French Spyware Bosses Indicted For Their Role In the Torture of Dissidents (technologyreview.com) 29
Senior executives at a French spyware firm have been indicted for the company's sale of surveillance software to authoritarian regimes in Libya and Egypt that resulted in the torture and disappearance of dissidents. MIT Technology Review reports: While high-tech surveillance is a multibillion-dollar industry worldwide, it is rare for companies or individuals to face legal consequences for selling such technologies -- even to notorious dictatorships or other dangerous regimes. But charges in the Paris Judicial Court against leaders at Amesys, a surveillance company that later changed its name to Nexa Technology, claim that the sales to Libya and Egypt over the last decade led to the crushing of opposition, torture of dissidents, and other human rights abuses. The former head of Amesys, Philippe Vannier, and three current and former executives at Nexa technologies were indicted for "complicity in acts of torture" for selling spy technology to the Libyan regime. French media report that Nexa president Olivier Bohbot, managing director Renaud Roques, and former president Stephane Salies face the same charges for surveillance sales to Egypt.
The charges were brought by brought by the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes unit of the court, but the case began 10 years ago when Amesys sold its system for listening in on internet traffic to the Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi. Six victims of the spying testified in France about being arrested and tortured by the regime, an experience that they say is a direct result of these spying tools. In 2014, the company sold surveillance software to Egyptian president Abdel al-Sisi shortly after he took control of the country in a military coup. The complaints, filed by the International Federation for Human Rights, or FIDH, and the French League for Human Rights, allege that the company did not have government permission to sell its technologies to Libya or Egypt because oversight was weak and at times nonexistent. The claims led to an independent judicial investigation against Amesys/Nexa, which is still ongoing. Next, the judges will decide whether to send the case to criminal court or dismiss it if there is not sufficient evidence -- but the indictment is a major step forward and points toward the prospect that the judges will view the evidence as potentially strong enough to support a criminal trial.
The charges were brought by brought by the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes unit of the court, but the case began 10 years ago when Amesys sold its system for listening in on internet traffic to the Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi. Six victims of the spying testified in France about being arrested and tortured by the regime, an experience that they say is a direct result of these spying tools. In 2014, the company sold surveillance software to Egyptian president Abdel al-Sisi shortly after he took control of the country in a military coup. The complaints, filed by the International Federation for Human Rights, or FIDH, and the French League for Human Rights, allege that the company did not have government permission to sell its technologies to Libya or Egypt because oversight was weak and at times nonexistent. The claims led to an independent judicial investigation against Amesys/Nexa, which is still ongoing. Next, the judges will decide whether to send the case to criminal court or dismiss it if there is not sufficient evidence -- but the indictment is a major step forward and points toward the prospect that the judges will view the evidence as potentially strong enough to support a criminal trial.
By association. (Score:2)
While high-tech surveillance is a multibillion-dollar industry worldwide, it is rare for companies or individuals to face legal consequences for selling such technologies -- even to notorious dictatorships or other dangerous regimes.
Does anyone know if open-source was used in any of these technologies?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Last I checked Linus Torvalds isn't working with brutal dictators to make a fast buck. If you ever starts you might run to some trouble with the French government. Pretty sure America would be okay with it though.
Setting a standard (Score:5, Insightful)
Imagine if the United States had the guts to do something like this. At the very least, Bush Junior and Obama would be sweating in a courtroom for their various crimes against humanity and blatant violations of the US Constitution.
Re: (Score:3)
Are you kidding? And undermine one of our largest economic sectors? Manufacturing is a huge part of our GDP, and we're the world's leading arms dealer [statista.com].
Yes, these are defense articles. See ITAR.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course the left being dumb as hammers put a few lines about racial Justice in a non-binding preamble bill that has absolutely no effect and only existed to bring attention to the actual Green New Deal,
Re:Setting a standard (Score:5, Insightful)
This is why we need the green New Deal. The purpose of it isn't just to solve climate change or create infrastructure jobs. It's to start replacing all those defense contractor jobs
I am a supporter of green energy, but you are spouting economic nonsense.
Selling weapons to dictators brings in actual money to the American economy.
Replacing a coal plant with grid-scale solar is not making a net contribution to the economy.
We need to convert to green energy, but claiming the conversion will be "free" because we can pay for it by reducing exports is baloney.
Re: (Score:2)
The net contribution is when you get to export the technology and knowledge developed by American companies to fulfil the demand.
There are other benefits too, like employment and increased manufacturing, as well as improved health (poor health is not free) and lower energy costs (which is itself a stimulus).
Given that the economy needs stimulating out of the COVID downturn anyway, might as well get something good out of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Given that the economy needs stimulating ...
That is not a "given". The economy is currently overstimulated.
The purpose of a stimulus to create jobs and demand for goods and services.
But there are plenty of jobs available with not enough people willing to take them. Production of G&S is not limited by demand but by labor available for production.
Even the current level of stimulus needs to be dialed back.
You don't think having a green electrical grid (Score:2)
You say it brings in money, but what are we spending that money on? The answer is oil. We import a ton because we don't have the facilities to process what we pull out of the ground. That's the reason
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If the purpose of the Green New Deal isn't just to "solve climate change" then it's even more confused and messy than previously thought.
The Green New Deal! It solves everything! Yay!
Re: (Score:2)
The Green New Deal! It solves everything! Yay!
Yes - Not unlike the way FDR's "New Deal" pretty much solved everything back in the 30s (with the exception of race relations).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
FDR's New Deal didn't "solve everything". It didn't even do what it was intended to do:
https://fee.org/articles/fdrs-... [fee.org]
It did create TVA and the Hoover Dam and . . . that was probably good? But honestly the New Deal failed in a lot of areas, such as:
Improving race relations (as you articulated)
Curing major diseases (nope! didn't do that)
Ending poverty (DEFINITELY didn't do that)
Preventing war (ABSOLUTELY didn't do that)
etc. the list goes on
Re: Setting a standard (Score:2)
we're the world's leading arms dealer
On a dollar basis, yes. But when all that buys you is a few toilet seats, it's not such a big deal.
Alleged? (Score:1)
It seems like this report should have a sprinkling of the word "alleged", unless their system is "guilty until proven innocent", or "trial by public opinion".
Re:Alleged? (Score:5, Informative)
Why? Their role in selling spyware to Libya et al. is common knowledge, and is what led to the accusation. The specific crime seems murky and at least partly political, and involves some specific circumstances of the sale, but the article does not say that they are guilty. The headline only says that they are being indicted for selling spyware to Libya which is, broadly speaking, true. If they hadn't done that, this case couldn't possibly exist.
I don't want to take a position on this case on its merits, but perhaps one may speculate on the possibility that this is a scapegoat to distract people from the billions of euros of arms France sells to Egypt [reuters.com] (and, allegedly, also to Libya, which would violate UN sanctions).
Are French Government Official also guilty? (Score:1)
The French Government approved the sales.
The French Government sells actual weapons and military supplies to those countries.
Why are the top French Government Officials not also being charged?
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps because there are rules of governance for electronics that don’t exist for sticks perhaps that should change.
Re: (Score:2)
because they would have to be charged by other french government officials? the weirdo spyware geeks are an easier target.
Re: (Score:2)
The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) applies to everyone, not just citizens of countries that signed up to it. So if you are subject to the laws of an ECHR country and you sell arms to some dictator who doesn't give a shit about human rights and uses your arms to commit crimes against humanity or war crimes, you might be on the hook for it.
It will hinge on if you could reasonably have known that whatever you sold would be used for those purposes. Given the state of Syria at the time and the well k
Re: (Score:2)
it also hinges on the exact wording of the probably-vague law, the current political and legal climate in France, whether the judge is constipated, etc. i have no idea how the case will play out, and i doubt you do either.
my point is just that the vagueness is in whether what they did is a crime, not whether they did it.
What if US companies were held to this standard? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Serves them right (Score:2, Insightful)