalance.com/u-s-debt-to-china-how-much-does-i...

Or China becomes more democratic and implements better worker safety and environmental regulations.

How do you propose that will happen exactly? Democracy is usually born out of stability, not revolution. Honestly, I hope China goes the way of Korea and slowly transitions into a more democratic country, but that is hardly a given. And revolutions in China have a nasty history of leaving millions of people dead/displaced and plunging the country into chaos.

edit: after writing this comment, I'm not comfortable with my assertion. Democracy in England was established (or reinforced) after the English Civil War and Glorious Revolutions, democracy in the US after the Revolutionary war and in France after the French Revolution.... so I take that assertion back.

  Does this still strike you as a viable idea?

Sure. Just announce the tariff will be phased in at 0.5% per year over 40 years.

China had exports of 2.3 trillion dollars in 2016. 16.9% of which was to the US[1].

.5% of trillion is 5 billion. Let's just round down China's exports down to 2 trillion.

That means the US would be levying 10 billion dollars in tariffs on China during the first year alone and this would continue to increase for the next 4 decades?

How do you imagine China would react to that? Do you imagine a trade war would be good for the world economy?

This is the kind of nonsense that Trump was recently spewing during the US election season.

You know who's going to actually pay that tariff? The U.S.? They will pay for it in higher prices on goods and perhaps more importantly they will also pay for it in China financing 100s of billions dollars less of U.S debt in the coming decades. That might be the kick in the pants the US needs to get its deficit in order but before wreaking lots of havoc.

You realize that China is the United States second largest creditor right? Until very recently they were the United States largest creditor[2]. Yes China finances the United States by buying up U.S Treasuries.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_China

[2] https://www.statista.com/statistics/256591/share-of-chinas-e...

US is self-sufficient in terms of oil production / consumption.

Is it? This (from 2015) suggests this won't happen until 2030 https://www.oilandgas360.com/bp-energy-outlook-united-states...

Also: http://crudeoilpeak.info/the-myth-of-us-self-sufficiency-in-...

Would be interested in some numbers that show otherwise.

You are right, I misinterpreted various news. Thanks for pointing this out.

> if we didn't want them spying on people, we shouldn't be giving them all that oil money

Yes, but if we did something reasonable such as enact scaling import tariffs on exports from non-free countries in proportion to their level of human rights abuses as measured by a legislative scorecard of objectively observable public criteria, the neoliberals would claim that they learned tariffs were bad in Econ 101 and therefore that domestic tax policy on importers must be set by the WTO.

So anyone that drives a car, buys anything that contains plastic, uses fertilizer, crayons or detergent is a "sponsor of terrorism" and an "oppressor"? That's absurd.

Yet oil revenues are used to fund conflict.

2014 while working in US federal info sec, one of my coworkers had a boyfriend employed by BAE working on surveillance software. I was surprised to learn that BAE produced such software. She explained to me that while certain laws prohibited US citizens from spying on each other, foriegn countries are exempt from those laws, so it is apparently common for surveillance software developed in the US to be deployed targeting the US by US allies who work with the US government.

Yup, while it's technically illegal for the NSA/etc to deliberately intercept American communication, it's an open secret that they work in cooperation with other nations who spy on us and give the data back to the US via programs like ECHELON.

They also bend the rules as much as legally permissable. They can't deliberately intercept domestic-only traffic, but anything that goes overseas is fair game for a bulk tap, and you don't really have control of how your packets are routed.

Rather than just whine about lax security practices, here is an nginx config file that will get you a pretty high score on scanners like Mozilla's Observatory.

https://gist.github.com/zachaysan/89d40b3214160ce9d59a2b9136...

If you work on things that involve sexuality, health, or finance and you don't enable these types of protections you're risking lives or financial ruin.

Also if you see a shortcoming please let me know, I created this in a bit of a rush and I'm always happy to learn more.

Seems odd that something designed to protect lives or prevent financial ruin you'd do "in a bit of a rush."

My schedule is packed and it's better to share something than nothing, no?

The point is to show how little is needed to protect against the type of encryption thwarting tools these guys likely employ, and to give people a starting point from which they can learn more from.

"While the sales are legal, human rights campaigners and cyber-security experts have expressed serious concerns these powerful tools could be used to spy on millions of people and thwart any signs of dissent."

Whilst true, why does this point seem to matter for other countries governments than our own?

The spying is equally evil, the consequences are different

Ultimately is the motive that countries have even to improve the state of other countries? I mean, it should be. Less places that have a chance to becoming a democratic capitalist utopia is a win for the old guard like the west right? We seem to have done well with it.

By no means am I excusing the excesses of my government or its western allies, though I would like to point out that we won't execute someone for blasphemy like some of those other nations.

I say we put out the big fire first.

This is more of the same inglorious British Government tradition of being willing to sell anything to anyone, provided they've got the cash.

Here's some similarly inglorious work from another British company, contracted by none other than the US government:

http://www.salon.com/2016/10/03/u-s-paid-p-r-firm-540-millio...

As far as I am informed the British Government adviced agains th sale, however the danish government approved it.

If you have time, watch Bitter Lake by Adam Curtis: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02gyz6b (also available on youtube if you are outside the UK - though seems mildly edited)

Shows the tangled complicity in each others affairs that exists between UK, US and the Arab countries, and some of the background behind them and the leverage that we have over each over.

The Danish media is less gentle with their wording. The customers aren't talked about as "repressive governments" but is straight up called dictatorships.

Is dictatorship a necessary condition for oppressive governments? Democratically elected governments can be oppressive as well.

Western democracies should impose a domestic procurement ban on companies which sell to foreign governments without civilian control over their militaries. This would not require new export controls or restrictions on international trade, only voluntary divestment when awarding domestic procurement contracts on the public's behalf. Problem solved.

They would just do some wizardry to avoid the consequences like making a parent company with two subsidiaries that licensees the IP to the individual operating companies one for the domestic market and one or the undesirables.

Yes, but requiring socially undesirable accounts to be compartmentalized and spun-off may allow democracies to start removing the currently blatant conflicts of interest surrounding procurement and lobbying.

A longer term solution would most likely require imposing a scaling import tariff on non-democratic countries in proportion to their level of human rights abuses. This would establish a rule where their ability to acquire democratic foreign currencies redeemable for weapon systems automatically decreases on the margin if they they pursue authoritarian policies, and automatically increases on the margin if they pursue reforms.

It sucks when nationstates have real security they work that the citizens want done, but are also relatively evil. You have to guess whether they'll be doing more evil or more real useful law enforcement. We only hear about the evil.

You don't have to guess. You could just refuse to collaborate with any of it until the level of evil is reduced.

"within the regulatory framework" aka against the people

If your big enough and have enough money you can do anything. Legal or not.

moral or not, legal is a formality.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com