5 ms·

UK firm's surveillance kit 'used to crush Uganda opposition'

108 points by escapologybb 11y ago

togusa 11y ago
For reference, Gamma Group are a well known bunch of evil bastards in the UK. Nothing they do is considered honorable. Literally nothing. They also pretty much have a license to do what the hell they like under government mandate as a lot of things they do are actually pretty much illegal if someone founded a startup to do it today. It says everything about the place when I had my CV put forward by an agent a few years ago for a "high tech position" in the "expanding data sector". Wouldn't reveal who it was to start with due to an NDA. Moment I got told who it was, it was "fuck off". And you know what I got stick from the agent for actually having some ethics. Clearly it's not common these days otherwise outfits like that wouldn't have any staff. Then again they seem to groom people without experience or understanding of exactly what they do at university job fairs. I await my bag and tag for criticising them.
- grkvlt 11y ago
  > actually pretty much illegal Not at all. This is like saying weapons manufacturing is illegal, just because they can be used for committing murder. As for Gamma Group being 'evil' that's also a bit of an overstatement. I don't want to get into a huge ethical debate here, but the principle is that tools are morally neutral, their users or mis-users are the ones that should be criticised.
  - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
    At some point it becomes the bully on the playground, holding your arm and hitting you with it, chanting 'stop hitting yourself! Stop hitting yourself!' Weapons manufacturing in bulk for sale to anybody with cash can be called evil, with good reason.
  - togusa 11y ago
    Bollocks.
TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
Such software should be classified as arms for export purposes.
- proveanegative 11y ago
  Would you say the same about Metasploit or Wireshark? If not, where do you suggest the line be drawn?
  - pjc50 11y ago
    Software that runs on your own computer is not a weapon; software that is designed to run on other people's computers without their knowledge or consent probably is. That would put Wireshark clearly on the acceptable side of the line and Metasploit in a very questionable place.
- johansch 11y ago
  Living in Sweden, it's relatively common to read the news that Ericsson has sold networking equipment to some company in country X where the required feature "lawful intercept" has been used to something horribily bad by a corrupt regime. If Ericsson would block the sales of network equipment to those kind of countries on that ground, Huawei would jump in and gladly accept the deal instead. :/
  - schoen 11y ago
    Maybe Ericsson could try to get privacy-protective technical features into the GSM specs. (The best time to do that would have been between 1999 and 2001. It will be harder now.) GSM is a privacy and security nightmare.
- anonbanker 11y ago
  I tried bringing up Second Amendment Protections applying to software about fifteen years ago to the Electronic Frontier Foundation. I got a polite letter back laughing at me. Let's just say I agree with you, though.
dijit 11y ago
I'm a British citizen, how can we stop this from happening again. I don't think writing a letter to my MP is going to change anything since I write very often (yearly, since snowden) about surveillance, and nothing changes.
- pjc50 11y ago
  I think the only person who might come near to being able and willing to do anything about this is Labour deputy leader Tom Watson. Obviously nothing will be done about it under a conservative government. You can donate to Privacy International, who are at least promoting awareness of the issue.
- secfirstmd 11y ago
  Surprisingly, there are many quiet parts of the Conservative Party who think this sort of thing has gone on too long. Especially the (increasingly small) Libertarian branch. People like David Davis (the former candidate for party leader) are a good start. Ditto reach out to people in the House of Lords, whatever we may think of the institution, there are many very influential voices there. Baroness Manningham-Buller for example, though the former head of MI5, is actually a surprisingly strong critic of such surveillance. Esp when it's over seas.
  - toyg 11y ago
    David Davis, will all due respect, is completely isolated in his own party and mostly fulfils a theatrical role these days.
tim333 11y ago
The software seems kind of irrelevant to me. They recently arrested the main opposition and threw them in jail on trumped up charges. You don't need software for that. >Police arrested the country’s main opposition leader and a dozen other officials from his party in dawn raids on Thursday, as President Yoweri Museveni scaled up efforts to thwart a mounting challenge to his three-decade rule. http://www.wsj.com/articles/ugandan-opposition-leader-kizza-besigye-arrested-on-public-order-charge-1444922283 http://www.wsj.com/articles/ugandan-opposition-leader-kizza-...
d4nt 11y ago
I don't think the technology, and who sold it to whom, is the real story here. We all know that the NSA and GCHQ have similar capabilities. I imagine China, Russia and several other states do too. The point is, this power will corrupt. Consider this quote: > people deemed dangerous to state security like government officials and opposition politicians are being surveilled What happens if Labour look likely to win the election and someone decides Jeremy Corbyn is "dangerous to state security" because he opposes renewing Trident. What institutions exist to ensure that he can't be surveilled?
- marrs 11y ago
  This has likely happened before during the cold war when there were concerns that communists had infiltrated the Labour party. Harold Wilson famously believed he was being spied on throughout his term as prime minister
  - branchless 11y ago
    And in fact it turned out that they should have been looking at Cambridge and who the Queen kept company with. Whoops.
- pjc50 11y ago
  What institutions exist to ensure that he can't be surveilled? Realistically, none. It's probably contrary to ECHR - mass surveillance definitely is - but that makes little difference. We're almost back to the days of A Very British Coup. There have already been generals threatening this: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3241904/We-won-t-stand-Army-brass-warn-MUTINY-Jeremy-Corbyn-Prime-Minister.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3241904/We-won-t-sta...
- cryoshon 11y ago
  You're assuming/implying he isn't already being surveilled. For all n, n is being surveilled. The only question at this point is whether that information is used for blackmail today, or at some point in the future. If so and so is "dangerous to state security" today, then it's today. If he's inconvenient later, then it's later.
IllusoryReverb 11y ago
If these allegations are true, then I find it hard to imagine a fair and just society arising in these countries. It would appear to me that autocratic governments are being given additional tools to retain power and more control over young democracies which have not yet developed the institutions necessary to 'self-correct' or reverse/prevent the abuse of such tools. In my view, it is those who are most likely to agitate for a more democratic society and create institutions that demand for accountability who will be targeted and silenced. This will deny those countries of the very people who are needed to create the kind of country that their citizens dream of. Imagine such tools in the hands of the British during the time of the birth of the United States. I am left with a bitter taste in my mouth. I am not quick to see a dystopian future, but it will make it harder for needed change to come. I welcome any alternative viewpoints that can shed a kinder light on this situation.
iamthepieman 11y ago
The article is awfully light on what exactly was sold to the Ugandan government. The article states the technology can be used, "to spy on the enemy, collect data, intrude enemy systems, intercept enemy communication and also manipulate transmissions. "It can covertly be deployed in buildings, vehicles, computers, mobile phones, cameras and any other equipment deemed worthy for information extraction or surveillance." I mean from the article it could be anything - a software interface on top of standard CCTV cameras, voice activated microphones on government and government sympathizer personal electronic devices or just a piece of analytic software for parsing through data they've already collected. Doing a bit more digging it appears that Finfisher (the tech sold to Uganda by Gamma Group) is a spyware tool that uses common security exploits including phishing and social engineering to infect target devices and monitor them. It appears to do this in a somewhat automated, click-to-launch, way.
- wavefunction 11y ago
  Come on, the important part is "intrude enemy systems, intercept enemy communication and manipulate transmissions" The big red flag for you should be "enemy" rather than "someone I disagree with politically."

108 points by escapologybb 11y ago

For reference, Gamma Group are a well known bunch of evil bastards in the UK. Nothing they do is considered honorable. Literally nothing. They also pretty much have a license to do what the hell they like under government mandate as a lot of things they do are actually pretty much illegal if someone founded a startup to do it today. It says everything about the place when I had my CV put forward by an agent a few years ago for a "high tech position" in the "expanding data sector". Wouldn't reveal who it was to start with due to an NDA. Moment I got told who it was, it was "fuck off". And you know what I got stick from the agent for actually having some ethics. Clearly it's not common these days otherwise outfits like that wouldn't have any staff. Then again they seem to groom people without experience or understanding of exactly what they do at university job fairs. I await my bag and tag for criticising them.

grkvlt 11y ago
> actually pretty much illegal Not at all. This is like saying weapons manufacturing is illegal, just because they can be used for committing murder. As for Gamma Group being 'evil' that's also a bit of an overstatement. I don't want to get into a huge ethical debate here, but the principle is that tools are morally neutral, their users or mis-users are the ones that should be criticised.
- JoeAltmaier 11y ago
  At some point it becomes the bully on the playground, holding your arm and hitting you with it, chanting 'stop hitting yourself! Stop hitting yourself!' Weapons manufacturing in bulk for sale to anybody with cash can be called evil, with good reason.
- togusa 11y ago
  Bollocks.

TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago

Such software should be classified as arms for export purposes.

proveanegative 11y ago
Would you say the same about Metasploit or Wireshark? If not, where do you suggest the line be drawn?
- pjc50 11y ago
  Software that runs on your own computer is not a weapon; software that is designed to run on other people's computers without their knowledge or consent probably is. That would put Wireshark clearly on the acceptable side of the line and Metasploit in a very questionable place.
johansch 11y ago
Living in Sweden, it's relatively common to read the news that Ericsson has sold networking equipment to some company in country X where the required feature "lawful intercept" has been used to something horribily bad by a corrupt regime. If Ericsson would block the sales of network equipment to those kind of countries on that ground, Huawei would jump in and gladly accept the deal instead. :/
- schoen 11y ago
  Maybe Ericsson could try to get privacy-protective technical features into the GSM specs. (The best time to do that would have been between 1999 and 2001. It will be harder now.) GSM is a privacy and security nightmare.
anonbanker 11y ago
I tried bringing up Second Amendment Protections applying to software about fifteen years ago to the Electronic Frontier Foundation. I got a polite letter back laughing at me. Let's just say I agree with you, though.

dijit 11y ago

I'm a British citizen, how can we stop this from happening again. I don't think writing a letter to my MP is going to change anything since I write very often (yearly, since snowden) about surveillance, and nothing changes.

pjc50 11y ago
I think the only person who might come near to being able and willing to do anything about this is Labour deputy leader Tom Watson. Obviously nothing will be done about it under a conservative government. You can donate to Privacy International, who are at least promoting awareness of the issue.
secfirstmd 11y ago
Surprisingly, there are many quiet parts of the Conservative Party who think this sort of thing has gone on too long. Especially the (increasingly small) Libertarian branch. People like David Davis (the former candidate for party leader) are a good start. Ditto reach out to people in the House of Lords, whatever we may think of the institution, there are many very influential voices there. Baroness Manningham-Buller for example, though the former head of MI5, is actually a surprisingly strong critic of such surveillance. Esp when it's over seas.
- toyg 11y ago
  David Davis, will all due respect, is completely isolated in his own party and mostly fulfils a theatrical role these days.

tim333 11y ago

The software seems kind of irrelevant to me. They recently arrested the main opposition and threw them in jail on trumped up charges. You don't need software for that. >Police arrested the country’s main opposition leader and a dozen other officials from his party in dawn raids on Thursday, as President Yoweri Museveni scaled up efforts to thwart a mounting challenge to his three-decade rule. http://www.wsj.com/articles/ugandan-opposition-leader-kizza-besigye-arrested-on-public-order-charge-1444922283 http://www.wsj.com/articles/ugandan-opposition-leader-kizza-...

d4nt 11y ago

I don't think the technology, and who sold it to whom, is the real story here. We all know that the NSA and GCHQ have similar capabilities. I imagine China, Russia and several other states do too. The point is, this power will corrupt. Consider this quote: > people deemed dangerous to state security like government officials and opposition politicians are being surveilled What happens if Labour look likely to win the election and someone decides Jeremy Corbyn is "dangerous to state security" because he opposes renewing Trident. What institutions exist to ensure that he can't be surveilled?

marrs 11y ago
This has likely happened before during the cold war when there were concerns that communists had infiltrated the Labour party. Harold Wilson famously believed he was being spied on throughout his term as prime minister
- branchless 11y ago
  And in fact it turned out that they should have been looking at Cambridge and who the Queen kept company with. Whoops.
pjc50 11y ago
What institutions exist to ensure that he can't be surveilled? Realistically, none. It's probably contrary to ECHR - mass surveillance definitely is - but that makes little difference. We're almost back to the days of A Very British Coup. There have already been generals threatening this: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3241904/We-won-t-stand-Army-brass-warn-MUTINY-Jeremy-Corbyn-Prime-Minister.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3241904/We-won-t-sta...
cryoshon 11y ago
You're assuming/implying he isn't already being surveilled. For all n, n is being surveilled. The only question at this point is whether that information is used for blackmail today, or at some point in the future. If so and so is "dangerous to state security" today, then it's today. If he's inconvenient later, then it's later.

IllusoryReverb 11y ago

If these allegations are true, then I find it hard to imagine a fair and just society arising in these countries. It would appear to me that autocratic governments are being given additional tools to retain power and more control over young democracies which have not yet developed the institutions necessary to 'self-correct' or reverse/prevent the abuse of such tools. In my view, it is those who are most likely to agitate for a more democratic society and create institutions that demand for accountability who will be targeted and silenced. This will deny those countries of the very people who are needed to create the kind of country that their citizens dream of. Imagine such tools in the hands of the British during the time of the birth of the United States. I am left with a bitter taste in my mouth. I am not quick to see a dystopian future, but it will make it harder for needed change to come. I welcome any alternative viewpoints that can shed a kinder light on this situation.

iamthepieman 11y ago

The article is awfully light on what exactly was sold to the Ugandan government. The article states the technology can be used, "to spy on the enemy, collect data, intrude enemy systems, intercept enemy communication and also manipulate transmissions. "It can covertly be deployed in buildings, vehicles, computers, mobile phones, cameras and any other equipment deemed worthy for information extraction or surveillance." I mean from the article it could be anything - a software interface on top of standard CCTV cameras, voice activated microphones on government and government sympathizer personal electronic devices or just a piece of analytic software for parsing through data they've already collected. Doing a bit more digging it appears that Finfisher (the tech sold to Uganda by Gamma Group) is a spyware tool that uses common security exploits including phishing and social engineering to infect target devices and monitor them. It appears to do this in a somewhat automated, click-to-launch, way.

wavefunction 11y ago
Come on, the important part is "intrude enemy systems, intercept enemy communication and manipulate transmissions" The big red flag for you should be "enemy" rather than "someone I disagree with politically."