• Affaire des cabinets de conseil : perquisition au ministère de la santé dans le cadre d’une information judiciaire pour « favoritisme »
    https://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2024/05/29/perquisition-au-ministere-de-la-sante-dans-l-affaire-des-cabinets-de-conseil

    Les gendarmes de la section de recherches de Paris ont perquisitionné le siège du ministère, ciblant le recours croissant par l’Etat aux cabinets de conseil, dont McKinsey, étroitement lié au chef de l’Etat.
    Par Samuel Laurent et Adrien Sénécat

    L’affaire concernant le recours aux cabinets de conseil connaît un nouvel épisode. Selon nos informations, confirmées de source judiciaire, les enquêteurs de la section de recherches de Paris ont procédé, mercredi 29 mai, à une perquisition au siège du ministère de la santé, rue de Ségur, à Paris, en présence des magistrats instructeurs.
    Cette perquisition est menée dans le cadre d’une information judiciaire ouverte le 21 octobre 2022 par le Parquet national financier (PNF) pour #favoritisme et #recel_de_favoritisme, à la suite d’un rapport de la commission d’enquête sénatoriale sur l’influence des cabinets de conseil privés sur les #politiques_publiques.

    Rendus publics le 16 mars 2022, les travaux de la commission sénatoriale, pilotée par Eliane Assassi (Parti communiste français) et Arnaud Bazin (Les Républicains), avaient pointé le « recours massif et croissant » par les services de l’Etat aux cabinets de conseil comme #Accenture, #CapGemini ou McKinsey : un peu moins d’un milliard d’euros pour l’année 2021, soit plus du double des 379 millions d’euros dépensés en 2018.

    Le rapport fustigeait globalement le « réflexe » du recours accru à ces sociétés privées pour assumer des missions relevant en principe de la compétence de la puissance publique, et décrivait un « phénomène tentaculaire », qui posait la question de la « souveraineté » de l’Etat face à ces cabinets. Il notait également le coût de ces multiples contrats : 3 millions d’euros pour la création, par CapGemini, d’un « baromètre des résultats de l’action publique » ; 2,15 millions pour « l’appui » de Roland Berger à la réforme de la formation professionnelle.

    Optimisation fiscale [ici, pour ne pas dire fraude fiscale]

    Un rapport de la Cour des comptes, dévoilé par Le Monde en décembre 2022, avait par ailleurs épinglé plus précisément le rôle de ces cabinets de conseil durant la pandémie de #Covid-19. Plus de 50 millions d’euros ont été dépensés pour des prestations de leur part, notamment en matière informatique. Si le ministre de la santé de l’époque, Olivier Véran, avait assuré que tout était « super clair et transparent », la Cour n’était pas de cet avis.

    Pour elle, nombre de ces dépenses posaient question quant au respect du droit de la commande publique, et l’urgence sanitaire, souvent invoquée par l’exécutif, ne pouvait suffire à tout justifier – « en période de guerre, regarde-t-on qui prépare les munitions, à quel endroit on le fait et si les munitions sont bien transférées dans l’arsenal ? » [ben oui], demandait Olivier Véran, alors ministre de la santé, face au Sénat, en février 2022. « L’urgence impérieuse a systématiquement été invoquée pour passer les marchés dans des délais courts sans mise en concurrence, ni négociation », regrettait la Cour, estimant que, dans certains cas, les missions confiées aux cabinets de conseil relevaient « du cœur de missions de service public » et auraient « pu être prises en charge par le ministère ».

    Elle s’interrogeait aussi sur les conditions d’attribution à certains cabinets de marchés-clés « sans mise en concurrence ni négociation ». Parmi ces cabinets figurait en premier lieu le cabinet McKinsey, bénéficiaire de sept contrats autour de la campagne de vaccination contre le Covid-19, pour un total de 11,6 millions d’euros.
    La « Firme », comme on surnomme ce géant américain, au chiffre d’affaires de 15 milliards d’euros (dont 329 millions d’euros en France), avait selon la commission sénatoriale, réussi à ne quasiment pas payer d’#impôt_sur_les_sociétés de 2011 à 2021. Le PNF a ouvert, le 31 mars 2022, une information judiciaire pour #blanchiment_aggravé et fraude fiscale aggravée, ciblant les pratiques d’optimisation fiscale du groupe américain. Le siège français de McKinsey a été perquisitionné le 24 mai 2022 dans ce dossier.

    Des liens étroits avec Emmanuel Macron

    Si McKinsey est au cœur des enquêtes et des polémiques, c’est aussi pour une autre raison, relevée par plusieurs enquêtes journalistiques, notamment celle du Monde, en février 2021 : la « Firme » entretient de longue date des liens étroits avec le candidat, puis chef de l’Etat, Emmanuel Macron. Les « MacronLeaks », cette fuite de données qui avait rendu publics des milliers de courriels internes de la campagne, ont montré que plusieurs hauts responsables de McKinsey, comme Karim Tadjeddine, qui a connu M. Macron au sein de la commission Attali en 2010, étaient au cœur du dispositif du futur chef de l’Etat en 2017. Une activité militante qu’ils exerçaient pro bono, sans être rémunérés, assurent-ils.

    La collusion [ici pour concomitence] entre cette présence d’importants cadres de McKinsey dans l’entourage proche du candidat Macron et la hausse importante du recours par l’Etat aux services des #cabinets_de_conseil ne pouvait que soulever des interrogations, balayées d’un revers de main par le candidat Macron, sur France 3, le 27 mars 2022 : « On a l’impression qu’il y a des combines ; c’est faux », s’était agacé le chef de l’Etat, ajoutant : « S’il y a des preuves de manipulation, que ça aille au pénal. »

    La justice l’a entendu : en novembre 2022, le Parquet national financier (#PNF) confirmait que trois procédures pénales étaient ouvertes. L’une ciblant les soupçons de fraude fiscale concernant McKinsey, une seconde, ouverte le 20 octobre 2022 à la suite de plusieurs signalements, se concentre sur les comptes de campagne d’Emmanuel #Macron pour 2017 et 2022 et vise à éclaircir les conditions d’intervention du cabinet McKinsey dans la campagne.

    Enfin, la troisième information judiciaire, ouverte le 21 octobre 2022, s’intéresse à un éventuel « favoritisme » dont aurait bénéficié #McKinsey par rapport à ses concurrents. C’est dans ce cadre que les gendarmes de la section de recherches de Paris ont procédé à cette perquisition rue de Ségur. Le PNF confirme par ailleurs au Monde que « l’enquête préliminaire sur le volet #fraude_fiscale, ainsi que l’information judiciaire sur le volet campagne présidentielle sont toujours en cours, notamment avec l’exploitation des documents saisis en perquisition ».

  • Comment la société française a appris à mépriser les « paysans » et leurs « #patois »

    Les manifestations récentes par lesquelles le monde agricole français a fait entendre ses protestations et ses revendications ont, une fois de plus, fait apparaître des différences profondes, voire des fractures, entre le monde rural et le monde urbain et plus encore entre des images valorisantes de l’urbanité et dévalorisantes de la ruralité.

    La France moderne a été construite depuis Paris, lieu de la puissance politique, en développant un sentiment de supériorité de la capitale sur « la province » (le singulier est significatif) et des villes (supposées modernes) sur les campagnes (supposées arriérées). Au lieu d’être fédérale, vu sa diversité, « la France est un pays dont l’unité a été construite à coups de cravache […] par l’autorité de l’État central », selon Jean Viard.

    Les normes sociales valorisées ont donc été celles, urbaines, de la ville-capitale érigée en phare de l’État hypercentralisé. On le voit, par exemple, dans le fait qu’en français le mot urbain a le double sens « de la ville » et « poli, courtois » et que le mot paysan a le double sens de « rural, agricole » et « rustre, grossier ». Ce mode de relation est clairement confirmé par une analyse sociolinguistique plus large, comme on va le voir ci-après. En effet, la sociolinguistique a pour but d’étudier principalement deux choses : les effets de l’organisation d’une société sur les langues qu’on y parle et ce que la place faite aux langues révèle de l’organisation de cette société.
    Paris, ses bourgeois et leur langue érigés en modèle

    C’est en effet la langue de la capitale qui a été imposée notamment à partir de la Révolution française à l’ensemble des populations progressivement rattachées à la France. Elle est considérée comme la langue « normale » en France. Et c’est le français des classes supérieures parisiennes qui a été prescrit comme modèle d’expression. Ainsi le grammairien Vaugelas définissait-il ce « bon français » en 1647 :

    « La façon de parler de la plus saine partie de la Cour […] Quand je dis la cour, j’y comprends les femmes comme les hommes, et plusieurs personnes de la ville où le prince réside. »

    La prétendue supériorité universelle du français, par opposition à toutes les autres langues et d’autant plus aux « patois régionaux », affirmée dès 1784 par le pamphlétaire Rivarol, est régulièrement reprise dans les discours étatiques jusqu’à aujourd’hui, par exemple par le président de la République lui-même lorsqu’il inaugure une cité qui cultive les mythes sur la langue française.

    Tout au long du XIXe siècle, la construction de la nation française passe par cette vision de la langue française, que l’école de la IIIe République (1870-1940) est chargée de mettre en œuvre de façon particulièrement offensive.

    En 1951, le phonéticien Pierre Fouché poursuit cette vision suprémaciste de la langue de Paris et de ses classes dominantes en établissant pour l’enseignement une norme de prononciation du français sur le modèle d’une « conversation soignée chez des Parisiens cultivés ».
    Les « patois pauvres et corrompus » des campagnes « provinciales »

    Quant aux autres langues de France, comme on les appelle depuis 1999, elles ont, à l’inverse, été disqualifiées par le nom de « patois » au départ méprisant, par l’association au seul monde rural et à une arriération prétendue. L’origine du mot « patois » est discutée, mais il est très probable qu’il vienne du verbe « patoiller » qui veut dire soit « marcher dans la boue, barboter, patauger », soit « gesticuler, parler en faisant des signes avec les mains ». Dans les deux cas, c’est un terme péjoratif à l’origine.

    Or, tout ceci est doublement faux : ces langues étaient aussi celles des villes (à Marseille par exemple le provençal était la langue générale jusque dans les années 1920) et d’intellectuels (Frédéric Mistral, licencié en droit, a reçu le prix Nobel de littérature pour son œuvre toute en provençal).

    Mais les préjugés sont fondés sur un aveuglement pour ne voir que ce que l’on veut voir. Ainsi, on lit dans l’Encyclopédie (1765) :

    « Patois : Langage corrompu tel qu’il se parle presque dans toutes les provinces : chacune a son patois ; ainsi nous avons le patois bourguignon, le patois normand, le patois champenois, le patois gascon, le patois provençal, etc. On ne parle la langue que dans la capitale. »

    Le Dictionnaire de Furetière (1690) précisait :

    « Langage corrompu et grossier tel que celui du menu peuple, des paysans, et des enfants qui ne savent pas encore bien prononcer. »

    À la création de la 1ere République française, ses responsables considéraient ainsi que dans les provinces on parlait « ces jargons barbares et ces idiomes grossiers » à « éradiquer » (Rapport Barrère, publié en 1794). Pourquoi ? Parce que « nous n’avons plus de provinces et nous avons encore environ trente patois qui en rappellent les noms » dont « deux idiomes très dégénérés » et parce que « l’homme des campagnes, peu accoutumé à généraliser ses idées, manquera toujours de termes abstraits » à cause de cette « inévitable pauvreté de langage, qui resserre l’esprit » disait le Rapport Grégoire (publié en 1794). Il ajoutait « les nègres de nos colonies, dont vous avez fait des hommes, ont une espèce d’idiome pauvre », ne mesurant pas le racisme linguistique de son propos.

    Le mépris des provinciaux, des ruraux et de leurs langues, alimentés par ces préjugés conjugués, a été sans borne. Il a culminé au XIXe siècle sous la forme d’un véritable racisme, dont celui contre les Bretons ou les Méridionaux, bien attesté.

    À l’époque l’étude scientifique des langues n’existait pas encore. La sociolinguistique, qui se développe à partir des années 1950-1970, a montré par la suite que toutes les langues sont égales (y compris celles dites « patois ») : aucune n’est supérieure ou inférieure à une autre en raison de ses caractéristiques proprement linguistiques. Ce sont les hiérarchisations sociales qui se reflètent en hiérarchisation des langues ou de leurs variétés locales ou sociales particulières.

    Hélas, comme on l’observe trop souvent et encore plus à l’époque des « fake news », les connaissances scientifiques ont du mal à remplacer les croyances répandues dans l’opinion publique. C’est d’autant plus le cas quand il s’agit de langues en France, pays où a été instaurée une véritable religion nationale de la langue française accompagnée d’une sorte d’excommunication des autres langues.

    En conséquence, cette conception est encore présente de nos jours. Le Trésor de la Langue française (CNRS) la décrit ainsi :

    « Patois : Parler essentiellement oral, pratiqué dans une localité ou un groupe de localités, principalement rurales. Système linguistique restreint fonctionnant en un point déterminé ou dans un espace géographique réduit, sans statut culturel et social stable […]. Langage obscur et inintelligible. Synonymes : baragouin, charabia, jargon. »

    Le « plouc » et son parler aussi méprisés l’un que l’autre

    Aujourd’hui encore, le stéréotype du « plouc » est fortement voire principalement constitué de caractéristiques linguistiques (“phrase, accent, prononciation, langue”), comme le montre l’étude de Corentin Roquebert, qui conclut :

    « On peut relever l’association forte entre des catégories et des objets plus ou moins valorisés socialement, ce qui favorise l’expression d’un jugement social positif ou négatif sur une population : le beauf comme personnage raciste et sexiste, le hipster branché et cool qui n’aime pas le mainstream, la prononciation et l’accent du plouc. »

    Les préjugés glottophobes contre des « patois » supposés employés (uniquement) par des « paysans » sont toujours là. Et même quand les « paysans » et autres « provinciaux » ont finalement adopté le français, bon gré mal gré, on continue à stigmatiser les traces de leurs “patois” dans leurs façons de parler français : mots locaux, expressions, tournures, et surtout accent…

    Le pseudo raisonnement, fondé sur des préjugés, est circulaire : les « patois » ne sont pas de vraies langues puisqu’ils sont parlés par des « paysans »/les « paysans » sont des rustres puisqu’ils parlent « patois ». Les deux stéréotypes négatifs projetés simultanément sur les « paysans » et sur les « patois » (ou les « accents » qu’il en reste), associés les uns aux autres, se renforcent réciproquement et produisent un mépris de classe renforcé.

    https://theconversation.com/comment-la-societe-francaise-a-appris-a-mepriser-les-paysans-et-leu

    #mépris #France #fracture #rural #urbain #villes #campagnes #ruralité #dévalorisation #province #ville-capitale #centralisme #sociolinguistique #langue #bon_français #patois_régionaux #langues_régionales #Rivarol #mythe #nation #Etat-nation #Pierre_Fouché #préjugés #aveuglement #racisme_linguistique #préjugés #racisme #hiérarchisation #plouc #accents #mépris_de_classe

    • Le rapport de domination, en France, entre la capitale et le reste du pays est un fait difficilement contestable. Comme l’indique ce texte, cela se voit notamment par l’obligation, dictée par le pouvoir central d’État, établi à Paris, d’adopter sur tout le territoire la même langue. Pour autant, cet héritage centralisateur ne me semble pas être la seule explication dans la construction d’une idéologie de classe méprisante à l’encontre du monde paysan.

      On pourrait croire, en lisant ce texte, que le pays se résumait à un clivage entre Paris et « la province », cette dernière étant assimilée au « monde paysan », or le pays a compté quand même nombres de grandes villes sur le territoire, qui ont constitué autant de métropoles locales dont l’importance dans le développement du capitalisme en France a été tout aussi déterminante que celle de Paris. Ce n’est pas pour rien qu’aujourd’hui, le concept politique de « métropole » fait vibrer nombre de représentants de la classe dominante en Europe, y compris en France (et en Île-de-France).

      Témoignage personnel anecdotique : une partie de ma famille est nantaise et j’ai été frappé de constater à quel point les expressions de mépris anti-paysan, quasi-raciste, revenaient dans les propos de mes oncles et tantes. Cela dépasse de loin ce que j’ai entendu, en comparaison, à Paris, en tous cas, pour cette génération-là.

  • Présidentielle : Fabien Roussel propose sa « révolution du travail » – Libération
    https://www.liberation.fr/politique/pcf-fabien-roussel-propose-sa-revolution-du-travail-20220124_4CLAO2QVFRBQ

    On peut décrypter, analyser tous les discours politiques, mais je ne vois pas l’intérêt de souligner l’accent du Nord du candidat, sans doute pas assez BCBG pour la journaliste de Libé...

    Pour financer tout ça, les communistes comptent sur la « création de richesse par le travail » et la réindustrialisation de la France. « Le grand déménagement de la France se poursuit en ce moment même », dénonce Roussel qui veut arrêter cette « saignée ». Ils promettent aussi d’aller chercher « le blé », « le pognon », les « milliards » ( il dit « miyards » ) où il est en triplant l’ISF et en nationalisant les grandes banques et compagnies d’assurance privées.

    #accent_de_chnord #Fabien_Roussel

  • Nos amis consultants : +1
    (via Mediapart)

    Accenture et McKinsey embauchés par l’Etat pour faire un milliard d’économies

    Par Romaric Godin et Antton Rouget

    Bercy vient de confier à Accenture et McKinsey l’élaboration d’un plan d’économies d’au moins un milliard d’euros d’ici 2022, d’après nos informations. Ces deux cabinets profitent déjà des carences de l’État dans la gestion de la crise sanitaire.

    J’ai l’impression que, outre remplir les poches des potes avec de l’argent public, l’objectif est surtout de rendre opaques les décisions en question.

    Ils achètent un service de boîte noire.

    Déléguer au privé, surtout celui là, réputé pour sa « discrétion », ça implique que l’administration ne sera pas au courant des plans et propositions ; ni les journalistes ; ni les députés. Ensuite, mise devant le fait accompli ; il reste un an et demi.

    #McKinsley #Accenture #Consulting

    #foutage_de_gueule

    • Le marché a été, dès le départ, alloti en deux parties par Bercy. Le premier lot, pour lequel Accenture a été retenu au mois de novembre 2020, se concentre sur les services de l’État, pour lesquels le besoin minimal en terme d’économies à réaliser a été fixé par Bercy à 800 millions d’euros. Le montant de ce lot est estimé à 25 millions d’euros.

      Le lot de McKinsey c’est 18 millions, selon les calculs de Mediapart.

      Dans les 45 millions, au total pour l’ensemble des deux lots.

    • en résumé, utiliser McKinsey présente plusieurs avantages :

      – McKinsey recommande ce qui convient au client (ici : Macron)
      – McKinsey garantit l’opacité du processus de réforme
      – les cibles - les fonctionnaires, les usagers - sont écartés des discussions et mis devant le fait accompli (stratégie du choc)
      – remplir les poches des amis avec de l’argent public permet de saigner un peu plus la cible.

  • Vaccination contre le Covid-19 : une faille béante dans le secret médical, Antton Rouget
    https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/france/270121/vaccination-contre-le-covid-19-une-faille-beante-dans-le-secret-medical

    Par manque d’anticipation, l’assurance-maladie n’a eu qu’un mois et demi pour développer le système informatique de suivi de la campagne de vaccination. Selon nos informations, celui-ci souffre de plusieurs failles : il permet à un médecin d’accéder à tous les dossiers des Français tandis que la procédure de signalement des effets indésirables a été mise en œuvre a minima.

    C’est un nouveau raté de taille dans la gestion de la crise sanitaire. Le système d’information (SI-Vaccin Covid) mis en place par la Caisse nationale d’assurance-maladie (Cnam) pour le suivi de la campagne de vaccination en France présente d’importantes brèches et insuffisances, selon les éléments réunis par Mediapart.

    Ces loupés sont la conséquence d’une mise en route tardive du système après plusieurs mois d’inertie des autorités, malgré les mises en garde de spécialistes de vaccination depuis le printemps dernier. À l’époque, alors que les labos s’engageaient à toute vitesse dans la course aux vaccins, les professionnels alertaient sur les enjeux liés à l’anticipation d’une campagne de vaccination d’envergure.

    Il a pourtant fallu attendre l’automne 2020 pour que le projet de SI soit mis en route au ministère de la santé. Et encore : il a continué à prendre du retard en étant ballotté pendant des semaines de décision en contre-décision. 

    Ces problèmes ont eu une incidence importante sur le déroulé des opérations. D’un point de vue de la sécurité des données, d’abord, puisque le SI-Vaccin Covid qui tourne depuis le 4 janvier s’apparente à une véritable passoire.

    Concrètement, le système permet le suivi de la campagne de vaccination en enregistrant toutes les consultations, les numéros de lots utilisés, les dates et lieux des injections, le nom du praticien, etc. Pour ce faire, les vaccinateurs doivent s’identifier sur le portail de la Cnam avec leur carte de professionnel de santé (CPS ou e-CPS) pour enregistrer chaque acte, pour lequel ils sont ensuite remboursés.

    Mais, une fois à l’intérieur du système, ils peuvent aussi accéder au dossier de n’importe quel patient sans autorisation particulière, ainsi que nous avons pu le vérifier. Pour cela, il leur suffit de renseigner le numéro de Sécurité sociale de la personne concernée, un numéro que l’on peut reconstituer facilement à partir des données d’état civil. Des applications accessibles à tous permettent même de générer ces numéros automatiquement.

    Dès lors, un professionnel de santé peut consulter la fiche d’un proche, d’un voisin ou même d’une personnalité publique, et accéder à ses données de vaccination sans être son médecin traitant ni recueillir son consentement.

    Interrogés sur cette situation, les services de la Cnam ont nié toute « faille » dans le système en estimant qu’« il appartient au médecin de procéder à une recherche ou à un enregistrement uniquement et exclusivement pour ses patients ». « Il s’agit là des règles courantes relatives à l’exercice professionnel de médecins qui sont soumis au secret médical et dont l’encadrement de la profession est très strict. Estimer que cela relève d’une faille de sécurité consisterait donc à considérer que, par nature, les médecins ne respectent pas leurs obligations, ni la déontologie à laquelle ils sont réglementairement soumis », ajoute la Cnam, qui rappelle que les accès sont tracés.

    Dans son avis du 10 décembre sur le SI-Vaccin Covid, alors en projet, la Commission nationale de l’informatique et des libertés (Cnil) avait estimé nécessaire de rappeler que les données traitées dans le cadre du système seraient protégées par le secret médical. À cet égard, la commission insistait sur le fait que « seules les personnes habilitées et soumises au secret professionnel doivent pouvoir accéder aux données du SI “Vaccin Covid”, dans les strictes limites de leur besoin d’en connaître pour l’exercice de leurs missions ». En clair, la Cnil réclamait un cloisonnement strict des données accessibles par les professionnels de santé.

    « Il appartient donc au responsable de traitement de définir pour chaque destinataire des profils fonctionnels strictement limités aux besoins d’en connaître pour l’exercice des missions des personnes habilitées », ajoutait d’ailleurs la Cnil, en réclamant que soient prises des mesures « dès que possible » afin que les personnes habilitées ne « puissent accéder aux différentes données relatives aux personnes concernées que lorsqu’elles en ont effectivement besoin ».

    Alors que ce cloisonnement technique au « besoin d’en connaître » n’est aujourd’hui pas assuré, la Cnil précise à Mediapart que ses contrôles « seront conduits dans les prochaines semaines » et qu’ils se « poursuivront tout au long de la période d’utilisation des fichiers, jusqu’à la fin de leur mise en œuvre et la suppression des données qu’ils contiennent ». « Dans ce cadre, prévient la commission, la sécurité des données, notamment les profils d’habilitation et permissions d’accès, fera l’objet d’une vigilance particulière. »

    De l’aveu de plusieurs sources, ce dysfonctionnement est la conséquence du calendrier extrêmement serré pour la mise en œuvre du système. Pour le déployer dans une version « dégradée » (a minima) en janvier, les équipes de la Cnam ont charbonné pendant tout le mois de décembre. Mais le retard était impossible à combler. « On ne peut pas sérieusement monter un système de cette importance, avec tous les audits nécessaires, en quelques semaines », gronde un expert.

    De fait, difficile de blâmer les équipes au cœur du projet. Le problème se situe bien en amont, tout en haut de la chaîne de décision, prenant sa source dans un défaut d’anticipation comparable à celui sur les commandes de masques ou sur la campagne de dépistage.

    La réunion de « lancement et d’organisation du projet » ne s’est tenue au ministère des solidarités et de la santé que le 17 novembre, moins d’un mois et demi avant le lancement de la campagne de vaccination, selon des documents internes consultés par Mediapart.

    À l’ordre du jour : une présentation globale du périmètre du système informatique, un macro-planning et l’organisation de la gouvernance d’un projet qui rassemble plusieurs acteurs. Sont en effet associées à l’initiative la Cnam, la délégation ministérielle du numérique en santé (DNS), mais aussi Santé publique France (SPF, pour les aspects logistiques), l’Agence nationale de sécurité du médicament (ANSM, pour le suivi des effets indésirables), l’Agence nationale de la sécurité des systèmes d’information (Anssi, pour la partie sécurité) ou encore la Haute Autorité de santé (HAS, pour les recommandations vaccinales). Autant d’acteurs que d’enjeux à maîtriser et coordonner.

    Les équipes du ministère de la santé n’ont pas caché, lors de cette réunion du 17 novembre, la réalité « des risques opérationnels principalement liés aux délais de mises en œuvre techniques et juridiques » du dispositif. À cette difficulté s’ajoute alors le « fort besoin d’intégration entre plusieurs SI », en particulier celui que développait au même moment Santé publique France (SPF) pour la distribution des doses de vaccin.

    Pour essayer de tenir les délais, plusieurs points quotidiens sont ensuite organisés, en fin de journée, pour le pilotage du projet et la coordination opérationnelle. Il faut faire vite, car l’État est déjà en retard sur tous ces objectifs, même les moins ambitieux.


    Exemple de fiche patient (anonymisée) consultable par n’importe quel praticien. © Document Mediapart

    En octobre, la DNS est déjà consciente que les délais seront difficiles à tenir alors qu’elle table à l’époque sur un lancement du système au 15 janvier seulement (le SI sera finalement ouvert le 4 janvier).

    Le ministère de la santé envisage à cette période de s’appuyer sur l’expertise de prestataires privés, sélectionnés sans publicité ni mise en concurrence, au motif de l’urgence impérieuse. Un directeur de projet est recruté en toute hâte. Problème : aussi bon soit-il sur les aspects numériques, il ne connaît rien à la vaccination et aux enjeux qui lui sont propres, puisqu’il vient d’un groupe hôtelier. L’homme travaille pendant quelques semaines, avec une adresse Gmail fournie par Google (et non une adresse officielle), avant de quitter ses fonctions.

    Au cours de ce même mois d’octobre, tout reste à faire : la DNS en est encore à préciser qu’il faut « prendre contact avec nos homologues européens pour benchmark, et étudier la possibilité d’une action conjointe ». Il convient d’« inscrire le sujet SI » à l’agenda du groupe de contacts mis en place par une inspectrice des finances au sein de la « Task Force Vaccination » que vient de créer le premier ministre Jean Castex, demande-t-on alors au ministère de la santé.

    L’entreprise américaine de conseil Accenture des deux côtés du marché

    Pour trouver un prestataire capable de porter le SI français, la DNS auditionne dans le même temps trois candidats, qui se sont volontairement manifestés auprès d’elle. S’affrontent sans le savoir le laboratoire américain Baxter, la multinationale du conseil informatique Accenture et une solution française MesVaccins, portée par la PME Syadem, basée à Bordeaux.

    La proposition de Baxter est rapidement écartée : sa solution paraît « peu adaptable » aux besoins français, sans compter les dégâts que provoquerait dans l’opinion le fait de confier la gestion de données médicales à une entreprise de l’industrie pharmaceutique…

    La candidature d’Accenture pose aussi question : la délégation ministérielle au numérique en santé (DNS) reconnaît que l’entreprise est bien implantée dans les SI, même s’il y a des « développements à effectuer pour adaptation aux besoins de la France ». Mais il y a surtout un « sujet » sur la protection des données personnelles. Accenture travaille par exemple en partenariat avec Microsoft, à qui le ministre de la santé Olivier Véran veut justement retirer l’hébergement des données du Health Data Hub pour les confier à une entreprise européenne.


    Atouts et inconvénients d’Accenture, selon le ministère de la santé. © Document Mediapart

    Reste l’offre MesVaccins qui présente des atouts, selon la DNS : il s’agit d’une « entreprise experte des SI de vaccination » qui est « proche des acteurs publics », avec une « équipe motivée et réactive », et des « données hébergées en France » et non commercialisées.

    Créé en 2009, MesVaccins est un carnet de vaccination électronique (CVE) permettant à chaque patient de gérer gratuitement ses vaccinations. Le dispositif intègre aussi un « système expert » d’aide à la décision vaccinale prenant en compte les caractéristiques individuelles et l’historique vaccinal de chaque personne pour l’aider à évaluer le bénéfice/risque.

    En août 2019, l’Agence nationale de sécurité du médicament (ANSM) a aussi recommandé son système de pharmacovigilance renforcée (détection proactive des effets indésirables) dans le cadre du déploiement du vaccin contre le virus Ebola. Des discussions pour intégrer MesVaccins au dossier médical partagé (DMP) mis à disposition du public par la Cnam sont également en cours depuis plusieurs années.

    Au mois d’octobre 2020, le ministère de la santé a malgré tout un doute concernant la taille de Syadem, l’entreprise qui développe cette solution : la PME est une « petite structure » ; sa « capacité de montée en charge » sur un projet aussi stratégique que le SI-Vac reste donc « à investiguer », estime la DNS.

    Pour s’assurer que la PME a bien les reins suffisamment solides, le ministère décide, le 3 novembre, d’auditer l’entreprise. Elle confie curieusement cette tâche à… Accenture, qui passe ainsi subitement de candidat au marché à assistant à maîtrise d’ouvrage (AMO) du même marché.

    Interrogée sur le périmètre exact de son contrat avec le ministère de la santé, la firme américaine n’a pas souhaité répondre « pour des raisons de confidentialité ». Le 21 janvier, le ministère de la santé avait simplement signifié, sans plus de détails, à France Info qu’il « a été fait appel au cabinet Accenture pour le lancement, l’enrichissement et l’accompagnement de la mise en œuvre du SI vaccination ».

    Sollicitée par Mediapart depuis le 12 janvier, la direction générale de la santé (DGS) nous a finalement répondu, juste après la publication de cet article pour nous préciser sa relation contractuelle avec Accenture. Dans le cadre d’un contrat cadre de 2018 à 2022 (permet à chaque ministère, de ne pas avoir à remettre en concurrence les titulaires sélectionnés initialement), le ministère a commandé une première mission d’« étude stratégique autour du lancement du SI Vaccination », dont l’assistance « aux choix structurants » et à la « mise en œuvre de la phase initiale » pour un montant de 388 500 euros TTC.

    Ce contrat a été notifié le 20 novembre 2020, pour une date de fin au 8 janvier 2021 La date de signature de la mission est étonnante, puisqu’elle est postérieure au début de l’audit mené par Accenture auprès de MesVaccins, ce qui signifie donc que le cabinet a travaillé pendant plusieurs semaines pour le ministère sans contrat...

    Pendant deux semaines, le géant américain a passé au peigne fin les capacités de la PME bordelaise. Tous les voyants sont au vert. Et le 17 novembre, Accenture présente deux options au ministère de la santé.

    Un premier scénario dans lequel MesVaccins vient en renfort de l’État et apporte des « services spécifiques » à la campagne de vaccination (questionnaire pré-vaccinal, détermination de l’éligibilité vaccinale et des contre-indications vaccinales, aide à la décision vaccinale, gestion d’éventuelles interférences entre différents vaccins, etc.). La partie « pharmacovigilance renforcée » et l’analyse des données restent du domaine exclusif de l’État. Dans le second scénario, MesVaccins devient un acteur central de la chaîne de vaccination, même si les dossiers patients, le suivi vaccinal et les certificats de vaccination sont encore gérés par l’État.

    Les équipes du ministère n’ont pas le temps de se prononcer sur ces deux options qu’au même moment, à un échelon supérieur, tout le travail préparatoire est balayé d’un revers de main. La « Task Force Vaccination » qui fonctionne sous l’autorité du premier ministre vient de changer brutalement de cap : plus question de faire appel à un prestataire spécialisé, il faut maintenant que le SI soit développé par les développeurs de la Cnam en interne.

    Quels sont les motifs de ce revirement, et pourquoi n’a-t-il pas été anticipé ? Matignon ne nous a pas répondu.

    La Cnam invoque pour sa part des raisons techniques en indiquant qu’au terme d’un « sourcing » qui aurait été réalisé à « l’été 2020 », aucune « solution n’était en mesure d’apporter les garanties suffisantes ». Dans ce cas-là, pourquoi le ministère de la santé a-t-il organisé des consultations avec plusieurs candidats en octobre, puis demandé à Accenture d’auditer MesVaccins, et qu’a-t-il été fait des conclusions favorables du rapport d’audit ? Relancée sur ce point, la Cnam admet juste que les « échanges se sont poursuivis à l’automne » avec des prestataires, sans en dire plus.

    Le cabinet Accenture est pour sa part revenu dans la boucle avec une mission d’« enrichissement et accompagnement à la mise en œuvre du SI Vaccination », signée le 23 décembre 2020, et qui court jusqu’au 26 mars 2021, pour un montant de 594 540 euros, selon les chiffres communiqués par la DGS.

    « Quand il est sous pression, l’État craint toujours de faire appel à une PME. Il y a toujours quelqu’un qui dit : “Mais attendez, est-ce qu’ils sont vraiment fiables ?” Si ça ne marche pas, on nous tombera dessus en disant : “Pourquoi vous avez pris ces zozos ?” Par sécurité, l’État se tourne donc automatiquement vers de gros acteurs », interprète un entrepreneur du numérique, qui fut notamment mobilisé sur l’application StopCovid.

    Début 2020, les PME spécialisées dans l’import-export de masques depuis la Chine avaient vécu la même déconvenue. Malgré leur connaissance du marché et leur réactivité, elles avaient été ignorées par l’État, lequel avait préféré faire appel à des grandes entreprises, qui pour certaines ne connaissaient rien aux dispositifs médicaux.
    Les revirements entre le ministère de la santé et la Task Force ont en tout cas fait perdre de précieuses semaines, et suscité l’incompréhension de plusieurs parties prenantes. « Après avoir mobilisé 100 % de nos équipes pendant six semaines et répondu à toutes les attentes, on n’a plus eu de nouvelles du jour au lendemain », déplore Jean-Louis Koeck, le fondateur de MesVaccins.

    Des alertes depuis le printemps

    « Nous avions entre les mains une solution disponible, dont l’intégration au dossier médical partagé de l’assurance-maladie est en cours, mais on a préféré repartir de zéro », s’étonne un ancien responsable SI Santé, qui note que Nicolas Revel, le puissant directeur de cabinet Jean Castex, connaît d’autant mieux le sujet qu’il a dirigé la Cnam de 2014 à juillet 2020.

    Le gouvernement a-t-il simplement craint de confier une partie, même minime, de l’expertise à un acteur privé ? « Mais, dans ce cas-là, pourquoi l’État refuse-t-il un partenariat avec une PME comme MesVaccins alors qu’il ouvre grand les portes à Doctolib pour la prise de rendez-vous ? », interroge un autre spécialiste.

    Le médecin Marcel Garrigou-Grandchamp, de la cellule juridique de la Fédération des médecins de France (FMF), abonde : « L’argument de ne pas voir entrer le privé ne tient avec le contre-exemple Doctolib. » Lui « pense que d’autres acteurs privés plus gros que MesVaccins veulent lui barrer la route en attendant d’imposer leur solution, c’est bien dommage ».

    « On a la chance d’avoir en France un système très précurseur, toutes les associations de médecins qui l’utilisent en sont très contentes », précise l’épidémiologiste Yves Buisson. Le président du groupe Covid-19 à l’Académie de médecine insiste notamment sur les performances du « système expert » de MesVaccins, qui traduit les recommandations scientifiques pour le grand public, et est d’ailleurs utilisé par l’agence Santé publique France.

    Le professeur Buisson loue aussi son « système de pharmacovigilance très poussé » (avec des relances des patients pour retracer les effets indésirables). « Au lieu de cela, on a préféré bricoler un truc incomplet en quelques semaines. Je ne comprends pas. Comme si on n’avait rien d’autre de mieux à faire… », cingle Yves Buisson.

    Lors de la réunion de travail avec la Cnam le 17 novembre, les agents du ministère de la santé ont expliqué à quel point le calendrier pour la mise en place du nouveau SI était « extrêmement contraint ».

    La première version du système devait ainsi comporter « les fonctionnalités minimales nécessaires au démarrage avec deux vaccins simultanés et ciblant quelques millions de personnes », seulement. La version ne comprend par exemple qu’une redirection vers le site de signalement des effets indésirables (pour relais à l’ANSM, qui coordonne la pharmacovigilance) alors que ce sujet avait été identifié comme un enjeu important par la DNS dans l’architecture du système.

    La plateforme SI-Vac sera progressivement « enrichie » au fil des semaines en fonction des « enseignements tirés de la fonction minimale », a-t-il été convenu le 17 novembre. Le déploiement de la version « complète » du système, qui « devra pouvoir gérer des campagnes de vaccination à l’échelle de la population française et l’intégralité des vaccins mis sur le marché », étant alors programmé à « horizon printemps 2021 ».

    Du côté du Syndicat de la médecine générale (SMG), on déplore que la question des données ait été « totalement écartée » de la discussion par les autorités. « Cela ne m’étonne pas du tout qu’on en soit là », avec la possibilité pour un praticien de consulter tous les dossiers dans le SI-Vac, fait part l’une des représentantes du SMG, Mathilde Boursier, en déplorant « une grande opacité autour de tout ce qui entoure les données en santé ». La praticienne défend une approche de santé publique, une médecine préventive et l’innovation en santé, mais estime que cela « ne doit pas se faire au détriment de la sécurité des données personnelles ».

    Proche d’Emmanuel Macron, le directeur de cabinet de Jean Castex, Nicolas Revel a dirigé la CNAM de 2014 à 2020. © Assurance maladie
    Le 17 décembre, dans une tribune publiée dans Libération, l’ancien directeur général de la santé (DGS) William Dab, Alain-Michel Ceretti, président de l’association de patients « Le Lien », ou encore Didier Seyler, membre du Comité d’orientation et de dialogue avec la société de Santé publique France, ont tiré la sonnette d’alarme en indiquant qu’il « serait incompréhensible » à leurs yeux qu’un effort ne soit pas engagé par l’État « pour améliorer la pharmacovigilance portant sur ces nouveaux vaccins ».

    Co-signataire de cette tribune, Pierre-Jean Ternamian, président de l’Union régionale des professionnels de santé de la région Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes, ne décolère pas. « J’ai martelé à toutes les réunions depuis le printemps, à l’échelon régional comme au niveau national, l’impérieuse nécessité de se préparer à la vaccination. On n’avait pas de nouvelles, on se disait : “Ils vont nous faire n’importe quoi”, et d’un coup on a vu surgir “SI-Vac”… Là on s’est dit qu’ils étaient en train d’inventer l’eau chaude, en pensant reproduire en deux mois dix ans d’expertise », peste ce médecin radiologue, qui a promu MesVaccins dans sa région et a même contribué à son développement.

    Pierre-Jean Ternamian avait écrit sur le sujet à Jean Castex avant l’explosion de la seconde vague, le 17 août 2020. Le chef de cabinet du premier ministre lui a répondu un mois et demi plus tard, dans un courrier daté du 1er octobre 2020, en renvoyant vers le conseiller technique pour la santé du cabinet, qui « ne manquera pas de vous contacter prochainement par téléphone ». « Je n’ai jamais eu de nouvelles », constate M. Ternamian.

    D’autres professionnels avaient aussi prévenu les autorités, dès le printemps, sur la nécessité d’anticiper la question du système d’information liée à la campagne de vaccination. « Mi-avril, nous avons écrit à nos interlocuteurs de la DNS pour évoquer les enjeux de la mise en place d’une future campagne de vaccination contre le Covid-19 », explique Jean-Louis Koeck de MesVaccins. Début mai 2020, une réunion a été organisée avec plusieurs membres de la Délégation ministérielle du numérique en santé (DNS), sans suite jusqu’au mois d’octobre.

    Le 9 juillet 2020, au creux de l’été, les membres du Conseil scientifique, du Care et du Comité Vaccin Covid-19, les trois groupes formés par Emmanuel Macron pour le conseiller dans ses décisions, ont rendu un avis important sur la question. « De nombreuses inconnues persistent sur le plan scientifique, mais il est indispensable d’avancer vers l’élaboration d’une stratégie vaccinale afin d’anticiper des questions aussi fondamentales que “qui vacciner et comment ?” dès qu’un vaccin sera disponible », prévenaient-ils alors, en indiquant que « l’occasion de diffuser/généraliser la mise en place d’un carnet électronique de vaccination doit être envisagée ». Lancée en plein remaniement ministériel, cette recommandation est restée lettre morte.

    #vaccin #Accenture #secret_médical #dossier_médical (très partageable) #campagne_vaccinale #attardés

  • Pour la mise en œuvre, désastreuse, de sa politique vaccinale, l’exécutif a fait appel à quatre cabinets de #consultance : #McKinsey, #Accenture, #Citwell et #JLL ; une pratique devenue commune par indifférenciation graduelle des sphères privées et publiques.

    https://www.lemonde.fr/politique/article/2021/01/07/vaccination-anti-covid-le-gouvernement-a-fait-appel-a-quatre-cabinets-de-con

    Ces cabinets n’ont pas la moindre compétence scientifique et leurs compétences gestionnaires sont sensiblement celles de la #haute_fonction_publique : devenue très faibles avec le développement du #management.
    https://www.politico.eu/article/french-government-defends-mckinsey-coronavirus-vaccine-rollout

    Le nom du #marché_public de 20 millions € avec McKinsey porte un nom explicite, la "transformation de l’action publique" étant le nom de l’importation des méthodes désastreuses du nouveau management dans le champ de l’Etat.
    https://www.boamp.fr/avis/detail/18-85473/1
    voir aussi :
    https://ted.europa.eu/udl?uri=TED:NOTICE:268753-2018:TEXT:FR:HTML

    D’après le Canard, c’est @MaeldeCalan qui représentait @McKinsey_France à la réunion du 23 décembre dernier pour présenter le plan de #vaccination dont la médiocrité est apparue rapidement : 7000, hier, soit 45 fois moins qu’en Allemagne.

    #Maël_de_La_Lande (HEC, Science Po’) n’a rigoureusement aucune compétence scientifique. Il s’agit d’une figure de la droite conservatrice proche de l’#Institut_Montaigne, qui a apporté une large part des cadres macroniste — son directeur abritait "EM".
    https://www.consultor.fr/devenir-consultant/actualite-du-conseil/6307-elu-et-consultant-mckinsey-pour-le-vaccin-covid-un-stratege-ministeri

    Comment "#Baby-Juppé" (sic) a-t-il pu raté à ce point le « cadrage logistique », le « benchmarking » des « best practices » à l’étranger et la « coordination opérationnelle de la #task_force » ?

    Les étapes du #fiasco en quatre unes de la Pravda macroniste.

    Quel est le rôle de McKinsey dans le #lobbying en faveur de #Sanofi opéré dans les négociations européennes : contrat de 300 millions de doses de #vaccin en septembre, puis véto contre l’achat de 200+100 millions de doses de vaccins #Pfizer/#BioNTech ?

    https://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/the-planning-disaster-germany-and-europe-could-fall-short-on-vaccine-supplie

    Quelle est la part du #retard dans la #campagne_de_vaccination due à une politique de recherche globalement désastreuse, qui a conduit à miser envers et contre tout sur #Sanofi ? Et quelle part vient de l’incapacité de l’exécutif à mettre en œuvre et gérer ?


    https://twitter.com/VidalFrederique/status/1345344588588969984

    McKinsey avait récemment été mandaté obtenir la création d’une agence de désinformation scientifique (un "#Science_Media_Center") au service du lobbying agro-industriel.

    https://www.lemonde.fr/sciences/article/2020/09/22/l-information-scientifique-sous-tutelle-d-une-agence-de-communication_605309

    Les aller-retours entre McKinsey et l’Etat, caractéristiques de la mutation en cours de la haute fonction publique, ont été dans les deux sens. Ainsi, #Labaye, passé du comité de direction mondial du groupe à la présidence de Polytechnique.
    https://www.lesechos.fr/politique-societe/societe/un-associe-de-mckinsey-a-la-tete-de-polytechnique-136118

    Ainsi, dans l’autre sens, #Mathieu_Maucort (Science Po’, HEC) — les "yeux et les oreilles de Macron à Marseille" — passé de McKinsey au poste de responsable du marketing politique d’En Marche.

    https://twitter.com/Pr_Logos/status/1347255977297506304

    #consulting #privatisation #Maël_de_Calan #macronisme #LREM

    ping @simplicissimus

  • Belgium - Automating Society Report 2020
    https://automatingsociety.algorithmwatch.org/report2020/belgium

    Contextualization As a result of the different governments, and the different levels of government, in Belgium (Federal and Regional), several different strategies dealing with digitization emerged in 2018. In Flanders, this strategy is called Vlaanderen Radicaal Digitaal, while in the Walloon region, it is known as Plan Numerique. In 2015, the federal government launched a strategy called Digital Belgium, but this covered more than just ADM. In 2018, the Flemish government launched an (...)

    #Accenture #Briefcam #algorithme #biométrie #éthique #facial #prédiction #reconnaissance #vidéo-surveillance #[fr]Règlement_Général_sur_la_Protection_des_Données_(RGPD)[en]General_Data_Protection_Regulation_(GDPR)[nl]General_Data_Protection_Regulation_(GDPR) #comportement (...)

    ##[fr]Règlement_Général_sur_la_Protection_des_Données__RGPD_[en]General_Data_Protection_Regulation__GDPR_[nl]General_Data_Protection_Regulation__GDPR_ ##discrimination ##enseignement ##pauvreté ##santé ##sport ##surveillance ##_ ##APD-Belgique ##AlgorithmWatch

  • UK’s top universities urged to act on classism and accent prejudice

    Investigation finds widespread evidence of students being ridiculed over their backgrounds

    Universities must act to eradicate discrimination against working-class students, including the mockery of regional accents, equality campaigners have said.

    A Guardian investigation has found widespread evidence of students at some of the country’s leading universities being ridiculed over their accents and backgrounds, in some cases prompting them to leave education.

    The analysis found discrimination against working-class students was particularly prevalent among Russell Group universities. The group, which is made up of 24 institutions, has a reputation for academic excellence.

    In a series of Guardian interviews, students past and present reported bullying and harassment over their accents and working-class backgrounds. Some said their academic ability was questioned because of the way they spoke.

    The Social Mobility Commission (SMC), which monitors progress in improving social mobility in the UK, described the situation as unacceptable and said accents had become a “tangible barrier” for some students.

    This week the Guardian reported complaints of a “toxic attitude” towards some northern students at Durham University. Last month the university launched an inquiry after wealthy prospective freshers reportedly planned a competition to have sex with the poorest student they could find.

    But experiences of classism and accent prejudice are not confined to Durham, said Sammy Wright, the lead commissioner on schools and higher education for the SMC. He said the government body had spent 18 months examining the differing chances for young people based on where they come from.

    “We found an entrenched pattern in certain areas where social mobility is very low, and often the only way to grasp opportunities involved moving away from where they were brought up – to go to university or find jobs,” said Wright, who is also vice-principal of Southmoor Academy in Sunderland.

    “But we also found that social and economic disadvantage often hampered any chance to move out. Accent is a part of this, alongside cultural capital and social networks. In my own work in schools in the north-east, accent can become a marker of everything else, a tangible barrier – most of all to the young people themselves, who internalise a sense of social inferiority.”

    Wright said well-meaning university outreach teams were consistently failing in their efforts to reassure working-class students. “They promise their institutions are friendly and welcoming, but when that message comes in a home counties accent from bored middle-class students who have been sent into the north to deliver the message, my students are rightly sceptical.”

    The Sutton Trust, a charity that helps young people from disadvantaged backgrounds access higher education, called on top universities to do more to ensure an inclusive and supportive environment for all undergraduates.

    Sir Peter Lampl, the trust’s founder and chair, described the experiences of some students as “scandalous”. “It’s really tough for young people from low-income backgrounds to get into top universities. For this and for other reasons, it’s completely unacceptable that they are discriminated against while they’re there,” he said.

    Analysis by the Office for Students (OfS), the government’s higher education regulator, shows that virtually all communities with the lowest levels of access to higher education are in industrial towns and cities of the north of England and the Midlands, and in coastal towns. For example, the most recent data shows that 55% of young people in London go into higher education but only 40% in the north-east.

    The OfS director for fair access and participation, Chris Millward, said the issue of accent prejudice spoke to deeper inequalities in the education system. “It is crucial that universities strive to create an open and inclusive culture for all. There is no such thing as a ‘right’ accent or background for higher education – all students deserve the opportunity to thrive, no matter where they come from,” he said.

    Sara Khan, a vice-president of the National Union of Students, said working-class students were sold a “myth of meritocracy”, but in some cases the reality was starkly different.

    “As long as working-class students have to pay for education, work alongside their studies to cover basic necessities, and are saddled with debt for the rest of their lives, higher education will never be a welcoming environment for them,” she said. “It is unfortunately inevitable that in a system like this, such students would face prejudice and harassment, which is only the tip of the iceberg regarding the classism in our education system.”

    The Russell Group has been contacted for comment.

    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2020/oct/24/uk-top-universities-urged-act-classism-accent-prejudice
    #UK #Angleterre #classisme #classes_sociales #discriminations #classe_sociale #université #éducation #langue #accent #accents #classes_ouvrières

  • Facebook moderators at Accenture are being forced back to the office, and many are scared for their safety
    https://www.theverge.com/2020/10/1/21497789/facebook-content-moderators-accenture-return-office-coronavirus

    Employees are concerned about COVID-19 now that they’re being told to return starting October 12th Facebook moderators employed by third-party contracting firm Accenture and based in Austin, Texas are being forced to return to the office on October 12th, The Verge has learned. Employees, almost all of whom are contractors, were instructed of the new policy at a company-wide town hall meeting today, say multiple people familiar with Accenture’s plans. Accenture, which has allowed its (...)

    #Accenture #Facebook #YouTube #algorithme #modération #COVID-19 #GigEconomy #santé #travail

    ##santé

  • Facebook Moderators Told to Return to Office Amid Pandemic
    https://theintercept.com/2020/10/13/facebook-moderators-covid-accenture

    Facebook content moderators must return to the office, and a call with their managers at Accenture did little to calm their fears. Facebook contractors tasked with sifting through some of the most heinous and traumatizing content on the internet faced a new hurdle this week when they were told to return to company offices to do their work in person as a pandemic runs rampant around them. Audio obtained by The Intercept suggests that their employer, Accenture, is downplaying the risk of (...)

    #Accenture #Facebook #algorithme #CCTV #température #modération #vidéo-surveillance #COVID-19 #GigEconomy #santé #surveillance (...)

    ##santé ##travail

  • Atlas sonore des langues régionales de France


    #LanguesVivantes. Un trésor pour les amoureux des mots et des accents ! Créé par deux linguistes, cet atlas sonore permet d’explorer la richesse des langues régionales. Les plus connues — le #breton, le #chtimi, le #corse — continuent d’être enseignées dans les lycées mais d’autres ne comptent plus qu’une poignée de locuteurs.

    https://atlas.limsi.fr/?tab=Hexagone

    #atlas #langue #france #AtlasSonore @cdb_77 @reka

  • La stratégie du choc pandémique : comment les entreprises du numérique conquièrent de nouveaux marchés
    https://lareleveetlapeste.fr/la-strategie-du-choc-pandemique-comment-les-entreprises-du-numeriq

    Si, malgré la récession qui s’amorce, le secteur du numérique se prépare à la croissance et recrute à tout-va, c’est au prix d’une lutte pour la survie, les entreprises les plus grandes et agressives s’accaparant la majorité des marchés et absorbant les plus petites, dans une nouvelle phase de sélection et de compétitivité redoublée. Article co-écrit par Maud Barret Bertelloni, membre du Mouton Numérique, et Augustin Langlade, journaliste à La Relève et La Peste. La crise sanitaire se révèle un marché (...)

    #Accenture #ANSSI #Apple #Atos #CapGemini #Dassault #Orange #Thalès #Withings #Doctolib #algorithme #montre #Bluetooth #CCTV #domotique #drone #iWatch #smartphone #contactTracing #géolocalisation #technologisme #métadonnées #vidéo-surveillance #BigData (...)

    ##COVID-19 ##enseignement ##lobbying ##santé ##surveillance ##_

  • Coronavirus : en Europe, la ruée en ordre dispersé sur les applications de « traçage »
    https://www.lemonde.fr/pixels/article/2020/04/18/coronavirus-en-europe-la-ruee-en-ordre-disperse-sur-les-applications-de-trac

    Plusieurs pays, comme la France et l’Allemagne, ont choisi le projet PEPP-PT qui étudie la possibilité d’une application permettant de lutter contre la pandémie de Covid-19. D’autres Etats font cavalier seul. Au bout des pistes de l’aéroport Tegel de Berlin, la caserne Julius-Leber est, en ce début avril, le théâtre d’un étrange ballet. Des soldats allemands, treillis enserrés dans du ruban adhésif bariolé, arpentent un sol marqué de repères d’apparence ésotérique, téléphone en main et masques sur le (...)

    #StopCovid #GPS #Google #surveillance #Bluetooth #algorithme #géolocalisation #Apple #smartphone #PEPP-PT #travail #Accenture #technologisme #consentement #CapGemini #BigData #métadonnées #santé #COVID-19 (...)

    ##santé ##bracelet

  • Coronavirus : la tech française veut apporter sa pierre à l’appli StopCovid | Les Echos
    https://www.lesechos.fr/tech-medias/hightech/coronavirus-la-tech-francaise-veut-apporter-sa-pierre-a-lappli-stopcovid-11

    Parallèlement au projet officiel porté par l’Inria, six grands groupes français dont Orange, Dassault et Capgemini sont prêts à offrir leurs briques technologiques. De Londres à San Francisco, des start-up françaises ne sont pas en reste. Rien ne dit encore qu’elle verra le jour mais l’application StopCovid fait déjà l’objet d’une mobilisation générale. Pendant qu’un vif débat politique sur le respect des libertés publiques s’est ouvert, le gouvernement continue d’étudier ce dispositif qui permettra, dans la (...)

    #smartphone #santé #BigData #vidéo-surveillance #[fr]Règlement_Général_sur_la_Protection_des_Données_(RGPD)[en]General_Data_Protection_Regulation_(GDPR)[nl]General_Data_Protection_Regulation_(GDPR) #géolocalisation #Dassault #Accenture #Orange #Bluetooth #métadonnées (...)

    ##santé ##[fr]Règlement_Général_sur_la_Protection_des_Données__RGPD_[en]General_Data_Protection_Regulation__GDPR_[nl]General_Data_Protection_Regulation__GDPR_ ##StopCovid ##surveillance ##algorithme

  • The Rise of the Video Surveillance Industrial Complex
    https://theintercept.com/2020/01/27/surveillance-cctv-smart-camera-networks

    There’s widespread concern that video cameras will use facial recognition software to track our every public move. Far less remarked upon — but every bit as alarming — is the exponential expansion of “smart” video surveillance networks. Private businesses and homes are starting to plug their cameras into police networks, and rapid advances in artificial intelligence are investing closed-circuit television, or CCTV, networks with the power for total public surveillance. In the not-so-distant (...)

    #Western_Digital #Axis #Accenture #Briefcam #Canon #Cisco #Comcast #Google #Microsoft #Milestone #Motorola_Mobility #Verizon #Amazon #algorithme #CCTV #smartphone #biométrie #criminalité #police #racisme #automobilistes #émotions #facial #législation (...)

    ##criminalité ##prédiction ##reconnaissance ##vidéo-surveillance ##bénéfices ##BigData ##MinorityReport ##comportement ##BlackLivesMatter ##data ##discrimination ##Islam ##profiling

  • YouTube moderators are being forced to sign a statement acknowledging the job can give them PTSD - The Verge
    https://www.theverge.com/2020/1/24/21075830/youtube-moderators-ptsd-accenture-statement-lawsuits-mental-health

    Content moderators for YouTube are being ordered to sign a document acknowledging that performing the job can cause post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), according to interviews with employees and documents obtained by The Verge. Accenture, which operates a moderation site for YouTube in Austin, Texas, distributed the document to workers on December 20th — four days after The Verge published an investigation into PTSD among workers at the facility. “I understand the content I will be (...)

    #Accenture #Cognizant #Facebook #YouTube #modération #santé

    ##santé

  • Comment les géants de la tech manipulent la recherche sur l’éthique des IA | korii.
    https://korii.slate.fr/tech/intelligence-artificille-ethique-gafam-recherche-lobbying-conflit-intere

    Après le greenwashing, l’ethicalwashing ? Un ancien chercheur du MIT Media Lab témoigne. Dès 2018, il est devenu difficile de suivre les nombreux scandales liés à l’IA sur fond de contrats controversés : entre Facebook et Cambridge Analytica ; entre Google et le Pentagone sur les drones ; entre Amazon, IBM et la police sur la reconnaissance faciale ; entre Microsoft et les services de l’immigration sur le contrôle des frontières... Derrière plusieurs hashtags (#TechWontBuildIt, #NoTechForICE, (...)

    #Accenture #Altran #Bouygues #CambridgeAnalytica #DeepMind #Google #Microsoft #Orange #SNCF #Air_France #USDepartmentofDefense-DoD #IBM #MIT #Amazon #Facebook #algorithme #drone #activisme #biométrie #éthique #migration #police #racisme #facial (...)

    ##législation ##reconnaissance ##discrimination ##vidéo-surveillance ##frontières ##lobbying ##surveillance ##greenwashing ##bug

  • The Terror Queue
    https://www.theverge.com/2019/12/16/21021005/google-youtube-moderators-ptsd-accenture-violent-disturbing-content-interv

    These moderators help keep Google and YouTube free of violent extremism — and now some of them have PTSD GoogleGoogle and YouTube approach content moderation the same way all of the other tech giants do : paying a handful of other companies to do most of the work. One of those companies, Accenture, operates Google’s largest content moderation site in the United States : an office in Austin, Texas, where content moderators work around the clock cleaning up YouTube. Peter is one of hundreds (...)

    #Accenture #Google #YouTube #modération #conditions #travail

  • Avec Accenture (et de l’IA), le fisc veut détecter les piscines et autres vérandas non déclarées
    https://www.usine-digitale.fr/article/avec-accenture-et-de-l-ia-le-fisc-veut-detecter-les-piscines-et-autre

    Pour lutter contre la fraude, le fisc a signé un partenariat avec la société américaine de conseil informatique Accenture. Les Alpes-Maritimes, la Charente-Maritime et la Drôme ont expérimenté ce logiciel qui repère les anomalies fiscales en croisant les déclarations des contribuables, les vues aériennes et les plans de cadastre. La France ne serait pas au niveau dans la lutte contre la fraude fiscale, d’après un rapport de la Cour des comptes publié le 2 décembre 2019. La juridiction financière (...)

    #Accenture #algorithme #drone #aérien #fiscalité #fraude #contribuables #erreur #vidéo-surveillance (...)

    ##fiscalité ##surveillance

  • Accenture consacre 1 milliard de dollars par an à la reconversion de ses salariés
    https://www.lemonde.fr/emploi/article/2019/11/27/accenture-consacre-1-milliard-de-dollars-par-an-a-la-reconversion-de-ses-sal

    Pour anticiper l’automatisation des tâches et les suppressions de postes, le cabinet de conseil américain a fait le choix de former massivement. Tout commence par un bilan. Dorian Twiggs, 36 ans, venait tout juste de déménager de Detroit à Charlotte, en Caroline du Nord. Son nouvel employeur, le cabinet de conseil Accenture, l’avait placée dans une banque, afin de vérifier si tous les documents nécessaires pour décrocher des prêts immobiliers étaient réunis. Cela faisait onze ans qu’elle travaillait (...)

    #Accenture #algorithme #conditions #InternetOfThings #travail #travailleurs

  • The business of building walls

    Thirty years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, Europe is once again known for its border walls. This time Europe is divided not so much by ideology as by perceived fear of refugees and migrants, some of the world’s most vulnerable people.

    Who killed the dream of a more open Europe? What gave rise to this new era of walls? There are clearly many reasons – the increasing displacement of people by conflict, repression and impoverishment, the rise of security politics in the wake of 9/11, the economic and social insecurity felt across Europe after the 2008 financial crisis – to name a few. But one group has by far the most to gain from the rise of new walls – the businesses that build them. Their influence in shaping a world of walls needs much deeper examination.

    This report explores the business of building walls, which has both fuelled and benefited from a massive expansion of public spending on border security by the European Union (EU) and its member states. Some of the corporate beneficiaries are also global players, tapping into a global market for border security estimated to be worth approximately €17.5 billion in 2018, with annual growth of at least 8% expected in coming years.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAuv1QyP8l0&feature=emb_logo

    It is important to look both beyond and behind Europe’s walls and fencing, because the real barriers to contemporary migration are not so much the fencing, but the vast array of technology that underpins it, from the radar systems to the drones to the surveillance cameras to the biometric fingerprinting systems. Similarly, some of Europe’s most dangerous walls are not even physical or on land. The ships, aircrafts and drones used to patrol the Mediterranean have created a maritime wall and a graveyard for the thousands of migrants and refugees who have no legal passage to safety or to exercise their right to seek asylum.

    This renders meaningless the European Commission’s publicized statements that it does not fund walls and fences. Commission spokesperson Alexander Winterstein, for example, rejecting Hungary’s request to reimburse half the costs of the fences built on its borders with Croatia and Serbia, said: ‘We do support border management measures at external borders. These can be surveillance measures. They can be border control equipment...But fences, we do not finance’. In other words, the Commission is willing to pay for anything that fortifies a border as long as it is not seen to be building the walls themselves.

    This report is a sequel to Building Walls – Fear and securitization in the European Union, co-published in 2018 with Centre Delàs and Stop Wapenhandel, which first measured and identified the walls that criss-cross Europe. This new report focuses on the businesses that have profited from three different kinds of wall in Europe:

    The construction companies contracted to build the land walls built by EU member states and the Schengen Area together with the security and technology companies that provide the necessary accompanying technology, equipment and services;

    The shipping and arms companies that provide the ships, aircraft, helicopters, drones that underpin Europe’s maritime walls seeking to control migratory flows in the Mediterranean, including Frontex operations, Operation Sophia and Italian operation Mare Nostrum;
    And the IT and security companies contracted to develop, run, expand and maintain EU’s systems that monitor the movement of people – such as SIS II (Schengen Information System) and EES (Entry/Exit Scheme) – which underpin Europe’s virtual walls.

    Booming budgets

    The flow of money from taxpayers to wall-builders has been highly lucrative and constantly growing. The report finds that companies have reaped the profits from at least €900 million spent by EU countries on land walls and fences since the end of the Cold War. The partial data (in scope and years) means actual costs will be at least €1 billion. In addition, companies that provide technology and services that accompany walls have also benefited from some of the steady stream of funding from the EU – in particular the External Borders Fund (€1.7 billion, 2007-2013) and the Internal Security Fund – Borders Fund (€2.76 billion, 2014-2020).

    EU spending on maritime walls has totalled at least €676.4 million between 2006 to 2017 (including €534 million spent by Frontex, €28.4 million spent by the EU on Operation Sophia and €114 million spent by Italy on Operation Mare Nostrum) and would be much more if you include all the operations by Mediterranean country coastguards. Total spending on Europe’s virtual wall equalled at least €999.4m between 2000 and 2019. (All these estimates are partial ones because walls are funded by many different funding mechanisms and due to lack of data transparency).

    This boom in border budgets is set to grow. Under its budget for the next EU budget cycle (2021–2027) the European Commission has earmarked €8.02 billion to its Integrated Border Management Fund (2021-2027), €11.27bn to Frontex (of which €2.2 billion will be used for acquiring, maintaining and operating air, sea and land assets) and at least €1.9 billion total spending (2000-2027) on its identity databases and Eurosur (the European Border Surveillance System).
    The big arm industry players

    Three giant European military and security companies in particular play a critical role in Europe’s many types of borders. These are Thales, Leonardo and Airbus.

    Thales is a French arms and security company, with a significant presence in the Netherlands, that produces radar and sensor systems, used by many ships in border security. Thales systems, were used, for example, by Dutch and Portuguese ships deployed in Frontex operations. Thales also produces maritime surveillance systems for drones and is working on developing border surveillance infrastructure for Eurosur, researching how to track and control refugees before they reach Europe by using smartphone apps, as well as exploring the use of High Altitude Pseudo Satellites (HAPS) for border security, for the European Space Agency and Frontex. Thales currently provides the security system for the highly militarised port in Calais. Its acquisition in 2019 of Gemalto, a large (biometric) identity security company, makes it a significant player in the development and maintenance of EU’s virtual walls. It has participated in 27 EU research projects on border security.
    Italian arms company Leonardo (formerly Finmeccanica or Leonardo-Finmeccanica) is a leading supplier of helicopters for border security, used by Italy in the Mare Nostrum, Hera and Sophia operations. It has also been one of the main providers of UAVs (or drones) for Europe’s borders, awarded a €67.1 million contract in 2017 by the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) to supply them for EU coast-guard agencies. Leonardo was also a member of a consortium, awarded €142.1 million in 2019 to implement and maintain EU’s virtual walls, namely its EES. It jointly owns Telespazio with Thales, involved in EU satellite observation projects (REACT and Copernicus) used for border surveillance. Leonardo has participated in 24 EU research projects on border security and control, including the development of Eurosur.
    Pan-European arms giant Airbus is a key supplier of helicopters used in patrolling maritime and some land borders, deployed by Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Lithuania and Spain, including in maritime Operations Sophia, Poseidon and Triton. Airbus and its subsidiaries have participated in at least 13 EU-funded border security research projects including OCEAN2020, PERSEUS and LOBOS.
    The significant role of these arms companies is not surprising. As Border Wars (2016), showed these companies through their membership of the lobby groups – European Organisation for Security (EOS) and the AeroSpace and Defence Industries Association of Europe (ASD) – have played a significant role in influencing the direction of EU border policy. Perversely, these firms are also among the top four biggest European arms dealers to the Middle East and North Africa, thus contributing to the conflicts that cause forced migration.

    Indra has been another significant corporate player in border control in Spain and the Mediterranean. It won a series of contracts to fortify Ceuta and Melilla (Spanish enclaves in northern Morocco). Indra also developed the SIVE border control system (with radar, sensors and vision systems), which is in place on most of Spain’s borders, as well as in Portugal and Romania. In July 2018 it won a €10 million contract to manage SIVE at several locations for two years. Indra is very active in lobbying the EU and is a major beneficiary of EU research funding, coordinating the PERSEUS project to further develop Eurosur and the Seahorse Network, a network between police forces in Mediterranean countries (both in Europe and Africa) to stop migration.

    Israeli arms firms are also notable winners of EU border contracts. In 2018, Frontex selected the Heron drone from Israel Aerospace Industries for pilot-testing surveillance flights in the Mediterranean. In 2015, Israeli firm Elbit sold six of its Hermes UAVs to the Switzerland’s Border Guard, in a controversial €230 million deal. It has since signed a UAV contract with the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA), as a subcontractor for the Portuguese company CEIIA (2018), as well as contracts to supply technology for three patrol vessels for the Hellenic Coast Guard (2019).
    Land wall contractors

    Most of the walls and fences that have been rapidly erected across Europe have been built by national construction companies, but one European company has dominated the field: European Security Fencing, a Spanish producer of razor wire, in particular a coiled wire known as concertinas. It is most known for the razor wire on the fences around Ceuta and Melilla. It also delivered the razor wire for the fence on the border between Hungary and Serbia, and its concertinas were installed on the borders between Bulgaria and Turkey and Austria and Slovenia, as well as at Calais, and for a few days on the border between Hungary and Slovenia before being removed. Given its long-term market monopoly, its concertinas are very likely used at other borders in Europe.

    Other contractors providing both walls and associated technology include DAT-CON (Croatia, Cyprus, Macedonia, Moldova, Slovenia and Ukraine), Geo Alpinbau (Austria/Slovenia), Indra, Dragados, Ferrovial, Proyectos Y Tecnología Sallén and Eulen (Spain/Morocco), Patstroy Bourgas, Infra Expert, Patengineeringstroy, Geostroy Engineering, Metallic-Ivan Mihaylov and Indra (Bulgaria/Turkey), Nordecon and Defendec (Estonia/Russia), DAK Acélszerkezeti Kft and SIA Ceļu būvniecības sabiedrība IGATE (Latvia/Russia), Gintrėja (Lithuania/Russia), Minis and Legi-SGS(Slovenia/Croatia), Groupe CW, Jackson’s Fencing, Sorhea, Vinci/Eurovia and Zaun Ltd (France/UK).

    In many cases, the actual costs of the walls and associated technologies exceed original estimates. There have also been many allegations and legal charges of corruption, in some cases because projects were given to corporate friends of government officials. In Slovenia, for example, accusations of corruption concerning the border wall contract have led to a continuing three-year legal battle for access to documents that has reached the Supreme Court. Despite this, the EU’s External Borders Fund has been a critical financial supporter of technological infrastructure and services in many of the member states’ border operations. In Macedonia, for example, the EU has provided €9 million for patrol vehicles, night-vision cameras, heartbeat detectors and technical support for border guards to help it manage its southern border.
    Maritime wall profiteers

    The data about which ships, helicopters and aircraft are used in Europe’s maritime operations is not transparent and therefore it is difficult to get a full picture. Our research shows, however, that the key corporations involved include the European arms giants Airbus and Leonardo, as well as large shipbuilding companies including Dutch Damen and Italian Fincantieri.

    Damen’s patrol vessels have been used for border operations by Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Portugal, the Netherlands, Romania, Sweden and the UK as well as in key Frontex operations (Poseidon, Triton and Themis), Operation Sophia and in supporting NATO’s role in Operation Poseidon. Outside Europe, Libya, Morocco, Tunisia and Turkey use Damen vessels for border security, often in cooperation with the EU or its member states. Turkey’s €20 million purchase of six Damen vessels for its coast guard in 2006, for example, was financed through the EU Instrument contributing to Stability and Peace (IcSP), intended for peace-building and conflict prevention.

    The sale of Damen vessels to Libya unveils the potential troubling human costs of this corporate trade. In 2012, Damen supplied four patrol vessels to the Libyan Coast Guard, sold as civil equipment in order to avoid a Dutch arms export license. Researchers have since found out, however, that the ships were not only sold with mounting points for weapons, but were then armed and used to stop refugee boats. Several incidents involving these ships have been reported, including one where some 20 or 30 refugees drowned. Damen has refused to comment, saying it had agreed with the Libyan government not to disclose information about the ships.

    In addition to Damen, many national shipbuilders play a significant role in maritime operations as they were invariably prioritised by the countries contributing to each Frontex or other Mediterranean operation. Hence, all the ships Italy contributed to Operation Sophia were built by Fincantieri, while all Spanish ships come from Navantia and its predecessors. Similarly, France purchases from DCN/DCNS, now Naval Group, and all German ships were built by several German shipyards (Flensburger Schiffbau-Gesellschaft, HDW, Lürssen Gruppe). Other companies in Frontex operations have included Greek company, Motomarine Shipyards, which produced the Panther 57 Fast Patrol Boats used by the Hellenic Coast Guard, Hellenic Shipyards and Israel Shipyards.

    Austrian company Schiebel is a significant player in maritime aerial surveillance through its supply of S-100 drones. In November 2018, EMSA selected the company for a €24 million maritime surveillance contract for a range of operations including border security. Since 2017, Schiebel has also won contracts from Croatia, Denmark, Iceland, Italy, Portugal and Spain. The company has a controversial record, with its drones sold to a number of countries experiencing armed conflict or governed by repressive regimes such as Libya, Myanmar, the UAE and Yemen.

    Finland and the Netherlands deployed Dornier aircraft to Operation Hermes and Operation Poseidon respectively, and to Operation Triton. Dornier is now part of the US subsidiary of the Israeli arms company Elbit Systems. CAE Aviation (Luxembourg), DEA Aviation (UK) and EASP Air (Netherlands) have all received contracts for aircraft surveillance work for Frontex. Airbus, French Dassault Aviation, Leonardo and US Lockheed Martin were the most important suppliers of aircraft used in Operation Sophia.

    The EU and its member states defend their maritime operations by publicising their role in rescuing refugees at sea, but this is not their primary goal, as Frontex director Fabrice Leggeri made clear in April 2015, saying that Frontex has no mandate for ‘proactive search-and-rescue action[s]’ and that saving lives should not be a priority. The thwarting and criminalisation of NGO rescue operations in the Mediterranean and the frequent reports of violence and illegal refoulement of refugees, also demonstrates why these maritime operations should be considered more like walls than humanitarian missions.
    Virtual walls

    The major EU contracts for the virtual walls have largely gone to two companies, sometimes as leaders of a consortium. Sopra Steria is the main contractor for the development and maintenance of the Visa Information System (VIS), Schengen Information System (SIS II) and European Dactyloscopy (Eurodac), while GMV has secured a string of contracts for Eurosur. The systems they build help control, monitor and surveil people’s movements across Europe and increasingly beyond.

    Sopra Steria is a French technology consultancy firm that has to date won EU contracts worth a total value of over €150 million. For some of these large contracts Sopra Steria joined consortiums with HP Belgium, Bull and 3M Belgium. Despite considerable business, Sopra Steria has faced considerable criticism for its poor record on delivering projects on time and on budget. Its launch of SIS II was constantly delayed, forcing the Commission to extend contracts and increase budgets. Similarly, Sopra Steria was involved in another consortium, the Trusted Borders consortium, contracted to deliver the UK e-Borders programme, which was eventually terminated in 2010 after constant delays and failure to deliver. Yet it continues to win contracts, in part because it has secured a near-monopoly of knowledge and access to EU officials. The central role that Sopra Steria plays in developing these EU biometric systems has also had a spin-off effect in securing other national contracts, including with Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Romania and Slovenia GMV, a Spanish technology company, has received a succession of large contracts for Eurosur, ever since its testing phase in 2010, worth at least €25 million. It also provides technology to the Spanish Guardia Civil, such as control centres for its Integrated System of External Vigilance (SIVE) border security system as well as software development services to Frontex. It has participated in at least ten EU-funded research projects on border security.

    Most of the large contracts for the virtual walls that did not go to consortia including Sopra Steria were awarded by eu-LISA (European Union Agency for the Operational Management of Large-Scale IT Systems in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice) to consortia comprising computer and technology companies including Accenture, Atos Belgium and Morpho (later renamed Idema).
    Lobbying

    As research in our Border Wars series has consistently shown, through effective lobbying, the military and security industry has been very influential in shaping the discourse of EU security and military policies. The industry has succeeded in positioning itself as the experts on border security, pushing the underlying narrative that migration is first and foremost a security threat, to be combatted by security and military means. With this premise, it creates a continuous demand for the ever-expanding catalogue of equipment and services the industry supplies for border security and control.

    Many of the companies listed here, particularly the large arms companies, are involved in the European Organisation for Security (EOS), the most important lobby group on border security. Many of the IT security firms that build EU’s virtual walls are members of the European Biometrics Association (EAB). EOS has an ‘Integrated Border Security Working Group’ to ‘facilitate the development and uptake of better technology solutions for border security both at border checkpoints, and along maritime and land borders’. The working group is chaired by Giorgio Gulienetti of the Italian arms company Leonardo, with Isto Mattila (Laurea University of Applied Science) and Peter Smallridge of Gemalto, a digital security company recently acquired by Thales.

    Company lobbyists and representatives of these lobby organisations regularly meet with EU institutions, including the European Commission, are part of official advisory committees, publish influential proposals, organise meetings between industry, policy-makers and executives and also meet at the plethora of military and security fairs, conferences and seminars. Airbus, Leonardo and Thales together with EOS held 226 registered lobbying meetings with the European Commission between 2014 and 2019. In these meetings representatives of the industry position themselves as the experts on border security, presenting their goods and services as the solution for ‘security threats’ caused by immigration. In 2017, the same group of companies and EOS spent up to €2.65 million on lobbying.

    A similar close relationship can be seen on virtual walls, with the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission arguing openly for public policy to foster the ‘emergence of a vibrant European biometrics industry’.
    A deadly trade and a choice

    The conclusion of this survey of the business of building walls is clear. A Europe full of walls has proved to be very good for the bottom line of a wide range of corporations including arms, security, IT, shipping and construction companies. The EU’s planned budgets for border security for the next decade show it is also a business that will continue to boom.

    This is also a deadly business. The heavy militarisation of Europe’s borders on land and at sea has led refugees and migrants to follow far more hazardous routes and has trapped others in desperate conditions in neighbouring countries like Libya. Many deaths are not recorded, but those that are tracked in the Mediterranean show that the proportion of those who drown trying to reach Europe continues to increase each year.

    This is not an inevitable state of affairs. It is both the result of policy decisions made by the EU and its member states, and corporate decisions to profit from these policies. In a rare principled stand, German razor wire manufacturer Mutanox in 2015 stated it would not sell its product to the Hungarian government arguing: ‘Razor wire is designed to prevent criminal acts, like a burglary. Fleeing children and adults are not criminals’. It is time for other European politicians and business leaders to recognise the same truth: that building walls against the world’s most vulnerable people violates human rights and is an immoral act that history will judge harshly. Thirty years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, it is time for Europe to bring down its new walls.

    https://www.tni.org/en/businessbuildingwalls

    #business #murs #barrières_frontalières #militarisation_des_frontières #visualisation #Europe #UE #EU #complexe_militaro-industriel #Airbus #Leonardo #Thales #Indra #Israel_Aerospace_Industries #Elbit #European_Security_Fencing #DAT-CON #Geo_Alpinbau #Dragados #Ferrovial, #Proyectos_Y_Tecnología_Sallén #Eulen #Patstroy_Bourgas #Infra_Expert #Patengineeringstroy #Geostroy_Engineering #Metallic-Ivan_Mihaylov #Nordecon #Defendec #DAK_Acélszerkezeti_Kft #SIA_Ceļu_būvniecības_sabiedrība_IGATE #Gintrėja #Minis #Legi-SGS #Groupe_CW #Jackson’s_Fencing #Sorhea #Vinci #Eurovia #Zaun_Ltd #Damen #Fincantieri #Frontex #Damen #Turquie #Instrument_contributing_to_Stability_and_Peace (#IcSP) #Libye #exernalisation #Operation_Sophia #Navantia #Naval_Group #Flensburger_Schiffbau-Gesellschaft #HDW #Lürssen_Gruppe #Motomarine_Shipyards #Panther_57 #Hellenic_Shipyards #Israel_Shipyards #Schiebel #Dornier #Operation_Hermes #CAE_Aviation #DEA_Aviation #EASP_Air #French_Dassault_Aviation #US_Lockheed_Martin #murs_virtuels #Sopra_Steria #Visa_Information_System (#VIS) #données #Schengen_Information_System (#SIS_II) #European_Dactyloscopy (#Eurodac) #GMV #Eurosur #HP_Belgium #Bull #3M_Belgium #Trusted_Borders_consortium #économie #biométrie #Integrated_System_of_External_Vigilance (#SIVE) #eu-LISA #Accenture #Atos_Belgium #Morpho #Idema #lobby #European_Organisation_for_Security (#EOS) #European_Biometrics_Association (#EAB) #Integrated_Border_Security_Working_Group #Giorgio_Gulienetti #Isto_Mattila #Peter_Smallridge #Gemalto #murs_terrestres #murs_maritimes #coût #chiffres #statistiques #Joint_Research_Centre_of_the_European_Commission #Mutanox #High-Altitude_Pseudo-Satellites (#HAPS)

    Pour télécharger le #rapport :


    https://www.tni.org/files/publication-downloads/business_of_building_walls_-_full_report.pdf

    déjà signalé par @odilon ici :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/809783
    Je le remets ici avec des mots clé de plus

    ping @daphne @marty @isskein @karine4

    • La costruzione di muri: un business

      Trent’anni dopo la caduta del Muro di Berlino, l’Europa fa parlare di sé ancora una volta per i suoi muri di frontiera. Questa volta non è tanto l’ideologia che la divide, quanto la paura di rifugiati e migranti, alcune tra le persone più vulnerabili al mondo.

      Riassunto del rapporto «The Business of Building Walls» [1]:

      Chi ha ucciso il sogno di un’Europa più aperta? Cosa ha dato inizio a questa nuova era dei muri?
      Ci sono evidentemente molte ragioni: il crescente spostamento di persone a causa di conflitti, repressione e impoverimento, l’ascesa di politiche securitarie sulla scia dell’11 settembre, l’insicurezza economica e sociale percepita in Europa dopo la crisi finanziaria del 2008, solo per nominarne alcune. Tuttavia, c’è un gruppo che ha di gran lunga da guadagnare da questo innalzamento di nuovi muri: le imprese che li costruiscono. La loro influenza nel dare forma ad un mondo di muri necessita di un esame più profondo.

      Questo rapporto esplora il business della costruzione di muri, che è stato alimentato e ha beneficiato di un aumento considerevole della spesa pubblica dedicata alla sicurezza delle frontiere dall’Unione Europea (EU) e dai suoi Stati membri. Alcune imprese beneficiarie sono delle multinazionali che approfittano di un mercato globale per la sicurezza delle frontiere che si stima valere approssimativamente 17,5 miliardi di euro nel 2018, con una crescita annuale prevista almeno dell’8% nei prossimi anni.

      È importante guardare sia oltre che dietro i muri e le barriere d’Europa, perché i reali ostacoli alla migrazione contemporanea non sono tanto le recinzioni, quanto la vasta gamma di tecnologie che vi è alla base, dai sistemi radar ai droni, dalle telecamere di sorveglianza ai sistemi biometrici di rilevamento delle impronte digitali. Allo stesso modo, alcuni tra i più pericolosi muri d’Europa non sono nemmeno fisici o sulla terraferma. Le navi, gli aerei e i droni usati per pattugliare il Mediterraneo hanno creato un muro marittimo e un cimitero per i migliaia di migranti e di rifugiati che non hanno un passaggio legale verso la salvezza o per esercitare il loro diritto di asilo.

      Tutto ciò rende insignificanti le dichiarazioni della Commissione Europea secondo le quali essa non finanzierebbe i muri e le recinzioni. Il portavoce della Commissione, Alexander Winterstein, per esempio, nel rifiutare la richiesta dell’Ungheria di rimborsare la metà dei costi delle recinzioni costruite sul suo confine con la Croazia e la Serbia, ha affermato: “Noi sosteniamo le misure di gestione delle frontiere presso i confini esterni. Queste possono consistere in misure di sorveglianza o in equipaggiamento di controllo delle frontiere... . Ma le recinzioni, quelle non le finanziamo”. In altre parole, la Commissione è disposta a pagare per qualunque cosa che fortifichi un confine fintanto che ciò non sia visto come propriamente costruire dei muri.

      Questo rapporto è il seguito di “Building Walls - Fear and securitizazion in the Euopean Union”, co-pubblicato nel 2018 con Centre Delàs e Stop Wapenhandel, che per primi hanno misurato e identificato i muri che attraversano l’Europa.

      Questo nuovo rapporto si focalizza sulle imprese che hanno tratto profitto dai tre differenti tipi di muro in Europa:
      – Le imprese di costruzione ingaggiate per costruire i muri fisici costruiti dagli Stati membri UE e dall’Area Schengen in collaborazione con le imprese esperte in sicurezza e tecnologia che provvedono le tecnologie, l’equipaggiamento e i servizi associati;
      – le imprese di trasporto marittimo e di armamenti che forniscono le navi, gli aerei, gli elicotteri e i droni che costituiscono i muri marittimi dell’Europa per tentare di controllare i flussi migratori nel Mediterraneo, in particolare le operazioni di Frontex, l’operazione Sophia e l’operazione italiana Mare Nostrum;
      – e le imprese specializzate in informatica e in sicurezza incaricate di sviluppare, eseguire, estendere e mantenere i sistemi dell’UE che controllano i movimento delle persone, quali SIS II (Schengen Information System) e EES (Entry/Exii Scheme), che costituiscono i muri virtuali dell’Europa.
      Dei budget fiorenti

      Il flusso di denaro dai contribuenti ai costruttori di muri è stato estremamente lucrativo e non cessa di aumentare. Il report rivela che dalla fine della guerra fredda, le imprese hanno raccolto i profitti di almeno 900 milioni di euro di spese dei paesi dell’UE per i muri fisici e per le recinzioni. Con i dati parziali (sia nella portata e che negli anni), i costi reali raggiungerebbero almeno 1 miliardo di euro. Inoltre, le imprese che forniscono la tecnologia e i servizi che accompagnano i muri hanno ugualmente beneficiato di un flusso costante di finanziamenti da parte dell’UE, in particolare i Fondi per le frontiere esterne (1,7 miliardi di euro, 2007-2013) e i Fondi per la sicurezza interna - Fondi per le Frontiere (2,76 miliardi di euro, 2014-2020).

      Le spese dell’UE per i muri marittimi hanno raggiunto almeno 676,4 milioni di euro tra il 2006 e il 2017 (di cui 534 milioni sono stati spesi da Frontex, 28 milioni dall’UE nell’operazione Sophia e 114 milioni dall’Italia nell’operazione Mare Nostrum) e sarebbero molto superiori se si includessero tutte le operazioni delle guardie costiera nazionali nel Mediterraneo.

      Questa esplosione dei budget per le frontiere ha le condizioni per proseguire. Nel quadro del suo budget per il prossimo ciclo di bilancio dell’Unione Europea (2021-2027), la Commissione europea ha attribuito 8,02 miliardi di euro al suo fondo di gestione integrata delle frontiere (2021-2027), 11,27 miliardi a Frontex (dei quali 2,2 miliardi saranno utilizzati per l’acquisizione, il mantenimento e l’utilizzo di mezzi aerei, marittimi e terrestri) e almeno 1,9 miliardi di euro di spese totali (2000-2027) alle sue banche dati di identificazione e a Eurosur (il sistemo europeo di sorveglianza delle frontiere).
      I principali attori del settore degli armamenti

      Tre giganti europei del settore della difesa e della sicurezza giocano un ruolo cruciale nei differenti tipi di frontiere d’Europa: Thales, Leonardo e Airbus.

      – Thales è un’impresa francese specializzata negli armamenti e nella sicurezza, con una presenza significativa nei Paesi Bassi, che produce sistemi radar e sensori utilizzati da numerose navi della sicurezza frontaliera. I sistemi Thales, per esempio, sono stati utilizzati dalle navi olandesi e portoghesi impiegate nelle operazioni di Frontex.
      Thales produce ugualmente sistemi di sorveglianza marittima per droni e lavora attualmente per sviluppare una infrastruttura di sorveglianza delle frontiere per Eurosus, che permetta di seguire e controllare i rifugiati prima che raggiungano l’Europa con l’aiuto di applicazioni per Smartphone, e studia ugualmente l’utilizzo di “High Altitude Pseudo-Satellites - HAPS” per la sicurezza delle frontiere, per l’Agenzia spaziale europea e Frontex. Thales fornisce attualmente il sistema di sicurezza del porto altamente militarizzato di Calais.
      Con l’acquisto nel 2019 di Gemalto, multinazionale specializzata nella sicurezza e identità (biometrica), Thales diventa un attore importante nello sviluppo e nel mantenimento dei muri virtuali dell’UE. L’impresa ha partecipato a 27 progetti di ricerca dell’UE sulla sicurezza delle frontiere.

      – La società di armamenti italiana Leonardo (originariamente Finmeccanica o Leonardo-Finmeccanica) è uno dei principali fornitori di elicotteri per la sicurezza delle frontiere, utilizzati dalle operazioni Mare Nostrum, Hera e Sophia in Italia. Ha ugualmente fatto parte dei principali fornitori di UAV (o droni), ottenendo un contratto di 67,1 milioni di euro nel 2017 con l’EMSA (Agenzia europea per la sicurezza marittima) per fornire le agenzie di guardia costiera dell’UE.
      Leonardo faceva ugualmente parte di un consorzio che si è visto attribuire un contratto di 142,1 milioni di euro nel 2019 per attuare e assicurare il mantenimento dei muri virtuali dell’UE, ossia il Sistema di entrata/uscita (EES). La società detiene, con Thales, Telespazio, che partecipa ai progetti di osservazione dai satelliti dell’UE (React e Copernicus) utilizzati per controllare le frontiere. Leonardo ha partecipato a 24 progetti di ricerca dell’UE sulla sicurezza e il controllo delle frontiere, tra cui lo sviluppo di Eurosur.

      – Il gigante degli armamenti pan-europei Airbus è un importante fornitore di elicotteri utilizzati nella sorveglianza delle frontiere marittime e di alcune frontiere terrestri, impiegati da Belgio, Francia, Germania, Grecia, Italia, Lituania e Spagna, in particolare nelle operazioni marittime Sophia, Poseidon e Triton. Airbus e le sue filiali hanno partecipato almeno a 13 progetti di ricerca sulla sicurezza delle frontiere finanziati dall’UE, tra cui OCEAN2020, PERSEUS e LOBOS.

      Il ruolo chiave di queste società di armamenti in realtà non è sorprendente. Come è stato dimostrato da “Border Wars” (2016), queste imprese, in quanto appartenenti a lobby come EOS (Organizzazione europea per la sicurezza) e ASD (Associazione delle industrie aerospaziali e della difesa in Europa), hanno ampiamente contribuito a influenzare l’orientamento della politica delle frontiere dell’UE. Paradossalmente, questi stessi marchi fanno ugualmente parte dei quattro più grandi venditori europei di armi al Medio Oriente e all’Africa del Nord, contribuendo così ad alimentare i conflitti all’origine di queste migrazioni forzate.

      Allo stesso modo Indra gioca un ruolo non indifferente nel controllo delle frontiere in Spagna e nel Mediterraneo. L’impresa ha ottenuto una serie di contratti per fortificare Ceuta e Melilla (enclavi spagnole nel Nord del Marocco). Indra ha ugualmente sviluppato il sistema di controllo delle frontiere SIVE (con sistemi radar, di sensori e visivi) che è installato nella maggior parte delle frontiere della Spagna, così come in Portogallo e in Romania. Nel luglio 2018, Indra ha ottenuto un contratto di 10 milioni di euro per assicurare la gestione di SIVE su più siti per due anni. L’impresa è molto attiva nel fare lobby presso l’UE. È ugualmente una dei grandi beneficiari dei finanziamenti per la ricerca dell’UE, che assicurano il coordinamento del progetto PERSEUS per lo sviluppo di Eurosur e il Seahorse Network, la rete di scambio di informazioni tra le forze di polizia dei paesi mediterranei (in Europa e in Africa) per fermare le migrazioni.

      Le società di armamenti israeliane hanno anch’esse ottenuto numerosi contratti nel quadro della sicurezza delle frontiere in UE. Nel 2018, Frontex ha selezionato il drone Heron delle Israel Aerospace Industries per i voli di sorveglianza degli esperimenti pilota nel Mediterraneo. Nel 2015, la società israeliana Elbit Systems ha venduto sei dei suoi droni Hermes al Corpo di guardie di frontiera svizzero, nel quadro di un contratto controverso di 230 milioni di euro. Ha anche firmato in seguito un contratto per droni con l’EMSA (Agenzia europea per la sicurezza marittima), in quanto subappaltatore della società portoghese CEIIA (2018), così come dei contratti per equipaggiare tre navi di pattugliamento per la Hellenic Coast Guard (2019).
      Gli appaltatori dei muri fisici

      La maggioranza di muri e recinzioni che sono stati rapidamente eretti attraverso l’Europa, sono stati costruiti da società di BTP nazionali/società nazionali di costruzioni, ma un’impresa europea ha dominato nel mercato: la European Security Fencing, un produttore spagnolo di filo spinato, in particolare di un filo a spirale chiamato “concertina”. È famosa per aver fornito i fili spinati delle recinzioni che circondano Ceuta e Melilla. L’impresa ha ugualmente dotato di fili spinati le frontiere tra l’Ungheria e la Serbia, e i suoi fili spinati “concertina” sono stati installati alle frontiere tra Bulgaria e Turchia e tra l’Austria e la Slovenia, così come a Calais e, per qualche giorno, alla frontiera tra Ungheria e Slovenia, prima di essere ritirati. Dato che essi detengono il monopolio sul mercato da un po’ di tempo a questa parte, è probabile che i fili spinati “concertina” siano stati utilizzati presso altre frontiere in Europa.

      Tra le altre imprese che hanno fornito i muri e le tecnologie ad essi associate, si trova DAT-CON (Croazia, Cipro, Macedonia, Moldavia, Slovenia e Ucraina), Geo Alpinbau (Austria/Slovenia), Indra, Dragados, Ferrovial, Proyectos Y Tecnología Sallén e Eulen (Spagna/Marocco), Patstroy Bourgas, Infra Expert, Patengineeringstroy, Geostroy Engineering, Metallic-Ivan Mihaylov et Indra (Bulgaria/Turchia), Nordecon e Defendec (Estonia/Russia), DAK Acélszerkezeti Kft e SIA Ceļu būvniecības sabiedrība IGATE (Lettonia/Russia), Gintrėja (Lituania/Russi), Minis e Legi-SGS (Slovenia/Croazia), Groupe CW, Jackson’s Fencing, Sorhea, Vinci/Eurovia e Zaun Ltd (Francia/Regno Unito).

      I costi reali dei muri e delle tecnologie associate superano spesso le stime originali. Numerose accuse e denunce per corruzione sono state allo stesso modo formulate, in certi casi perché i progetti erano stati attribuiti a delle imprese che appartenevano ad amici di alti funzionari. In Slovenia, per esempio, accuse di corruzione riguardanti un contratto per la costruzione di muri alle frontiere hanno portato a tre anni di battaglie legali per avere accesso ai documenti; la questione è passata poi alla Corte suprema.

      Malgrado tutto ciò, il Fondo europeo per le frontiere esterne ha sostenuto finanziariamente le infrastrutture e i servizi tecnologici di numerose operazioni alle frontiere degli Stati membri. In Macedonia, per esempio, l’UE ha versato 9 milioni di euro per finanziare dei veicoli di pattugliamento, delle telecamere a visione notturna, dei rivelatori di battito cardiaco e sostegno tecnico alle guardie di frontiera nell’aiuto della gestione della sua frontiera meridionale.
      Gli speculatori dei muri marittimi

      I dati che permettono di determinare quali imbarcazioni, elicotteri e aerei sono utilizzati nelle operazioni marittime in Europa mancano di trasparenza. È dunque difficile recuperare tutte le informazioni. Le nostre ricerche mostrano comunque che tra le principali società implicate figurano i giganti europei degli armamenti Airbus e Leonardo, così come grandi imprese di costruzione navale come l’olandese Damen e l’italiana Fincantieri.

      Le imbarcazioni di pattugliamento di Damen sono servite per delle operazioni frontaliere portate avanti da Albania, Belgio, Bulgaria, Portogallo, Paesi Bassi, Romania, Svezia e Regno Unito, così come per le vaste operazioni di Frontex (Poseidon, Triton e Themis), per l’operazione Sophia e hanno ugualmente sostento la NATO nell’operazione Poseidon.

      Al di fuori dell’Europa, la Libia, il Marocco, la Tunisia e la Turchia utilizzano delle imbarcazioni Damen per la sicurezza delle frontiere, spesso in collaborazione con l’UE o i suoi Stati membri. Per esempio, le sei navi Damen che la Turchia ha comprato per la sua guardia costiera nel 2006, per un totale di 20 milioni di euro, sono state finanziate attraverso lo strumento europeo che contribuirebbe alla stabilità e alla pace (IcSP), destinato a mantenere la pace e a prevenire i conflitti.

      La vendita di imbarcazioni Damen alla Libia mette in evidenza l’inquietante costo umano di questo commercio. Nel 2012, Damen ha fornito quattro imbarcazioni di pattugliamento alla guardia costiera libica, che sono state vendute come equipaggiamento civile col fine di evitare la licenza di esportazione di armi nei Paesi Bassi. I ricercatori hanno poi scoperto che non solo le imbarcazioni erano state vendute con dei punti di fissaggio per le armi, ma che erano state in seguito armate ed utilizzate per fermare le imbarcazioni di rifugiati. Numerosi incidenti che hanno implicato queste imbarcazioni sono stati segnalati, tra i quali l’annegamento di 20 o 30 rifugiati. Damen si è rifiutata di commentare, dichiarando di aver convenuto col governo libico di non divulgare alcuna informazione riguardante le imbarcazioni.

      Numerosi costruttori navali nazionali, oltre a Damen, giocano un ruolo determinante nelle operizioni marittime poiché sono sistematicamente scelti con priorità dai paesi partecipanti a ogni operazione di Frontex o ad altre operazioni nel Mediterraneo. Tutte le imbarcazioni fornite dall’Italia all’operazione Sophia sono state costruite da Fincantieri e tutte quelle spagnole sono fornite da Navantia e dai suoi predecessori. Allo stesso modo, la Francia si rifornisce da DCN/DCNS, ormai Naval Group, e tutte le imbarcazioni tedesche sono state costruite da diversi cantieri navali tedeschi (Flensburger Schiffbau-Gesellschaft, HDW, Lürssen Gruppe). Altre imprese hanno partecipato alle operazioni di Frontex, tra cui la società greca Motomarine Shipyards, che ha prodotto i pattugliatori rapidi Panther 57 utilizzati dalla guardia costiera greca, così come la Hellenic Shipyards e la Israel Shipyards.

      La società austriaca Schiebel, che fornisce i droni S-100, gioca un ruolo importante nella sorveglianza aerea delle attività marittime. Nel novembre 2018, è stata selezionata dall’EMSA per un contratto di sorveglianza marittima di 24 milioni di euro riguardante differenti operazioni che includevano la sicurezza delle frontiere. Dal 2017, Schiebel ha ugualmente ottenuto dei contratti con la Croazia, la Danimarca, l’Islanda, l’Italia, il Portogallo e la Spagna. L’impresa ha un passato controverso: ha venduto dei droni a numerosi paesi in conflitto armato o governati da regimi repressivi come la Libia, il Myanmar, gli Emirati Arabi Uniti e lo Yemen.

      La Finlandia e i Paesi Bassi hanno impiegato degli aerei Dornier rispettivamente nel quadro delle operazioni Hermès, Poseidon e Triton. Dornier appartiene ormai alla filiale americana della società di armamenti israeliana Elbit Systems.
      CAE Aviation (Lussemburgo), DEA Aviation (Regno Unito) e EASP Air (Paesi Bassi) hanno tutte ottenuto dei contratti di sorveglianza aerea per Frontex.
      Airbus, Dassault Aviation, Leonardo e l’americana Lockheed Martin hanno fornito il più grande numero di aerei utilizzati per l’operazione Sophia.

      L’UE e i suoi Stati membri difendono le loro operazioni marittime pubblicizzando il loro ruolo nel salvataggio dei rifugiati in mare. Ma non è questo il loro obiettivo principale, come sottolinea il direttore di Frontex Fabrice Leggeri nell’aprile 2015, dichiarando che “le azioni volontarie di ricerca e salvataggio” non fanno parte del mandato affidato a Frontex, e che salvare delle vite non dovrebbe essere una priorità. La criminalizzazione delle operazioni di salvataggio da parte delle ONG, gli ostacoli che esse incontrano, così come la violenza e i respingimenti illegali dei rifugiati, spesso denunciati, illustrano bene il fatto che queste operazioni marittime sono volte soprattutto a costituire muri piuttosto che missioni umanitarie.
      I muri virtuali

      I principali contratti dell’UE legati ai muri virtuali sono stati affidati a due imprese, a volte in quanto leader di un consorzio.
      Sopra Steria è il partner principale per lo sviluppo e il mantenimento del Sistema d’informazione dei visti (SIV), del Sistema di informazione Schengen (SIS II) e di Eurodac (European Dactyloscopy) e GMV ha firmato una serie di contratti per Eurosur. I sistemi che essi concepiscono permettono di controllare e di sorvegliare i movimenti delle persone attraverso l’Europa e, sempre più spesso, al di là delle sue frontiere.

      Sopra Steria è un’impresa francese di servizi per consultazioni in tecnologia che ha, ad oggi, ottenuto dei contratti con l’UE per un valore totale di più di 150 milioni di euro. Nel quadro di alcuni di questi grossi contratti, Sopra Steria ha formato dei consorzi con HP Belgio, Bull e 3M Belgio.

      Malgrado l’ampiezza di questi mercati, Sopra Steria ha ricevuto importanti critiche per la sua mancanza di rigore nel rispetto delle tempistiche e dei budget. Il lancio di SIS II è stato costantemente ritardato, costringendo la Commissione a prolungare i contratti e ad aumentare i budget. Sopra Steria aveva ugualmente fatto parte di un altro consorzio, Trusted Borders, impegnato nello sviluppo del programma e-Borders nel Regno Unito. Quest’ultimo è terminato nel 2010 dopo un accumulo di ritardi e di mancate consegne. Tuttavia, la società ha continuato a ottenere contratti, a causa del suo quasi monopolio di conoscenze e di relazioni con i rappresentanti dell’UE. Il ruolo centrale di Sopra Steria nello sviluppo dei sistemi biometrici dell’UE ha ugualmente portato alla firma di altri contratti nazionali con, tra gli altri, il Belgio, la Bulgaria, la Repubblica ceca, la Finlandia, la Francia, la Germania, la Romania e la Slovenia.

      GMV, un’impresa tecnologica spagnola, ha concluso una serie di grossi contratti per Eurosur, dopo la sua fase sperimentale nel 2010, per almeno 25 milioni di euro. Essa rifornisce ugualmente di tecnologie la Guardia Civil spagnola, tecnologie quali, ad esempio, i centri di controllo del suo Sistema integrato di sorveglianza esterna (SIVE), sistema di sicurezza delle frontiere, così come rifornisce di servizi di sviluppo logistico Frontex. L’impresa ha partecipato ad almeno dieci progetti di ricerca finanziati dall’UE sulla sicurezza delle frontiere.

      La maggior parte dei grossi contratti riguardanti i muri virtuali che non sono stati conclusi con consorzi di cui facesse parte Sopra Steria, sono stati attribuiti da eu-LISA (l’Agenzia europea per la gestione operazionale dei sistemi di informazione su vasta scale in seno allo spazio di libertà, di sicurezza e di giustizia) a dei consorzi di imprese specializzate nell’informazione e nelle nuove tecnologie, tra questi: Accenture, Atos Belgium e Morpho (rinominato Idemia).
      Lobby

      Come testimonia il nostro report “Border Wars”, il settore della difesa e della sicurezza, grazie ad una lobbying efficace, ha un’influenza considerabile nell’elaborazione delle politiche di difesa e di sicurezza dell’UE. Le imprese di questo settore industriale sono riuscite a posizionarsi come esperti della sicurezza delle frontiere, portando avanti il loro discorso secondo il quale la migrazione è prima di tutto una minaccia per la sicurezza che deve essere combattuta tramite mezzi militari e securitari. Questo crea così una domanda continua del catalogo sempre più fornito di equipaggiamenti e servizi che esse forniscono per la sicurezza e il controllo delle frontiere.

      Un numero alto di imprese che abbiamo nominato, in particolare le grandi società di armamenti, fanno parte dell’EOS (Organizzazione europea per la sicurezza), il più importante gruppo di pressione sulla sicurezza delle frontiere.

      Molte imprese informatiche che hanno concepito i muri virtuali dell’UE sono membri dell’EAB (Associazione Europea per la Biometria). L’EOS ha un “Gruppo di lavoro sulla sicurezza integrata delle frontiere” per “permettere lo sviluppo e l’adozione delle migliori soluzioni tecnologiche per la sicurezza delle frontiere sia ai checkpoint che lungo le frontiere marittime e terrestri”.
      Il gruppo di lavoro è presieduto da Giorgio Gulienetti, della società di armi italiana Leonardo, Isto Mattila (diplomato all’università di scienze applicate) e Peter Smallridge di Gemalto, multinazionale specializzata nella sicurezza numerica, recentemente acquisita da Thales.

      I lobbisti di imprese e i rappresentanti di questi gruppi di pressione incontrano regolarmente le istituzioni dell’UE, tra cui la Commissione europea, nel quadro di comitati di consiglio ufficiali, pubblicano proposte influenti, organizzano incontri tra il settore industriale, i policy-makers e i dirigenti e si ritrovano allo stesso modo in tutti i saloni, le conferenze e i seminari sulla difesa e la sicurezza.

      Airbus, Leonardo e Thales e l’EOS hanno anche assistito a 226 riunioni ufficiali di lobby con la Commissione europea tra il 2014 e il 2019. In queste riunioni, i rappresentanti del settore si presentano come esperti della sicurezza delle frontiere, e propongono i loro prodotti e servizi come soluzione alle “minacce alla sicurezza” costituite dall’immigrazione. Nel 2017, queste stesse imprese e l’EOS hanno speso fino a 2,56 milioni di euro in lobbying.

      Si constata una relazione simile per quanto riguarda i muri virtuali: il Centro comune della ricerca della Commissione europea domanda apertamente che le politiche pubbliche favoriscano “l’emergenza di una industria biometrica europea dinamica”.
      Un business mortale, una scelta

      La conclusione di questa inchiesta sul business dell’innalzamento di muri è chiara: la presenza di un’Europa piena di muri si rivela molto fruttuosa per una larga fetta di imprese del settore degli armamenti, della difesa, dell’informatica, del trasporto marittimo e delle imprese di costruzioni. I budget che l’UE ha pianificato per la sicurezza delle frontiere nei prossimi dieci anni mostrano che si tratta di un commercio che continua a prosperare.

      Si tratta altresì di un commercio mortale. A causa della vasta militarizzazione delle frontiere dell’Europa sulla terraferma e in mare, i rifugiati e i migranti intraprendono dei percorsi molto più pericolosi e alcuni si trovano anche intrappolati in terribili condizioni in paesi limitrofi come la Libia. Non vengono registrate tutte le morti, ma quelle che sono registrate nel Mediterraneo mostrano che il numero di migranti che annegano provando a raggiungere l’Europa continua ad aumentare ogni anno.

      Questo stato di cose non è inevitabile. È il risultato sia di decisioni politiche prese dall’UE e dai suoi Stati membri, sia dalle decisioni delle imprese di trarre profitto da queste politiche. Sono rare le imprese che prendono posizione, come il produttore tedesco di filo spinato Mutinox che ha dichiarato nel 2015 che non avrebbe venduto i suoi prodotti al governo ungherese per il seguente motivo: “I fili spinati sono concepiti per impedire atti criminali, come il furto. Dei rifugiati, bambini e adulti, non sono dei criminali”.

      È tempo che altri politici e capi d’impresa riconoscano questa stessa verità: erigere muri contro le popolazioni più vulnerabili viola i diritti umani e costituisce un atto immorale che sarà evidentemente condannato dalla storia.

      Trent’anni dopo la caduta del muro di Berlino, è tempo che l’Europa abbatta i suoi nuovi muri.

      https://www.meltingpot.org/La-costruzione-di-muri-un-business.html

    • How the arms industry drives Fortress Europe’s expansion

      In recent years, rising calls for deterrence have intensified the physical violence migrants face at the EU border. The externalization of the border through deals with sending and transit countries signals the expansion of this securitization process. Financial gains by international arms firms in this militarization trend form an obstacle for policy change.

      In March, April, and May of this year, multiple European countries deployed military forces to their national borders. This was done to assist with controls and patrols in the wake of border closures and other movement restrictions due to the Covid-19 crisis. Poland deployed 1,460 soldiers to the border to support the Border Guard and police as part of a larger military operation in reaction to Covid-19. And the Portuguese police used military drones as a complement to their land border checks. According to overviews from NATO, the Czech Republic, Greece, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands (military police), Slovakia, and Slovenia all stationed armed forces at their national borders.

      While some of these deployments have been or will be rolled back as the Corona crisis dies down, they are not exceptional developments. Rather, using armed forces for border security and control has been a common occurrence at EU external borders since the so-called refugee crisis of 2015. They are part of the continuing militarisation of European border and migration policies, which is known to put refugees at risk but is increasingly being expanded to third party countries. Successful lobbying from the military and security industry has been an important driver for these policies, from which large European arms companies have benefited.

      The militarization of borders happens when EU member states send armies to border regions, as they did in Operation Sophia off the Libyan coast. This was the first outright EU military mission to stop migration. But border militarization also includes the use of military equipment for migration control, such as helicopters and patrol vessels, as well as the the EU-wide surveillance system Eurosur, which connects surveillance data from all individual member states. Furthermore, EU countries now have over 1,000 kilometers of walls and fences on their borders. These are rigged with surveillance, monitoring, and detection technologies, and accompanied by an increasing use of drones and other autonomous systems. The EU also funds a constant stream of Research & Technology (R&T) projects to develop new technologies and services to monitor and manage migration.

      This process has been going on for decades. The Schengen Agreement of 1985, and the subsequent creation of the Schengen Area, which coupled the opening of the internal EU borders with robust control at the external borders, can be seen as a starting point for these developments. After 2011, when the so-called ‘Arab Spring’ led to fears of mass migration to Europe, and especially since the ‘refugee crisis’ of 2015, the EU accelerated the boosting and militarising of border security, enormously. Since then, stopping migration has been at the top of the EU agenda.

      An increasingly important part of the process of border militarization isn’t happening at the European borders, but far beyond them. The EU and its member states are incentivizing third party countries to help stop migrants long before they reach Europe. This externalising of borders has taken many forms, from expanding the goals of EUCAP missions in Mali and Niger to include the prevention of irregular migration, to funding and training the Libyan Coast Guard to return refugees back to torture and starvation in the infamous detention centers in Libya. It also includes the donation of border security equipment, for example from Germany to Tunisia, and funding for purchases, such as Turkey’s acquisition of coast guard vessels to strengthen its operational capacities.

      Next to the direct consequences of European border externalisation efforts, these policies cause and worsen problems in the third party countries concerned: diverting development funds and priorities, ruining migration-based economies, and strengthening authoritarian regimes such as those in Chad, Belarus, Eritrea, and Sudan by providing funding, training and equipment to their military and security forces. Precisely these state organs are most responsible for repression and abuses of human rights. All this feeds drivers of migration, including violence, repression, and unemployment. As such, it is almost a guarantee for more refugees in the future.

      EU border security agency Frontex has also extended its operations into non-EU-countries. Ongoing negotiations and conclusions of agreements with Balkan countries resulted in the first operation in Albania having started in May 2019. And this is only a small part of Frontex’ expanding role in recent years. In response to the ‘refugee crisis’ of 2015, the European Commission launched a series of proposals that saw large increases in the powers of the agency, including giving member states binding advice to boost their border security, and giving Frontex the right to intervene in member states’ affairs (even without their consent) by decision of the Commission or Council.

      These proposals also included the creation of a 10,000 person strong standing corps of border guards and a budget to buy or lease its own equipment. Concretely, Frontex started with a budget of €6 million in 2005, which grew to €143 million in 2015. This was then quickly increased again from €239 million in 2016 to €460 million in 2020. The enormous expansion of EU border security and control has been accompanied by rapidly increasing budgets in general. In recent years, billions of euros have been spent on fortifying borders, setting up biometric databases, increasing surveillance capacities, and paying non-EU-countries to play their parts in this expansion process.

      Negotiations about the next seven-year-budget for the EU, the Multiannual Financial Framework 2021-2027, are still ongoing. In the European Commission’s latest proposal, which is clearly positioned as a response to the Covid-19 pandemic, the fund for strengthening member states’ border security, the Integrated Border Management Fund, has been allotted €12.5 billion. Its predecessors, the External Borders Fund (2007-2013) and the Internal Security Fund – Borders (2014-2020), had much smaller budgets: €1.76 billion and €2.70 billion, respectively. For Frontex, €7.5 billion is reserved, with €2.2 billion earmarked for purchasing or leasing equipment such as helicopters, drones, and patrol vessels. These huge budget increases are exemplary of the priority the EU attaches to stopping migration.

      The narrative underlying these policies and budget growths is the perception of migration as a threat; a security problem. As researcher, Ainhoa Ruiz (Centre Delàs) writes, “the securitisation process also includes militarisation,” because “the prevailing paradigm for providing security is based on military principles: the use of force and coercion, more weapons equating to more security, and the achievement of security by eliminating threats.”

      This narrative hasn’t come out of the blue. It is pushed by right wing politicians and often followed by centrist and leftist parties afraid of losing voters. Importantly, it is also promoted by an extensive and successful industrial lobby. According to Martin Lemberg-Pedersen (Assistant Professor in Global Refugee Studies, Aalborg University), arms companies “establish themselves as experts on border security, and use this position to frame immigration to Europe as leading to evermore security threats in need of evermore advanced [security] products.” The narrative of migration as a security problem thus sets the stage for militaries, and the security companies behind the commercial arms lobby, to offer their goods and services as the solution. The range of militarization policies mentioned so far reflects the broad adoption of this narrative.

      The lobby organizations of large European military and security companies regularly interact with the European Commission and EU border agencies. They have meetings, organise roundtables, and see each other at military and security fairs and conferences. Industry representatives also take part in official advisory groups, are invited to present new arms and technologies, and write policy proposals. These proposals can sometimes be so influential that they are adopted as policy, almost unamended.

      This happened, for instance, when the the Commission decided to open up the Instrument contributing to Security and Peace, a fund meant for peace-building and conflict prevention. The fund’s terms were expanded to cover provision of third party countries with non-lethal security equipment, for example, for border security purposes. The new policy document for this turned out to be a step-by-step reproduction of an earlier proposal from lobby organisation, Aerospace and Defence Industries Association of Europe (ASD). Yet, perhaps the most far-reaching success of this kind is the expansion of Frontex, itself, into a European Border Guard. Years before it actually happened, the industry had already been pushing for this outcome.

      The same companies that are at the forefront of the border security and control lobby are, not surprisingly, also the big winners of EU and member states’ contracts in these areas. These include three of the largest European (and global) arms companies, namely, Airbus (Paneuropean), Leonardo (Italy) and Thales (France). These companies are active in many aspects of the border security and control market. Airbus’ and Leonardo’s main product in this field are helicopters, with EU funds paying for many purchases by EU and third countries. Thales provides radar, for example, for border patrol vessels, and is heavily involved in biometric and digital identification, especially after having acquired market leader, Gemalto, last year.

      These three companies are the main beneficiaries of the European anti-migration obsession. At the same time, these very three companies also contribute to new migration streams to Europe’s shores through their trade in arms. They are responsible for significant parts of Europe’s arms exports to countries at war, and they provide the arms used by parties in internal armed conflicts, by human rights violators, and by repressive regimes. These are the forces fueling the reasons for which people are forced to flee in the first place.

      Many other military and security companies also earn up to hundreds of millions of euros from large border security and control projects oriented around logistics and transport. Dutch shipbuilder Damen provided not only many southern European countries with border patrol vessels, but also controversially sold those to Libya and Turkey, among others. Its ships have also been used in Frontex operations, in Operation Sophia, and on the Channel between Calais and Dover.

      The Spanish company, European Security Fencing, provided razor wire for the fences around the Spanish enclaves, Ceuta and Melilla, in Morocco, as well as the fence at Calais and the fences on the borders of Austria, Bulgaria, and Hungary. Frontex, the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA), and Greece leased border surveillance drones from Elbit and Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI). These are Israeli military companies that routinely promote their products as ‘combat-proven’ or ‘battlefield tested’ against Palestinians.

      Civipol, a French public-private company owned by the state, and several large arms producers (including Thales, Airbus, and Safran), run a string of EU-/member state-funded border security projects in third party countries. This includes setting up fingerprint databases of the whole populations of Mali and Senegal, which facilitates identification and deportation of their nationals from Europe. These are just a few examples of the companies that benefit from the billions of euros that the EU and its member states spend on a broad range of purchases and projects in their bid to stop migration.

      The numbers of forcibly displaced people in the world grew to a staggering 79.5 million by the end of last year. Instead of helping to eliminate the root causes of migration, EU border and migration policies, as well as its arms exports to the rest of the world, are bound to lead to more refugees in the future. The consequences of these policies have already been devastating. As experts in the field of migration have repeatedly warned, the militarisation of borders primarily pushes migrants to take alternative migration routes that are often more dangerous and involve the risks of relying on criminal smuggling networks. The Mediterranean Sea has become a sad witness of this, turning into a graveyard for a growing percentage of refugees trying to cross it.

      The EU approach to border security doesn’t stand on its own. Many other countries, in particular Western ones and those with authoritarian leaders, follow the same narrative and policies. Governments all over the world, but particularly those in the US, Australia, and Europe, continue to spend billions of euros on border security and control equipment and services. And they plan to increase budgets even more in the coming years. For military and security companies, this is good news; the global border security market is expected to grow by over 7% annually for the next five years to a total of $65 billion in 2025. It looks like they will belong to the very few winners of increasingly restrictive policies targeting vulnerable people on the run.

      https://crisismag.net/2020/06/27/how-the-arms-industry-drives-fortress-europes-expansion
      #industrie_militaire #covid-19 #coronavirus #frontières_extérieures #Operation_Sophia #Eurosur #surveillance #drones #technologie #EUCAP #externalisation #Albanie #budget #Integrated_Border_Management_Fund #menace #lobby_industriel #Instrument_contributing_to_Security_and_Peace #conflits #paix #prévention_de_conflits #Aerospace_and_Defence_Industries_Association_of_Europe (#ASD) #Airbus #Leonardo #Thales #hélicoptères #radar #biométrie #identification_digitale #Gemalto #commerce_d'armes #armement #Damen #European_Security_Fencing #barbelé #European_Maritime_Safety_Agency (#EMSA) #Elbit #Israel_Aerospace_Industries (#IAI) #Civipol #Safran #base_de_données

      –—

      Pour @etraces :

      Civipol, a French public-private company owned by the state, and several large arms producers (including Thales, Airbus, and Safran), run a string of EU-/member state-funded border security projects in third party countries. This includes setting up fingerprint databases of the whole populations of Mali and Senegal, which facilitates identification and deportation of their nationals from Europe

    • GUARDING THE FORTRESS. The role of Frontex in the militarisation and securitisation of migration flows in the European Union

      The report focuses on 19 Frontex operations run by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (hereafter Frontex) to explore how the agency is militarising borders and criminalising migrants, undermining fundamental rights to freedom of movement and the right to asylum.

      This report is set in a wider context in which more than 70.8 million people worldwide have been forcibly displaced, according to the 2018 figures from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) (UNHCR, 2019). Some of these have reached the borders of the European Union (EU), seeking protection and asylum, but instead have encountered policy responses that mostly aim to halt and intercept migration flows, against the background of securitisation policies in which the governments of EU Member States see migration as a threat. One of the responses to address migration flows is the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (hereafter Frontex), established in 2004 as the EU body in charge of guarding what many have called ‘Fortress Europe’, and whose practices have helped to consolidate the criminalisation of migrants and the securitisation of their movements.

      The report focuses on analysing the tools deployed by Fortress Europe, in this case through Frontex, to prevent the freedom of movement and the right to asylum, from its creation in 2004 to the present day.

      The sources used to write this report were from the EU and Frontex, based on its budgets and annual reports. The analysis focused on the Frontex regulations, the language used and its meaning, as well as the budgetary trends, identifying the most significant items – namely, the joint operations and migrant-return operations.

      A table was compiled of all the joint operations mentioned in the annual reports since the Agency was established in 2005 up to 2018 (see annexes). The joint operations were found on government websites but were not mentioned in the Frontex annual reports. Of these operations, we analysed those of the longest duration, or that have showed recent signs of becoming long-term operations. The joint operations are analysed in terms of their objectives, area of action, the mandates of the personnel deployed, and their most noteworthy characteristics.

      Basically, the research sought to answer the following questions: What policies are being implemented in border areas and in what context? How does Frontex act in response to migration movements? A second objective was to analyse how Frontex securitises the movement of refugees and other migrants, with the aim of contributing to the analysis of the process of border militarisation and the security policies applied to non-EU migrants by the EU and its Member States.

      https://www.tni.org/en/guarding-the-fortress

      Pour télécharger le rapport_
      https://www.tni.org/files/publication-downloads/informe40_eng_ok.pdf

      #rapport #TNI #Transnational_institute

    • #Frontex aircraft : Below the radar against international law

      For three years, Frontex has been chartering small aircraft for the surveillance of the EU’s external borders. First Italy was thus supported, then Croatia followed. Frontex keeps the planes details secret, and the companies also switch off the transponders for position display during operations.

      The European Commission does not want to make public which private surveillance planes Frontex uses in the Mediterranean. In the non-public answer to a parliamentary question, the EU border agency writes that the information on the aircraft is „commercially confidential“ as it contains „personal data and sensitive operational information“.

      Frontex offers EU member states the option of monitoring their external borders using aircraft. For this „Frontex Aerial Surveillance Service“ (FASS), Frontex charters twin-engined airplanes from European companies. Italy first made use of the service in 2017, followed a year later by Croatia. In 2018, Frontex carried out at least 1,800 flight hours under the FASS, no figures are yet available for 2019.

      Air service to be supplemented with #drones

      The FASS flights are carried out under the umbrella of „Multipurpose Aerial Surveillance“, which includes satellite surveillance as well as drones. Before the end of this year, the border agency plans to station large drones in the Mediterranean for up to four years. The situation pictures of the European Union’s „pre-frontier area“ are fed into the surveillance system EUROSUR, whose headquarter is located at Frontex in Warsaw. The national EUROSUR contact points, for example in Spain, Portugal and Italy, also receive this information.

      In addition to private charter planes, Frontex also uses aircraft and helicopters provided by EU Member States, in the central Mediterranean via the „Themis“ mission. The EU Commission also keeps the call signs of the state aircraft operating there secret. They would be considered „sensitive operational information“ and could not be disclosed to MEPs.

      Previously, the FOIA platform „Frag den Staat“ („Ask the State“) had also tried to find out details about the sea and air capacities of the member states in „Themis“. Frontex refused to provide any information on this matter. „Frag den Staat“ lost a case against Frontex before the European Court of Justice and is now to pay 23,700 Euros to the agency for legal fees.

      Real-time tracking with FlightAware

      The confidentiality of Frontex comes as a surprise, because companies that monitor the Mediterranean for the agency are known through a tender. Frontex has signed framework contracts with the Spanish arms group Indra as well as the charter companies CAE Aviation (Canada), Diamond-Executive Aviation (Great Britain) and EASP Air (Netherlands). Frontex is spending up to 14.5 million euros each on the contracts.

      Finally, online service providers such as FlightAware can also be used to draw conclusions about which private and state airplanes are flying for Frontex in the Mediterranean. For real-time positioning, the providers use data from ADS-B transponders, which all larger aircraft must have installed. A worldwide community of non-commercial trackers receives this geodata and feeds it into the Internet. In this way, for example, Italian journalist Sergio Scandura documents practically all movements of Frontex aerial assets in the central Mediterranean.

      Among the aircraft tracked this way are the twin-engined „DA-42“, „DA-62“ and „Beech 350“ of Diamond-Executive Aviation, which patrol the Mediterranean Sea on behalf of Frontex as „Osprey1“, „Osprey3“ and „Tasty“, in former times also „Osprey2“ and „Eagle1“. They are all operated by Diamond-Executive Aviation and take off and land at airports in Malta and Sicily.

      „Push-backs“ become „pull-backs“

      In accordance with the Geneva Convention on Refugees, the EU Border Agency may not return people to states where they are at risk of torture or other serious human rights violations. Libya is not a safe haven; this assessment has been reiterated on several occasions by the United Nations Commissioner for Refugees, among others.

      Because these „push-backs“ are prohibited, Frontex has since 2017 been helping with so-called „pull-backs“ by bringing refugees back to Libya by the Libyan coast guard rather than by EU units. With the „Multipurpose Aerial Surveillance“, Frontex is de facto conducting air reconnaissance for Libya. By November 2019, the EU border agency had notified Libyan authorities about refugee boats on the high seas in at least 42 cases.

      Many international law experts consider this practice illegal. Since Libya would not be able to track down the refugees without the help of Frontex, the agency must take responsibility for the refoulements. The lawyers Omer Shatz and Juan Branco therefore want to sue responsibles of the European Union before the International Criminal Court in The Hague.

      Frontex watches refugees drown

      This is probably the reason why Frontex disguises the exact location of its air surveillance. Private maritime rescue organisations have repeatedly pointed out that Frontex aircrafts occasionally switch off their transponders so that they cannot be tracked via ADS-B. In the answer now available, this is confirmed by the EU Commission. According to this, the visibility of the aircraft would disclose „sensitive operational information“ and, in combination with other kinds of information, „undermine“ the operational objectives.

      The German Ministry of the Interior had already made similar comments on the Federal Police’s assets in Frontex missions, according to which „general tracking“ of their routes in real time would „endanger the success of the mission“.

      However, Frontex claims it did not issue instructions to online service providers to block the real-time position display of its planes, as journalist Scandura described. Nonetheless, the existing concealment of the operations only allows the conclusion that Frontex does not want to be controlled when the deployed aircraft watch refugees drown and Italy and Malta, as neighbouring EU member states, do not provide any assistance.

      https://digit.site36.net/2020/06/11/frontex-aircraft-blind-flight-against-international-law
      #avions #Italie #Croatie #confidentialité #transparence #Frontex_Aerial_Surveillance_Service (#FASS) #Multipurpose_Aerial_Surveillance #satellites #Méditerranée #Thermis #information_sensible #Indra #CAE_Aviation #Diamond-Executive_Aviation #EASP_Air #FlightAware #ADS-B #DA-42 #DA-62 #Beech_350 #Osprey1 #Osprey3 #Tasty #Osprey2 #Eagle1 #Malte #Sicile #pull-back #push-back #refoulement #Sergio_Scandura

    • Walls Must Fall: Ending the deadly politics of border militarisation - webinar recording
      This webinar explored the trajectory and globalization of border militarization and anti-migrant racism across the world, the history, ideologies and actors that have shaped it, the pillars and policies that underpin the border industrial complex, the resistance of migrants, refugees and activists, and the shifting dynamics within this pandemic.

      - #Harsha_Walia, author of Undoing Border Imperialism (2013)
      - #Jille_Belisario, Transnational Migrant Platform-Europe (TMP-E)
      - #Todd_Miller, author of Empire of Borders (2020), Storming the Wall (2019) and TNI’s report More than A Wall (2019)
      - #Kavita_Krishnan, All India Progressive Women’s Association (AIPWA).
      https://www.tni.org/en/article/walls-must-fall
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8B-cJ2bTi8&feature=emb_logo

      #conférence #webinar

    • Le business meurtrier des frontières

      Le 21ème siècle sera-t-il celui des barrières ? Probable, au rythme où les frontières nationales se renforcent. Dans un livre riche et documenté, publié aux éditions Syllepse, le géographe Stéphane Rosière dresse un indispensable état des lieux.

      Une nuit du mois de juin, dans un centre de rétention de l’île de Rhodes, la police grecque vient chercher une vingtaine de migrant·e·s, dont deux bébés. Après un trajet en bus, elle abandonne le groupe dans un canot de sauvetage sans moteur, au milieu des eaux territoriales turques. En août, le New York Times publie une enquête révélant que cette pratique, avec la combinaison de l’arrivée aux affaires du premier ministre conservateur Kyriakos Mitsotakis et de la diffusion de la pandémie de Covid-19, est devenue courante depuis mars.

      Illégales au regard du droit international, ces expulsions illustrent surtout le durcissement constant de la politique migratoire de l’Europe depuis 20 ans. Elles témoignent aussi d’un processus mondial de « pixellisation » des frontières : celles-ci ne se réduisent pas à des lignes mais à un ensemble de points plus ou moins en amont ou en aval (ports, aéroports, eaux territoriales…), où opèrent les polices frontalières.
      La fin de la fin des frontières

      Plus largement, le récent ouvrage de Stéphane Rosière, Frontières de fer, le cloisonnement du monde, permet de prendre la mesure d’un processus en cours de « rebordering » à travers le monde. À la fois synthèse des recherches récentes sur les frontières et résultats des travaux de l’auteur sur la résurgence de barrières frontalières, le livre est une lecture incontournable sur l’évolution contemporaine des frontières nationales.

      D’autant qu’il n’y a pas si longtemps, la mondialisation semblait promettre l’affaissement des frontières, dans la foulée de la disparition de l’Union soviétique et, corollairement, de la généralisation de l’économie de marché. La Guerre froide terminée annonçait la « fin de l’histoire » et, avec elle, la disparition des limites territoriales héritées de l’époque moderne. Au point de ringardiser, rappelle Stéphane Rosière, les études sur les frontières au sein de la géographie des années 1990, parallèlement au succès d’une valorisation tous azimuts de la mobilité dans le discours politique dominant comme dans les sciences sociales.

      Trente ans après, le monde se réveille avec 25 000 kilomètres de barrières frontalières – record pour l’Inde, avec plus de 3 000 kilomètres de clôtures pour prévenir l’immigration depuis le Bangladesh. Barbelés, murs de briques, caméras, détecteurs de mouvements, grilles électrifiées, les dispositifs de contrôle frontalier fleurissent en continu sur les cinq continents.
      L’âge des « murs anti-pauvres »

      La contradiction n’est qu’apparente. Les barrières du 21e siècle ne ferment pas les frontières mais les cloisonnent – d’où le titre du livre. C’est-à-dire que l’objectif n’est pas de supprimer les flux mondialisés – de personnes et encore moins de marchandises ni de capitaux – mais de les contrôler. Les « teichopolitiques », terme qui recouvre, pour Stéphane Rosière, les politiques de cloisonnement de l’espace, matérialisent un « ordre mondial asymétrique et coercitif », dans lequel on valorise la mobilité des plus riches tout en assignant les populations pauvres à résidence.

      De fait, on observe que les barrières frontalières redoublent des discontinuités économiques majeures. Derrière l’argument de la sécurité, elles visent à contenir les mouvements migratoires des régions les plus pauvres vers des pays mieux lotis économiquement : du Mexique vers les États-Unis, bien sûr, ou de l’Afrique vers l’Europe, mais aussi de l’Irak vers l’Arabie Saoudite ou du Pakistan vers l’Iran.

      Les dispositifs de contrôle frontalier sont des outils parmi d’autres d’une « implacable hiérarchisation » des individus en fonction de leur nationalité. Comme l’a montré le géographe Matthew Sparke à propos de la politique migratoire nord-américaine, la population mondiale se trouve divisée entre une classe hypermobile de citoyen·ne·s « business-class » et une masse entravée de citoyen·ne·s « low-cost ». C’est le sens du « passport index » publié chaque année par le cabinet Henley : alors qu’un passeport japonais ou allemand donne accès à plus de 150 pays, ce chiffre descend en-dessous de 30 avec un passeport afghan ou syrien.
      Le business des barrières

      Si les frontières revêtent une dimension économique, c’est aussi parce qu’elles sont un marché juteux. À l’heure où les pays européens ferment des lits d’hôpital faute de moyens, on retiendra ce chiffre ahurissant : entre 2005 et 2016, le budget de Frontex, l’agence en charge du contrôle des frontières de l’Union européenne, est passé de 6,3 à 238,7 millions d’euros. À quoi s’ajoutent les budgets colossaux débloqués pour construire et entretenir les barrières – budgets entourés d’opacité et sur lesquels, témoigne l’auteur, il est particulièrement difficile d’enquêter, faute d’obtenir… des fonds publics.

      L’argent public alimente ainsi une « teichoéconomie » dont les principaux bénéficiaires sont des entreprises du BTP et de la sécurité européennes, nord-américaines, israéliennes et, de plus en plus, indiennes ou saoudiennes. Ce complexe sécuritaro-industriel, identifié par Julien Saada, commercialise des dispositifs de surveillance toujours plus sophistiqués et prospère au rythme de l’inflation de barrières entre pays, mais aussi entre quartiers urbains.

      Un business d’autant plus florissant qu’il s’auto-entretient, dès lors que les mêmes entreprises vendent des armes. On sait que les ventes d’armes, alimentant les guerres, stimulent les migrations : un « cercle vertueux » s’enclenche pour les entreprises du secteur, appelées à la rescousse pour contenir des mouvements de population qu’elles participent à encourager.
      « Mourir aux frontières »

      Bénéfices juteux, profits politiques, les barrières font des heureux. Elles tuent aussi et l’ouvrage de Stéphane Rosière se termine sur un décompte macabre. C’est, dit-il, une « guerre migratoire » qui est en cours. Guerre asymétrique, elle oppose la police armée des puissances économiques à des groupes le plus souvent désarmés, venant de périphéries dominées économiquement et dont on entend contrôler la mobilité. Au nom de la souveraineté des États, cette guerre fait plusieurs milliers de victimes par an et la moindre des choses est de « prendre la pleine mesure de la létalité contemporaine aux frontières ».

      Sur le blog :

      – Une synthèse sur les murs frontaliers : http://geographiesenmouvement.blogs.liberation.fr/2019/01/28/lamour-des-murs

      – Le compte rendu d’un autre livre incontournable sur les frontières : http://geographiesenmouvement.blogs.liberation.fr/2019/08/03/frontieres-en-mouvement

      – Une synthèse sur les barricades à l’échelle intraurbaine : http://geographiesenmouvement.blogs.liberation.fr/2020/10/21/gated-communities-le-paradis-entre-quatre-murs

      http://geographiesenmouvement.blogs.liberation.fr/2020/11/05/le-business-meurtrier-des-frontieres

    • How Private Security Firms Profit Off the Refugee Crisis

      The UK has pumped money to corporations turning #Calais into a bleak fortress.

      Tall white fences lined with barbed wire – welcome to Calais. The city in northern France is an obligatory stop for anyone trying to reach the UK across the channel. But some travellers are more welcome than others, and in recent decades, a slew of private security companies have profited millions of pounds off a very expensive – an unattractive – operation to keep migrants from crossing.

      Every year, thousands of passengers and lorries take the ferry at the Port of Calais-Fréthun, a trading route heavily relied upon by the UK for imports. But the entrance to the port looks more like a maximum-security prison than your typical EU border. Even before Brexit, the UK was never part of the Schengen area, which allows EU residents to move freely across 26 countries. For decades, Britain has strictly controlled its southern border in an attempt to stop migrants and asylum seekers from entering.

      As early as 2000, the Port of Calais was surrounded by a 2.8 metre-high fence to prevent people from jumping into lorries waiting at the ferry departure point. In 1999, the Red Cross set up a refugee camp in the nearby town of Sangatte which quickly became overcrowded. The UK pushed for it to be closed in 2002 and then negotiated a treaty with France to regulate migration between the two countries.

      The 2003 Le Toquet Treaty allowed the UK to check travellers on French soil before their arrival, and France to do the same on UK soil. Although the deal looks fair on paper, in practice it unduly burdens French authorities, as there are more unauthorised migrants trying to reach the UK from France than vice versa.

      The treaty effectively moved the UK border onto French territory, but people still need to cross the channel to request asylum. That’s why thousands of refugees from conflict zones like Syria, Eritrea, Afghanistan, Sudan and Somalia have found themselves stranded in Calais, waiting for a chance to cross illegally – often in search of family members who’ve already made it to the UK. Many end up paying people smugglers to hide them in lorries or help them cross by boat.

      These underlying issues came to a head during the Syrian crisis, when refugees began camping out near Calais in 2014. The so-called Calais Jungle became infamous for its squalid conditions, and at its peak, hosted more than 7,000 people. They were all relocated to other centres in France before the camp was bulldozed in 2016. That same year, the UK also decided to build a €2.7 million border wall in Calais to block access to the port from the camp, but the project wasn’t completed until after the camp was cleared, attracting a fair deal of criticism. Between 2015 and 2018, the UK spent over €110 million on border security in France, only to top it up with over €56 million more in 2018.

      But much of this public money actually flows into the accounts of private corporations, hired to build and maintain the high-tech fences and conduct security checks. According to a 2020 report by the NGO Care4Calais, there are more than 40 private security companies working in the city. One of the biggest, Eamus Cork Solutions (ECS), was founded by a former Calais police officer in 2004 and is reported to have benefited at least €30 million from various contracts as of 2016.

      Stéphane Rosière, a geography professor at the University of Reims, wrote his book Iron Borders (only available in French) about the many border walls erected around the world. Rosière calls this the “security-industrial” complex – private firms that have largely replaced the traditional military-industrial sector in Europe since WW2.

      “These companies are getting rich by making security systems adaptable to all types of customers – individuals, companies or states,” he said. According to Rosière, three-quarters of the world’s border security barriers were built in the 21st century.

      Brigitte, a pensioner living close to the former site of the Calais Jungle, has seen her town change drastically over the past two decades. “Everything is cordoned off with wire mesh," she said. "I have the before and after photos, and it’s not a pretty sight. It’s just wire, wire, wire.” For the past 15 years, Brigitte has been opening her garage door for asylum seekers to stop by for a cup of tea and charge their phones and laptops, earning her the nickname "Mama Charge”.

      “For a while, the purpose of these fences and barriers was to stop people from crossing,” said François Guennoc, president of L’Auberge des Migrants, an NGO helping displaced migrants in Calais.

      Migrants have still been desperate enough to try their luck. “They risked a lot to get into the port area, and many of them came back bruised and battered,” Guennoc said. Today, walls and fences are mainly being built to deter people from settling in new camps near Calais after being evicted.

      In the city centre, all public squares have been fenced off. The city’s bridges have been fitted with blue lights and even with randomly-placed bike racks, so people won’t sleep under them.

      “They’ve also been cutting down trees for some time now,” said Brigitte, pointing to a patch near her home that was once woods. Guennoc said the authorities are now placing large rocks in areas where NGOs distribute meals and warm clothes, to prevent displaced people from receiving the donations. “The objective of the measures now is also to make the NGOs’ work more difficult,” he said.

      According to the NGO Refugee Rights Europe, about 1,500 men, women and minors were living in makeshift camps in and around Calais as of April 2020. In July 2020, French police raided a camp of over 500 people, destroying residents’ tents and belongings, in the largest operation since the Calais Jungle was cleared. An investigation by Slate found that smaller camps are cleared almost every day by the French police, even in the middle of winter. NGOs keep providing new tents and basic necessities to displaced residents, but they are frustrated by the waste of resources. The organisations are also concerned about COVID-19 outbreaks in the camps.

      As VICE World News has previously reported, the crackdown is only pushing people to take more desperate measures to get into the UK. Boat crossings reached record-highs in 2020, and four people have died since August 2020 while trying to cross, by land and sea. “When you create an obstacle, people find a way to get around it,” Guennoc said. “If they build a wall all the way along the coast to prevent boat departures, people will go to Normandy – and that has already started.” Crossing the open sea puts migrants at even greater risk.

      Rosière agrees security measures are only further endangering migrants.“All locks eventually open, no matter how complex they may be. It’s just a matter of time.”

      He believes the only parties who stand to profit from the status quo are criminal organisations and private security firms: “At the end of the day, this a messed-up use of public money.”

      https://www.vice.com/en/article/wx8yax/how-private-security-firms-profit-off-the-refugee-crisis

      En français:
      À Calais, la ville s’emmure
      https://www.vice.com/fr/article/wx8yax/a-calais-la-ville-semmure

    • Financing Border Wars. The border industry, its financiers and human rights

      This report seeks to explore and highlight the extent of today’s global border security industry, by focusing on the most important geographical markets—Australia, Europe, USA—listing the human rights violations and risks involved in each sector of the industry, profiling important corporate players and putting a spotlight on the key investors in each company.

      Executive summary

      Migration will be one of the defining human rights issues of the 21st century. The growing pressures to migrate combined with the increasingly militarised state security response will only exacerbate an already desperate situation for refugees and migrants. Refugees already live in a world where human rights are systematically denied. So as the climate crisis deepens and intersects with other economic and political crises, forcing more people from their homes, and as states retreat to ever more authoritarian security-based responses, the situation for upholding and supporting migrants’ rights looks ever bleaker.

      States, most of all those in the richest countries, bear the ultimate responsibility to uphold the human rights of refugees and migrants recognised under International Human Rights Law. Yet corporations are also deeply implicated. It is their finance, their products, their services, their infrastructure that underpins the structures of state migration and border control. In some cases, they are directly involved in human rights violations themselves; in other cases they are indirectly involved as they facilitate the system that systematically denies refugees and migrants their rights. Most of all, through their lobbying, involvement in government ‘expert’ groups, revolving doors with state agencies, it becomes clear that corporations are not just accidental beneficiaries of the militarisation of borders. Rather they actively shape the policies from which they profit and therefore share responsibility for the human rights violations that result.

      This state-corporate fusion is best described as a Border Industrial Complex, drawing on former US President Eisenhower’s warning of the dangers of a Military-Industrial Complex. Indeed it is noticeable that many of the leading border industries today are also military companies, seeking to diversify their security products to a rapidly expanding new market.

      This report seeks to explore and highlight the extent of today’s global border security industry, by focusing on the most important geographical markets—Australia, Europe, USA—listing the human rights violations and risks involved in each sector of the industry, profiling important corporate players and putting a spotlight on the key investors in each company.
      A booming industry

      The border industry is experiencing spectacular growth, seemingly immune to austerity or economic downturns. Market research agencies predict annual growth of the border security market of between 7.2% and 8.6%, reaching a total of $65–68 billion by 2025. The largest expansion is in the global Biometrics and Artificial Intelligence (AI) markets. Markets and Markets forecasts the biometric systems market to double from $33 billion in 2019 to $65.3 billion by 2024—of which biometrics for migration purposes will be a significant sector. It says that the AI market will equal US$190.61 billion by 2025.

      The report investigates five key sectors of the expanding industry: border security (including monitoring, surveillance, walls and fences), biometrics and smart borders, migrant detention, deportation, and audit and consultancy services. From these sectors, it profiles 23 corporations as significant actors: Accenture, Airbus, Booz Allen Hamilton, Classic Air Charter, Cobham, CoreCivic, Deloitte, Elbit, Eurasylum, G4S, GEO Group, IBM, IDEMIA, Leonardo, Lockheed Martin, Mitie, Palantir, PricewaterhouseCoopers, Serco, Sopra Steria, Thales, Thomson Reuters, Unisys.

      – The border security and control field, the technological infrastructure of security and surveillance at the border, is led by US, Australian, European and Israeli firms including Airbus, Elbit, Leonardo, Lockheed Martin, Airbus, Leonardo and Thales— all of which are among the world’s major arms sellers. They benefit not only from border contracts within the EU, US, and Australia but also increasingly from border externalisation programmes funded by these same countries. Jean Pierre Talamoni, head of sales and marketing at Airbus Defence and Space (ADS), said in 2016 that he estimates that two thirds of new military market opportunities over the next 10 years will be in Asia and the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region. Companies are also trying to muscle in on providing the personnel to staff these walls, including border guards.

      - The Smart Borders sector encompasses the use of a broad range of (newer) technologies, including biometrics (such as fingerprints and iris-scans), AI and phone and social media tracking. The goal is to speed up processes for national citizens and other acceptable travellers and stop or deport unwanted migrants through the use of more sophisticated IT and biometric systems. Key corporations include large IT companies, such as IBM and Unisys, and multinational services company Accenture for whom migration is part of their extensive portfolio, as well as small firms, such as IDEMIA and Palantir Technologies, for whom migration-related work is central. The French public–private company Civipol, co-owned by the state and several large French arms companies, is another key player, selected to set up fingerprint databases of the whole population of Mali and Senegal.

      – Deportation. With the exception of the UK and the US, it is uncommon to privatise deportation. The UK has hired British company Mitie for its whole deportation process, while Classic Air Charter dominates in the US. Almost all major commercial airlines, however, are also involved in deportations. Newsweek reported, for example, that in the US, 93% of the 1,386 ICE deportation flights to Latin American countries on commercial airlines in 2019 were facilitated by United Airlines (677), American Airlines (345) and Delta Airlines (266).

      - Detention. The Global Detention Project lists over 1,350 migrant detention centres worldwide, of which over 400 are located in Europe, almost 200 in the US and nine in Australia. In many EU countries, the state manages detention centres, while in other countries (e.g. Australia, UK, USA) there are completely privatised prisons. Many other countries have a mix of public and private involvement, such as state facilities with private guards. Australia outsourced refugee detention to camps outside its territories. Australian service companies Broadspectrum and Canstruct International managed the detention centres, while the private security companies G4S, Paladin Solutions and Wilson Security were contracted for security services, including providing guards. Migrant detention in third countries is also an increasingly important part of EU migration policy, with the EU funding construction of migrant detention centres in ten non-EU countries.

      - Advisory and audit services are a more hidden part of public policies and practices, but can be influential in shaping new policies. A striking example is Civipol, which in 2003 wrote a study on maritime borders for the European Commission, which adopted its key policy recommendations in October 2003 and in later policy documents despite its derogatory language against refugees. Civipol’s study also laid foundations for later measures on border externalisation, including elements of the migration deal with Turkey and the EU’s Operation Sophia. Since 2003 Civipol has received funding for a large number of migration-related projects, especially in African countries. Between 2015 and 2017, it was the fourth most-funded organisation under the EU Trust Fund. Other prominent corporations in this sector include Eurasylum, as well as major international consultancy firms, particularly Deloitte and PricewaterhouseCoopers, for which migration-related work is part of their expansive portfolio.

      Financing the industry

      The markets for military and border control procurement are characterized by massively capital intensive investments and contracts, which would not be possible without the involvement of financial actors. Using data from marketscreener.com, the report shows that the world’s largest investment companies are also among the major shareholders in the border industry.

      – The Vanguard Group owns shares in 15 of the 17 companies, including over 15% of the shares of CoreCivic and GEO Group that manage private prisons and detention facilities.

      - Other important investors are Blackrock, which is a major shareholder in 11 companies, Capital Research and Management (part of the Capital Group), with shares in arms giants Airbus and Lockheed Martin, and State Street Global Advisors (SsgA), which owns over 15% of Lockheed Martin shares and is also a major shareholder in six other companies.

      - Although these giant asset management firms dominate, two of the profiled companies, Cobham and IDEMIA, are currently owned by the private equity firm Advent International. Advent specialises in buyouts and restructuring, and it seems likely that it will attempt to split up Cobham in the hope of making a profit by selling on the component companies to other owners.

      - In addition, three large European arms companies, Airbus, Thales and Leonardo, active in the border security market, are partly owned by the governments of the countries where they are headquartered.

      In all cases, therefore, the financing depends on our money. In the case of state ownership, through our taxes, and in terms of asset management funds, through the way individual savings, pension funds, insurance companies and university endowments are directly invested in these companies via the giant Asset Management Funds. This financing means that the border industry survives on at least the tacit approved use of the public’s funds which makes it vulnerable to social pressure as the human rights costs of the industry become ever more clear.
      Human rights and the border industry

      Universal human rights apply to every single human being, including refugees and migrants. While the International Bill of Human Rights provides the foundation, including defining universal rights that are important in the context of migration, such as the right to life, liberty and security of person, the right to freedom from torture or cruel or inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment, and freedom from discrimination, there are other instruments such as the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (Refugee Convention or Geneva Convention) of 1951 that are also relevant. There are also regional agreements, including the Organisation of African Unity Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) that play a role relevant to the countries that have ratified them.

      Yet despite these important and legally binding human rights agreements, the human rights situation for refugees and migrants has become ever more desperate. States frequently deny their rights under international law, such as the right to seek asylum or non-refoulement principles, or more general rights such as the freedom from torture, cruel or inhumane treatment. There is a gap with regard to effective legal means or grievance mechanisms to counter this or to legally enforce or hold to account states that fail to implement instruments such as the UDHR and the Refugee Convention of 1951. A Permanent Peoples Tribunal in 2019 even concluded that ‘taken together, the immigration and asylum policies and practices of the EU and its Member States constitute a total denial of the fundamental rights of people and migrants, and are veritable crimes against humanity’. A similar conclusion can be made of the US and Australian border and immigration regime.

      The increased militarisation of border security worldwide and state-sanctioned hostility toward migrants has had a deeply detrimental impact on the human rights of refugees and migrants.

      – Increased border security has led to direct violence against refugees, pushbacks with the risk of returning people to unsafe countries and inhumane circumstances (contravening the principle of non-refoulement), and a disturbing rise in avoidable deaths, as countries close off certain migration routes, forcing migrants to look for other, often more dangerous, alternatives and pushing them into the arms of criminal smuggling networks.

      – The increased use of autonomous systems of border security such as drones threaten new dangers related to human rights. There is already evidence that they push migrants to take more dangerous routes, but there is also concern that there is a gradual trend towards weaponized systems that will further threaten migrants’ lives.

      – The rise in deportations has threatened fundamental human rights including the right to family unity, the right to seek asylum, the right to humane treatment in detention, the right to due process, and the rights of children’. There have been many instances of violence in the course of deportations, sometimes resulting in death or permanent harm, against desperate people who try to do everything to prevent being deported. Moreover, deportations often return refugees to unsafe countries, where they face violence, persecution, discrimination and poverty.

      - The widespread detention of migrants also fundamentally undermines their human rights . There have been many reports of violence and neglect by guards and prison authorities, limited access to adequate legal and medical support, a lack of decent food, overcrowding and poor and unhealthy conditions. Privatisation of detention exacerbates these problems, because companies benefit from locking up a growing number of migrants and minimising costs.

      – The building of major migration databases such as EU’s Eurodac and SIS II, VIS gives rise to a range of human rights concerns, including issues of privacy, civil liberties, bias leading to discrimination—worsened by AI processes -, and misuse of collected information. Migrants are already subject to unprecedented levels of surveillance, and are often now treated as guinea pigs where even more intrusive technologies such as facial recognition and social media tracking are tried out without migrants consent.

      The trend towards externalisation of migration policies raises new concerns as it seeks to put the human costs of border militarisation beyond the border and out of public sight. This has led to the EU, US and Australia all cooperating with authoritarian regimes to try and prevent migrants from even getting close to their borders. Moreover as countries donate money, equipment or training to security forces in authoritarian regimes, they end up expanding and strengthening their capacities which leads to a rise in human rights violations more broadly. Nowhere are the human rights consequences of border externalisation policies clearer than in the case of Libya, where the EU and individual member states (in particular Italy and Malta) funding, training and cooperation with security forces and militias have led to violence at the borders, murder, disappearances, rape, enslavement and abuse of migrants in the country and torture in detention centres.

      The 23 corporations profiled in this report have all been involved in or connected to policies and practices that have come under fire because of violations of the human rights of refugees and migrants. As mentioned earlier, sometimes the companies are directly responsible for human rights violations or concerns. In other cases, they are indirectly responsible through their contribution to a border infrastructure that denies human rights and through lobbying to influence policy-making to prioritize militarized responses to migration. 11 of the companies profiled publicly proclaim their commitment to human rights as signatories to the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), but as these are weak voluntary codes this has not led to noticeable changes in their business operations related to migration.

      The most prominent examples of direct human rights abuses come from the corporations involved in detention and deportation. Classic Air Charter, Cobham, CoreCivic, Eurasylum, G4S, GEO Group, Mitie and Serco all have faced allegations of violence and abuse by their staff towards migrants. G4S has been one of the companies most often in the spotlight. In 2017, not only were assaults by its staff on migrants at the Brook House immigration removal centre in the UK broadcast by the BBC, but it was also hit with a class suit in Australia by almost 2,000 people who are or were detained at the externalised detention centre on Manus Island, because of physical and psychological injuries as a result of harsh treatment and dangerous conditions. The company eventually settled the case for A$70 million (about $53 million) in the largest-ever human rights class-action settlement. G4S has also faced allegations related to its involvement in deportations.

      The other companies listed all play a pivotal role in the border infrastructure that denies refugees’ human rights. Airbus P-3 Orion surveillance planes of the Australian Air Force, for example, play a part in the highly controversial maritime wall that prevents migrants arriving by boat and leads to their detention in terrible conditions offshore. Lockheed Martin is a leading supplier of border security on the US-Mexico border. Leonardo is one of the main suppliers of drones for Europe’s borders. Thales produces the radar and sensor systems, critical to patrolling the Mediterrean. Elbit Systems provides surveillance technologies to both the EU and US, marketed on their success as technologies used in the separation wall in the Palestinian occupied territories. Accenture, IDEMIA and Sopra Steria manage many border biometric projects. Deloitte has been one of the key consulting companies to the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency since 2003, while PriceWaterhouseCoopers provides similar consultancy services to Frontex and the Australian border forces. IBM, Palantir and UNISYS provide the IT infrastructure that underpins the border and immigration apparatus.
      Time to divest

      The report concludes by calling for campaigns to divest from the border industry. There is a long history of campaigns and movements that call for divestment from industries that support human rights violations—from the campaigns to divest from Apartheid South Africa to more recent campaigns to divest from the fossil fuel industry. The border industry has become an equally morally toxic asset for any financial institution, given the litany of human rights abuses tied to it and the likelihood they will intensify in years to come.

      There are already examples of existing campaigns targeting particular border industries that have borne fruit. A spotlight on US migrant detention, as part of former President Trump’s anti- immigration policies, contributed to six large US banks (Bank of America, BNP Paribas, Fifth Third Bancorp, JPMorgan Chase, SunTrust, and Wells Fargo) publicly announcing that they would not provide new financing to the private prison industry. The two largest public US pension funds, CalSTRS and CalPERS, also decided to divest from the same two companies. Geo Group acknowledged that these acts of ‘public resistance’ hit the company financially, criticising the banks as ‘clearly bow[ing] down to a small group of activists protesting and conducting targeted social media campaigns’.

      Every company involved or accused of human rights violations either denies them or says that they are atypical exceptions to corporate behavior. This report shows however that a militarised border regime built on exclusion will always be a violent apparatus that perpetuates human rights violations. It is a regime that every day locks up refugees in intolerable conditions, separates families causing untold trauma and heartbreak, and causes a devastating death toll as refugees are forced to take unimaginable dangerous journeys because the alternatives are worse. However well-intentioned, any industry that provides services and products for this border regime will bear responsibility for its human consequences and its human rights violations, and over time will suffer their own serious reputational costs for their involvement in this immoral industry. On the other hand, a widespread exodus of the leading corporations on which the border regime depends could force states to change course, and to embrace a politics that protects and upholds the rights of refugees and migrants. Worldwide, social movements and the public are starting to wake up to the human costs of border militarisation and demanding a fundamental change. It is time now for the border industry and their financiers to make a choice.

      https://www.tni.org/en/financingborderwars

      #TNI #rapport
      #industrie_frontalière #militarisation_des_frontières #biométrie #Intelligence_artificielle #AI #IA

      #Accenture #Airbus #Booz_Allen_Hamilton #Classic_Air_Charter #Cobham #CoreCivic #Deloitte #Elbit #Eurasylum #G4S #GEO_Group #IBM #IDEMIA #Leonardo #Lockheed_Martin #Mitie #Palantir #PricewaterhouseCoopers #Serco #Sopra_Steria #Thales #Thomson_Reuters #Unisys
      #contrôles_frontaliers #surveillance #technologie #Jean-Pierre_Talamoni #Airbus_Defence_and_Space (#ADS) #smart_borders #frontières_intelligentes #iris #empreintes_digitales #réseaux_sociaux #IT #Civipol #Mali #Sénégal #renvois #expulsions #déportations #Mitie #Classic_Air_Charter #compagnies_aériennes #United_Airlines #ICE #American_Airlines #Delta_Airlines #rétention #détention_administrative #privatisation #Broadspectrum #Canstruct_International #Paladin_Solutions #Wilson_Security #Operation_Sophia #EU_Trust_Fund #Trust_Fund #externalisation #Eurasylum #Deloitte #PricewaterhouseCoopers #Vanguard_Group #CoreCivic #Blackrock #investisseurs #investissement #Capital_Research_and_Management #Capital_Group #Lockheed_Martin #State_Street_Global_Advisors (#SsgA) #Cobham #IDEMIA #Advent_International #droits_humains #VIS #SIS_II #P-3_Orion #Accenture #Sopra_Steria #Frontex #Australie

    • Outsourcing oppression. How Europe externalises migrant detention beyond its shores

      This report seeks to address the gap and join the dots between Europe’s outsourcing of migrant detention to third countries and the notorious conditions within the migrant detention centres. In a nutshell, Europe calls the shots on migrant detention beyond its shores but is rarely held to account for the deeply oppressive consequences, including arbitrary detention, torture, forced disappearance, violence, sexual violence, and death.

      Key findings

      – The European Union (EU), and its member states, externalise detention to third countries as part of a strategy to keep migrants out at all costs. This leads to migrants being detained and subjected to gross human rights violations in transit countries in Eastern Europe, the Balkans, West Asia and Africa.

      – Candidate countries wishing to join the EU are obligated to detain migrants and stop them from crossing into the EU as a prerequisite for accession to the Union. Funding is made available through pre-accession agreements specifically for the purpose of detaining migrants.

      – Beyond EU candidate countries, this report identifies 22 countries in Africa, Eastern Europe, the Balkans and West Asia where the EU and its member states fund the construction of detention centres, detention related activities such as trainings, or advocate for detention in other ways such as through aggressively pushing for detention legislation or agreeing to relax visa requirements for nationals of these countries in exchange for increased migrant detention.

      - The main goal of detention externalisation is to pre-empt migrants from reaching the external borders of the EU by turning third countries into border outposts. In many cases this involves the EU and its member states propping up and maintaining authoritarian regimes.

      – Europe is in effect following the ‘Australian model’ that has been highly criticised by UN experts and human rights organisations for the torturous conditions inside detention centres. Nevertheless, Europe continues to advance a system that mirrors Australia’s outsourced model, focusing not on guaranteeing the rights of migrants, but instead on deterring and pushing back would-be asylum seekers at all costs.

      - Human rights are systematically violated in detention centres directly and indirectly funded by the EU and its member states, including cases of torture, arbitrary and prolonged detention, sexual violence, no access to legal recourse, humanitarian assistance, or asylum procedures, the detention of victims of trafficking, and many other serious violations in which Europe is implicated.

      - Particularly horrendous is the case of Libya, which continues to receive financial and political support from Europe despite mounting evidence of brutality, enslavement, torture, forced disappearance and death. The International Organisation for Migration (IOM) and the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), implement EU policies in Libya and, according to aid officials, actively whitewash the consequences of European policies to safeguard substantial EU funding.

      - Not only does the EU deport and push back migrants to unsafe third countries, it actively finances and coercively pushes for their detention in these countries. Often they have no choice but to sign ‘voluntary’ agreements to be returned to their countries of origin as the only means of getting out of torturous detention facilities.

      - The EU implements a carrot and stick approach, in particular in its dealings with Africa, prolonging colonialist dynamics and uneven power structures – in Niger, for example, the EU pushed for legislation on detention, in exchange for development aid funding.

      – The EU envisages a greater role for migrant detention in third countries going forward, as was evidenced in the European Commission’s New Pact on Migration and Asylum.

      - The EU acts on the premise of containment and deterrence, namely, that if migrants seeking to reach Europe are intercepted and detained along that journey, they will be deterred from making the journey in the first place. This approach completely misses the point that people migrate to survive, often fleeing war and other forms of violence. The EU continues to overlook the structural reasons behind why people flee and the EU’s own role in provoking such migration.

      – The border industrial complex profits from the increased securitisation of borders. Far from being passive spectators, the military and security industry is actively involved in shaping EU border policies by positioning themselves as experts on the issue. We can already see a trend of privatising migrant detention, paralleling what is happening in prison systems worldwide.

      https://www.tni.org/en/outsourcingoppression

      pour télécharger le rapport :
      https://www.tni.org/files/publication-downloads/outsourcingoppression-report-tni.pdf

      #externalisation #rétention #détention #détention_arbitraire #violence #disparitions #disparitions_forcées #violence #violence_sexuelle #morts #mort #décès #Afrique #Europe_de_l'Est #Balkans #Asie #modèle_australien #EU #UE #Union_européenne #torture #Libye #droits_humains #droits_fondamentaux #HCR #UNHCR #OIM #IOM #dissuasion #privatisation

    • Fortress Europe: the millions spent on military-grade tech to deter refugees

      We map out the rising number of #high-tech surveillance and deterrent systems facing asylum seekers along EU borders.

      From military-grade drones to sensor systems and experimental technology, the EU and its members have spent hundreds of millions of euros over the past decade on technologies to track down and keep at bay the refugees on its borders.

      Poland’s border with Belarus is becoming the latest frontline for this technology, with the country approving last month a €350m (£300m) wall with advanced cameras and motion sensors.

      The Guardian has mapped out the result of the EU’s investment: a digital wall on the harsh sea, forest and mountain frontiers, and a technological playground for military and tech companies repurposing products for new markets.

      The EU is central to the push towards using technology on its borders, whether it has been bought by the EU’s border force, Frontex, or financed for member states through EU sources, such as its internal security fund or Horizon 2020, a project to drive innovation.

      In 2018, the EU predicted that the European security market would grow to €128bn (£108bn) by 2020. Beneficiaries are arms and tech companies who heavily courted the EU, raising the concerns of campaigners and MEPs.

      “In effect, none of this stops people from crossing; having drones or helicopters doesn’t stop people from crossing, you just see people taking more risky ways,” says Jack Sapoch, formerly with Border Violence Monitoring Network. “This is a history that’s so long, as security increases on one section of the border, movement continues in another section.”

      Petra Molnar, who runs the migration and technology monitor at Refugee Law Lab, says the EU’s reliance on these companies to develop “hare-brained ideas” into tech for use on its borders is inappropriate.

      “They rely on the private sector to create these toys for them. But there’s very little regulation,” she says. “Some sort of tech bro is having a field day with this.”

      “For me, what’s really sad is that it’s almost a done deal that all this money is being spent on camps, enclosures, surveillance, drones.”

      Air Surveillance

      Refugees and migrants trying to enter the EU by land or sea are watched from the air. Border officers use drones and helicopters in the Balkans, while Greece has airships on its border with Turkey. The most expensive tool is the long-endurance Heron drone operating over the Mediterranean.

      Frontex awarded a €100m (£91m) contract last year for the Heron and Hermes drones made by two Israeli arms companies, both of which had been used by the Israeli military in the Gaza Strip. Capable of flying for more than 30 hours and at heights of 10,000 metres (30,000 feet), the drones beam almost real-time feeds back to Frontex’s HQ in Warsaw.

      Missions mostly start from Malta, focusing on the Libyan search and rescue zone – where the Libyan coastguard will perform “pull backs” when informed by EU forces of boats trying to cross the Mediterranean.

      German MEP Özlem Demirel is campaigning against the EU’s use of drones and links to arms companies, which she says has turned migration into a security issue.

      “The arms industries are saying: ‘This is a security problem, so buy my weapons, buy my drones, buy my surveillance system,’” says Demirel.

      “The EU is always talking about values like human rights, [speaking out] against violations but … week-by-week we see more people dying and we have to question if the EU is breaking its values,” she says.

      Sensors and cameras

      EU air assets are accompanied on the ground by sensors and specialised cameras that border authorities throughout Europe use to spot movement and find people in hiding. They include mobile radars and thermal cameras mounted on vehicles, as well as heartbeat detectors and CO2 monitors used to detect signs of people concealed inside vehicles.

      Greece deploys thermal cameras and sensors along its land border with Turkey, monitoring the feeds from operations centres, such as in Nea Vyssa, near the meeting of the Greek, Turkish and Bulgarian borders. Along the same stretch, in June, Greece deployed a vehicle-mounted sound cannon that blasts “deafening” bursts of up to 162 decibels to force people to turn back.

      Poland is hoping to emulate Greece in response to the crisis on its border with Belarus. In October, its parliament approved a €350m wall that will stretch along half the border and reach up to 5.5 metres (18 feet), equipped with motion detectors and thermal cameras.

      Surveillance centres

      In September, Greece opened a refugee camp on the island of Samos that has been described as prison-like. The €38m (£32m) facility for 3,000 asylum seekers has military-grade fencing and #CCTV to track people’s movements. Access is controlled by fingerprint, turnstiles and X-rays. A private security company and 50 uniformed officers monitor the camp. It is the first of five that Greece has planned; two more opened in November.

      https://twitter.com/_PMolnar/status/1465224733771939841

      At the same time, Greece opened a new surveillance centre on Samos, capable of viewing video feeds from the country’s 35 refugee camps from a wall of monitors. Greece says the “smart” software helps to alert camps of emergencies.

      Artificial intelligence

      The EU spent €4.5m (£3.8m) on a three-year trial of artificial intelligence-powered lie detectors in Greece, Hungary and Latvia. A machine scans refugees and migrants’ facial expressions as they answer questions it poses, deciding whether they have lied and passing the information on to a border officer.

      The last trial finished in late 2019 and was hailed as a success by the EU but academics have called it pseudoscience, arguing that the “micro-expressions” the software analyses cannot be reliably used to judge whether someone is lying. The software is the subject of a court case taken by MEP Patrick Breyer to the European court of justice in Luxembourg, arguing that there should be more public scrutiny of such technology. A decision is expected on 15 December.

      https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2021/dec/06/fortress-europe-the-millions-spent-on-military-grade-tech-to-deter-refu

  • Le projet
    https://www.andreminvielle.com/le-projet

    Suivez l’Accent propose un travail de création artistique à partir de matériaux sonores et visuels : glaner les voix et les images ici et là, surprendre les singularités, les faire entendre, les faire vivre.

    Depuis des années, André MINVIELLE avec l’association Les Chaudrons effectue le collectage et l’orchestration, de la saga subjective des parlers, des chanters, des histoires de vie des territoires qu’il parcourt en prenant le temps, d’observer, d’écouter, de rencontrer, de collecter ici et là les « accents de la francophonie, des langues de France et autres langues à suivre... »

    Suivez l’accentIl agit sur un principe de déterritorialisation, c’est-à-dire de mise en relation et découverte des territoires par le trajet et l’échange, et fait jouer la matière collectée à l’aide de créations musicales, installations sonores, forum, ou encore ateliers publics.
    Cette action est définie par deux directions principales interactives, collectage et restitution :
    – Collectage sonore réalisé sur les sites d’accueil.
    – Restitution de la phonothèque « Suivez l’accent » par des modules d’installations sonores.

    #minvielle #langues #régions #accents