Home | About | Donate

EU Court Again Rules That NSA Spying Makes U.S. Companies Inadequate for Privacy

Originally published at http://www.commondreams.org/views/2020/07/18/eu-court-again-rules-nsa-spying-makes-us-companies-inadequate-privacy

2 Likes

cisco systems had employees that worked on software security/back doors. Were they working for two employers? Yes.

1 Like

I find it interesting that the US Government would be pressuring Governments the World over not to use Huawei products because they claim they would be used to spy on Corporations and Governments in Countries that purchase them while at the same time as a matter of Public record the US Government admits to spying on everyone.

What is likely closer to the truth is the US Government does not want Huawei used because they are unable to put in those back doors as they can with Cisco and US based technologies. As soon as the US started screaming about other Countries inserting spying technology into communications equipment you had to know they were doing it themselves.

7 Likes

Four days ago Britain capitulated to US demands not to use Huawei 5G technology. So far, Germany stands firm with its intentions to use it, and the Canadian government has ‘not yet decided.’ It can be expected that all members of the intelligence alliance Five Eyes won’t be using Huawei 5G technology…

1 Like

The US and all US based companies should be boycotted until we meet international human rights criteria based on the International Declaration of Human Rights, until we demilitarize and eliminate our arsenal of WMDs and until we return to climate sanity. The US must be declared a pariah state.

5 Likes

Of course it makes US companies inadequate for privacy. And of course that does make doing business with US companies using US technology unwise for Europeans.

A complication in this is that it also makes most European products and services unsafe. Another complication is that all of these products and services are at least as unsafe for American as for European use, though they might be even less safe somewhere like the Philippines, where the tensions of imperial squabblings become sharper and more often violent, at least for the moment.

Still another complication is that it makes American government largely unusable for Americans. We might start with the anonymous seizure of citizens in Portland, Oregon a few nights ago by costumed and masked men later claimed to be federal agents, but still not identified. Were the citizens in question arrested? How would one know? If this is not by any proper procedure an arrest, does that not make it a kidnapping? Consider too the business partners of the extended Federal Government of the United States, which regularly penetrates and negotiates with organized crime under what it regards as intelligence necessity or convenience. This means, broadly, that an organization like the CIA would share employees with an organization like–oh, to pick a known name, let’s say Pablo Escobar, the drug-running or informal pharmaceutical magnate. Such employees would obviously have distinct loyalties to each organization, loyalties that might shift with circumstances, circumstances that might be deliberately altered by one player or another.

Of course, none of this means that absolutely all of the intended universal surveillance attempted by the NSA, for example, would be transparent to Escobar, to MI6, or to Mossad. But it does absolutely mean that much of it is, simply because the same individuals are employed by multiple organizations, even when broader deals are not made with the same information.

A really nice, handy way to trace the mechanism of this, and not a bad read, is Edward Snowden’s autobiographical piece, Permanent Record. Remember that Snowden was not a government employee, but an employee of Booze-Allen. While I find his statements that he was working for US interests and those of the Constitution pretty believable, I doubt that it could describe most of the rank and file at Booze-Allen or elsewhere. Personally, I’d take the support of the company for secret surveillance of Americans without a warrant to suggest that the employees and management preferred Booze-Allen’s or their own personal benefit, and almost down to one single individual.

Along these lines, really grotesque and unpopular violence desired by the US government or particular factions therein might thereby be hired out, as was often the practice in Latin American banana republics under CIA or US corporate influence through the 20th century. This is part of the history of the desaparecidos throughout Latin America, and it is ongoing conflict between US-backed and non-backed or perhaps less-backed narcotraficantes in Mexico today. This has often been argued as a mechanism for US domestic assassinations as well. And highly placed career CIA man Ray McGovern has at least speculated on this as a factor in presidential policy–referring, at the time, to Barack Obama, whose race might not unreasonably have given him cause for care in such matters.

The more important matter here is not the loss of business to US companies, the larger of which are probably far more vitally interested in the opportunities for penetration of populations for violent coercive control anyway. It might be true that seeing a loss of revenue will make some parts of the chain of command get balky, but I doubt it’s wise to expect that to cause government or Cisco or Microsoft or Intel to back away from such things.

The important matter is that the US government–and that of various other English-speaking countries, at the absolute very least–has actively undertaken these surveillance activities en masse, when these only make sense and only become profitable if they are used to target and suppress dissent and, most particularly, to control the flow of information.

Consider ----

the heritage news services–the post-Judith Miller NYT, WaPo, the ever-embedded CNN, the serially complicit MSNBC, the reason-deficit Fox–have abandoned all but the barest pretense of news service, hiring military and government and disinformation specialists from the alphabet agencies to dispense propaganda and disguise corporate public relations disinformation. Even supposed “entertainment” or “edutainment” broadcast forefronts drivel. Beside a Civil War documentary that contains enough fiction, one finds fantasies about “alien races” building pyramids or what-have-you, the grosser nonsense peppered about ten-to-one as pattern camouflage.

The remaining unquashed discourse is what we perform, autonomously and collectively, online. Of course, the central players are bribed and threatened into obeisance, though they probably go happily enough in most cases. Algorithms in Google get jimmied to lead away from certain information, and search information gets gathered and parsed for government, paragovernment, military, paramilitary, corporate, and para-corporate players, and anyone else who might be listening in.

“We the people” here in the States have no formal control over the military, and we have lost any functional electoral option to confusion and nonchalance. The professional “journalism,” if that is what it is, that we call mainstream, has failed as an informational tool. It is correct less often than a broken clock.

The one medium left standing is the one you yourself participate in. It is targeted and threatened, and has been. A good first approach might be a near-universal personal use of Tor and other encryption-related services for non-threatening personal activity, to massively weight the system against effective surveillance.

3 Likes

Thank you, bardamu. It is not often that I come across such a comprehensive post that details all different elements necessary to connect a topic for insight so it can be fully understood.
I am glad to have taken the time to read your post.

2 Likes

We forget that they are literally performing a worldwide corporate coup against democracy. Implemented via trade agreements. That explains their motive very well. Stealing and locking down the future.

2 Likes