• À Strasbourg, l’Europe intensifie discrètement le fichage des migrants

    Dans un bâtiment discret, 350 personnes travaillent à renforcer le #contrôle et le #suivi des personnes entrant dans l’#espace_Schengen. Reportage dans l’agence de l’Union européenne qui renforce le fichage des migrants.

    Dans le quartier du Neuhof à Strasbourg, un bâtiment hautement sécurisé attire l’œil. Dissimulée derrière le gymnase du Stockfeld et entourée de terrains vagues, l’#agence_européenne #eu-Lisa est protégée par deux lignes barbelées surplombées de caméras. Aux alentours du bâtiment, les agents de sécurité portent au cœur un petit drapeau bleu aux douze étoiles. Des véhicules immatriculés en France, au Luxembourg, en Belgique et en Allemagne stationnent sur le parking.

    Créée en 2011 et opérationnelle depuis 2012, l’#agence_européenne_pour_la_gestion_opérationnelle_des_systèmes_d’information à grande échelle eu-Lisa développe et fait fonctionner les #bases_de_données de l’Union européenne (UE). Ces dernières permettent d’archiver les #empreintes_digitales des demandeurs et demandeuses d’asile mais aussi les demandes de visa ou les alertes de personnes portées disparues.

    Le siège d’eu-Lisa est à Tallinn, en Estonie. Un bureau de liaison se trouve à Bruxelles et son centre opérationnel a été construit à Strasbourg. Lundi 26 février, le ministre délégué aux affaires européennes, Jean-Noël Barrot, est venu visiter l’endroit, où sont développés les nouveaux systèmes de suivi et de #filtrage des personnes migrantes et des voyageurs et voyageuses non européen·nes. Le « cœur de Schengen », selon la communication de l’agence.

    Sur les écrans de contrôle, des ingénieur·es suivent les requêtes adressées par les États membres aux différents #systèmes_d’information_opérationnels. L’un d’eux raconte que le nombre de cyberattaques subies par l’agence est colossal : 500 000 tentatives par mois environ. La quantité de données gérées est aussi impressionnante : en 2022, le système #VIS (#Visa_Information_System) a enregistré 57 millions de demandes de #visas et 52 millions d’empreintes digitales. La même année, 86,5 millions d’alertes ont été transmises au système #SIS (#Schengen_Information_System).

    Dans l’agence du Neuhof, une vingtaine de nationalités sont représentées parmi les 350 travailleurs et travailleuses. En tout, 500 mètres carrés sécurisés abritent les données confidentielles de dizaines de millions de personnes. 2 500 ordinateurs fonctionnent en permanence pour une capacité de stockage de 13 petabytes, soit 13 milliards de gigabytes. Vingt-quatre heures sur vingt-quatre et sept jours sur sept, l’eu-Lisa répond aux demandes de données des pays membres de l’espace Schengen ou de l’Union européenne.

    Traduire la politique en #technologie

    Au-delà de la salle de réunion, impossible de photographier les murs ou l’environnement de travail. L’enclave européenne est sous haute surveillance : pour entrer, les empreintes digitales sont relevées après un passage des sacs au scanner. Un badge connecté aux empreintes permet de passer un premier sas d’entrée. Au-delà, les responsables de la sécurité suivent les visiteurs de très près, au milieu d’un environnement violet et vert parsemé de plantes de toutes formes.

    Moins de six mois avant le début des Jeux olympiques et paralympiques de Paris et deux mois après l’accord européen relatif au Pacte sur la migration et l’asile, l’agence aux 260 millions d’euros de budget en 2024 travaille à mettre en place le système de contrôle des flux de personnes le plus précis, efficace et complet de l’histoire de l’espace Schengen. Le pacte prévoit, par exemple, que la demande d’asile soit uniformisée à travers l’UE et que les « migrants illégaux » soient reconduits plus vite et plus efficacement aux frontières.

    Pour accueillir le ministre, #Agnès_Diallo, directrice de l’eu-Lisa depuis 2023, diffuse une petite vidéo en anglais dans une salle de réunion immaculée. L’ancienne cadre de l’entreprise de services numériques #Atos présente une « agence discrète » au service de la justice et des affaires intérieures européennes. À l’eu-Lisa, pas de considération politique. « Notre agence a été créée par des règlements européens et nous agissons dans ce cadre, résume-t-elle. Nous remplaçons les frontières physiques par des #frontières_numériques. Nous travaillons à laisser passer dans l’espace Schengen les migrants et voyageurs qui sont légitimes et à filtrer ceux qui le sont moins. »

    L’eu-Lisa invente, améliore et fait fonctionner les sept outils informatiques utilisés en réseau par les États membres et leurs institutions. L’agence s’assure notamment que les données sont protégées. Elle forme aussi les personnes qui utiliseront les interfaces, comme les agents de #Frontex, d’#Europol ou de la #police_aux_frontières. Au Neuhof, les personnes qui travaillent n’utilisent pas les informations qu’elles stockent.

    Fichés dès l’âge de 6 ans

    L’agence eu-Lisa héberge les empreintes digitales de 7,5 millions de demandeurs et demandeuses d’asile et « migrants illégaux » dans le système appelé Eurodac. Pour le moment, les données récoltées ne sont pas liées à l’identité de la personne ni à sa photo. Mais avec l’adoption des nouvelles règles relatives au statut de réfugié·e en Europe, Eurodac est en train d’être complètement refondé pour être opérationnel en 2026.

    La réforme décidée en décembre 2023 prévoit que les demandeurs d’asile et « migrants illégaux » devront fournir d’autres informations biométriques : en plus de leurs empreintes, leur photo, leur nom, prénom et date et lieu de naissance seront enregistrés lors de leur entrée dans Schengen. La procédure vaudra pour toute personne dès l’âge de 6 ans (contre 14 avant la réforme). Les #données qui étaient conservées pour dix-huit mois pourront l’être jusqu’à cinq ans.

    La quantité d’informations stockées va donc croître exponentiellement dès 2026. « Nous aurons énormément de données pour #tracer les mouvements des migrants irréguliers et des demandeurs d’asile », se félicite #Lorenzo_Rinaldi, l’un des cadres de l’agence venant tout droit de Tallinn. Eurodac permettra à n’importe quelle autorité policière habilitée de savoir très précisément par quel pays est arrivée une personne, ainsi que son statut administratif.

    Il sera donc impossible de demander une protection internationale dans un pays, puis de s’installer dans un autre, ou de demander une seconde fois l’asile dans un pays européen. Lorenzo Rinaldi explique : « Aujourd’hui, il nous manque la grande image des mouvements de personnes entre les États membres. On pourra identifier les tendances, recouper les données et simplifier l’#identification des personnes. »

    Pour identifier les itinéraires et contrôler les mouvements de personnes dans l’espace Schengen, l’agence travaille aussi à ce que les sept systèmes d’information fonctionnent ensemble. « Nous avions des bases de données, nous aurons désormais un système complet de gestion de ces informations », se réjouit Agnès Diallo.

    L’eu-Lisa crée donc également un système de #traçage des entrées et des sorties de l’espace Schengen, sobrement appelé #Entry-Exit_System (ou #EES). Développé à l’initiative de la France dès 2017, il remplace par une #trace_numérique le tamponnage physique des passeports par les gardes-frontières. Il permet notamment de détecter les personnes qui restent dans Schengen, après que leur visa a expiré – les #overstayers, celles qui restent trop longtemps.

    Frontières et Jeux olympiques

    « Toutes nos équipes sont mobilisées pour faire fonctionner le système EES [entrées-sorties de l’espace Schengen – ndlr] d’ici à la fin de l’année 2024 », précise Agnès Diallo. Devant le Sénat en 2023, la directrice exécutive avait assuré que l’EES ne serait pas mis en place pendant les Jeux olympiques et paralympiques si son influence était négative sur l’événement, par exemple s’il ralentissait trop le travail aux frontières.

    En France et dans onze autres pays, le système EES est testé depuis janvier 2024. L’agence estime qu’il sera prêt pour juillet 2024, comme l’affirme Lorenzo Rinaldi, chef de l’unité chargé du soutien à la direction et aux relations avec les partenaires de l’eu-Lisa : « Lorsqu’une personne non européenne arrive dans Schengen, elle devra donner à deux reprises ses #données_biométriques. Donc ça sera plus long la première fois qu’elle viendra sur le territoire, mais ses données seront conservées trois ans. Les fois suivantes, lorsque ses données seront déjà connues, le passage sera rapide. »

    Ce système est prévu pour fonctionner de concert avec un autre petit nouveau, appelé #Etias, qui devrait être opérationnel d’ici au premier semestre de 2025. Les personnes qui n’ont pas d’obligation d’avoir de visa pour entrer dans 30 pays européens devront faire une demande avant de venir pour un court séjour – comme lorsqu’un·e citoyen·ne français·e demande une autorisation électronique de voyage pour entrer aux États-Unis ou au Canada. La procédure, en ligne, sera facturée 7 euros aux voyageurs et voyageuses, et l’autorisation sera valable trois ans.

    L’eu-Lisa gère enfin le #système_d’information_Schengen (le #SIS, qui gère les alertes sur les personnes et objets recherchés ou disparus), le système d’information sur les visas (#VIS), la base de données des #casiers_judiciaires (#Ecris-TCN) et le #Codex pour la #coopération_judiciaire entre États membres.

    L’agence travaille notamment à mettre en place une communication par Internet entre ces différents systèmes. Pour Agnès Diallo, cette nouveauté permettra une coordination sans précédent des agents aux frontières et des institutions judiciaires nationales et européennes dans les 27 pays de l’espace Schengen.

    « On pourra suivre les migrants, réguliers et irréguliers », se félicite Fabienne Keller, députée européenne Renew et fervente défenseuse du Pacte sur les migrations. Pour la mise en place de tous ces outils, l’agence eu-Lisa devra former les États membres mais également les transporteurs et les voyageurs et voyageuses. L’ensemble de ces systèmes devrait être opérationnel d’ici à la fin 2026.

    https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/international/050324/strasbourg-l-europe-intensifie-discretement-le-fichage-des-migrants

    #fichage #migrations #réfugiés #biométrie
    via @karine4
    ping @_kg_

  • Le #lobbying sans #frontières de #Thales
    (publié en 2021, ici pour archivage)

    Pour vendre ses systèmes de surveillance aux confins de l’Union européenne, l’entreprise use de son influence. Indirectement, discrètement, efficacement.

    Ce 23 mai 2017, au sixième étage de l’immense tour vitrée qui héberge les locaux de #Frontex à Varsovie, en Pologne, les rendez-vous sont réglés comme du papier à musique. L’agence européenne de gardes-frontières et de gardes-côtes reçoit des industriels pour des discussions consacrées à l’utilisation de la biométrie aux confins de l’Union. Leonardo, Safran, Indra… Frontex déroule le tapis rouge aux big boss de la sécurité et de la défense. Juste après la pause-déjeuner, c’est au tour de #Gemalto, qui sera racheté deux ans plus tard par Thales (lire l’épisode 5, « Thales s’immisce dans ta face »), de déballer pendant quarante-cinq minutes ses propositions. Un document PowerPoint de 14 pages sert de support visuel. L’entreprise franco-néerlandaise y développe diverses utilisations de la reconnaissance faciale aux frontières : en collectant un selfie grâce à son téléphone avant de voyager, en plein vol dans un avion ou dans un véhicule qui roule. Oubliant de s’interroger sur la légalité et le cadre juridique de cette technologie, la présentation conclut : « La reconnaissance faciale en mouvement n’a pas été testée dans les essais de “frontières intelligentes” mais devrait. » Une manière à peine voilée de dire que Frontex devrait coupler des logiciels de reconnaissance faciale aux caméras de surveillance qui lorgnent les frontières extérieures de l’Europe, afin de mieux identifier et surveiller ceux qui tentent de pénétrer dans l’UE.

    Ce document est l’un des 138 dévoilés le 5 février dernier par les « Frontex Files », enquête diligentée par la chaîne de télévision publique allemande ZDF, en collaboration avec l’ONG européenne Corporate Europe Observatory. Ce travail lève le voile sur des réunions menées par Frontex avec 125 lobbyistes, reçus entre 2018 et 2019… ainsi que sur leur opacité, puisque 72 % d’entre elles se sont tenues très discrètement, en dehors des règles de transparence édictées par l’Union européenne.

    Depuis 2016, Frontex joue un rôle dans la lutte contre la criminalité transfrontalière. Son budget atteint 544 millions en 2021

    Fondée en 2004 pour aider les pays européens à sécuriser leurs frontières, Frontex est devenue une usine à gaz de la traque des réfugiés. Depuis 2016 et un élargissement de ses fonctions, elle joue désormais un rôle dans la lutte contre la criminalité transfrontalière. Alors qu’il plafonnait à 6 millions d’euros en 2005, son budget atteint 544 millions en 2021. Pour le prochain cycle budgétaire de l’UE (2021-2027), la Commission européenne a attribué une enveloppe de 12,7 milliards d’euros à la gestion des frontières et de 9,8 milliards à la migration.

    Thales et Gemalto trônent dans le top 10 des entreprises ayant eu le plus d’entretiens avec l’agence européenne : respectivement trois et quatre réunions. Mais les deux sociétés devraient être comptées comme un tout : en rachetant la seconde, la première a logiquement profité des efforts de lobbying que celle-ci avait déployés auparavant. Pour le géant français, l’enjeu des frontières est majeur, ainsi que nous le racontions précédemment (lire l’épisode 6, « Thales police les frontières »). #Murs, #clôtures, #barbelés, #radars, #drones, systèmes de reconnaissance d’#empreintes_digitales biométriques… Chaque année, les marchés attribués se comptent en millions d’euros. L’ONG Transnational Institute parle de « business de l’édification de murs », du nom d’un de ses rapports, publié en novembre 2019. Celui-ci met la lumière sur les trois entreprises qui dévorent la plus grosse part du gâteau : l’espagnole #Leonardo (ex-#Finmeccanica), #Airbus et bien sûr Thales. Un profit fruit de plus de quinze années de lobbying agressif.

    Thales avance à couvert et s’appuie sur l’#European_Organisation_for_Security, un think tank qui regroupe ses principaux alliés et concurrents

    Flash-back en 2003. Le traumatisme des attentats du 11-Septembre est encore vif. L’Union européenne aborde l’épineuse question de la sécurisation de ses frontières. Elle constitue un « groupe de personnalités », dont la mission est de définir les axes d’un futur programme de recherche européen sur la question. Au milieu des commissaires, chercheurs et représentants des institutions s’immiscent les intérêts privés de sociétés spécialisées dans la défense : Thales, Leonardo, mais aussi l’allemande #Siemens et la suédoise #Ericsson. Un an plus tard, le rapport suggère à l’UE de calquer son budget de recherche sur la sécurité sur celui des États-Unis, soit environ quatre dollars par habitant et par an, raconte la juriste Claire Rodier dans son ouvrage Xénophobie business : à quoi servent les contrôles migratoires ? (La Découverte, 2012). En euros, la somme s’élève à 1,3 milliard par an. La machine est lancée. Les lobbyistes sont dans la place ; ils ne la quitteront pas.

    Au sein du registre de transparence de l’Union européenne, Thales publie les détails de ses actions d’influence : un lobbyiste accrédité au Parlement, entre 300 000 et 400 000 euros de dépenses en 2019 et des réunions avec des commissaires et des membres de cabinets qui concernent avant tout les transports et l’aérospatial. Rien ou presque sur la sécurité. Logique. Thales, comme souvent, avance à couvert (lire l’épisode 1, « Nice, le “little brother” de Thales ») et s’appuie pour faire valoir ses positions sur l’#European_Organisation_for_Security (EOS), un think tank qui regroupe ses principaux alliés et concurrents : #Airbus, Leonardo ou les Français d’#Idemia. Bref, un lobby. L’implication de Thales dans #EOS est tout à fait naturelle : l’entreprise en est la créatrice. Un homme a longtemps été le visage de cette filiation, #Luigi_Rebuffi. Diplômé en ingénierie nucléaire à l’université polytechnique de Milan, cet Italien au crâne dégarni et aux lunettes rectangulaires doit beaucoup au géant français. Spécialisé dans la recherche et le développement au niveau européen, il devient en 2003 directeur des affaires européennes de Thales. Quatre ans plus tard, l’homme fonde EOS. Détaché par Thales, il en assure la présidence pendant dix ans avant de rejoindre son conseil d’administration de 2017 à 2019.

    Depuis, il a fondé et est devenu le secrétaire général de l’#European_Cyber_Security_Organisation (#Ecso), représentant d’influence enregistré à Bruxelles, dont fait partie #Thales_SIX_GTS France, la filiale sécurité et #systèmes_d’information du groupe. À la tête d’Ecso, on trouve #Philippe_Vannier, également président de la division #big_data et sécurité du géant français de la sécurité #Atos… dont l’ancien PDG #Thierry_Breton est depuis 2019 commissaire européen au Marché intérieur. Un jeu de chaises musicales où des cadres du privé débattent désormais des décisions publiques.

    Entre 2012 et 2016, Luigi Rebuffi préside l’European Organisation for Security… et conseille la Commission pour ses programmes de recherche en sécurité

    Luigi Rebuffi sait se placer et se montrer utile. Entre 2012 et 2016, il occupe, en parallèle de ses fonctions à l’EOS, celle de conseiller pour les programmes de recherche en sécurité de la Commission européenne, le #Security_Advisory_Group et le #Protection_and_Security_Advisory_Group. « C’est une position privilégiée, analyse Mark Akkerman, chercheur et coauteur du rapport “Le business de l’édification de murs” de l’ONG Transnational Institute. Rebuffi faisait partie de l’organe consultatif le plus influent sur les décisions de financement par l’UE de programmes de recherche et d’innovation dans le domaine de la sécurité. »

    Ce n’est donc pas un hasard si, comme le note le site European Research Ranking, qui compile les données publiées par la Commission européenne, Thales est l’un des principaux bénéficiaires des fonds européens sur la #recherche avec 637 projets menés depuis 2007. La sécurité figure en bonne place des thématiques favorites de la société du PDG #Patrice_Caine, qui marche main dans la main avec ses compères de la défense Leonardo et Airbus, avec lesquels elle a respectivement mené 48 et 109 projets.

    Entre 2008 et 2012, l’Union européenne a, par exemple, attribué une subvention de 2,6 millions d’euros à un consortium mené par Thales, dans le cadre du projet #Aspis. Son objectif ? Identifier des systèmes de #surveillance_autonome dans les #transports_publics. Des recherches menées en collaboration avec la #RATP, qui a dévoilé à Thales les recettes de ses systèmes de sécurité et les coulisses de sa première ligne entièrement automatisée, la ligne 14 du métro parisien. Un projet dont l’un des axes a été le développement de la #vidéosurveillance.

    Thales coordonne le projet #Gambas qui vise à renforcer la #sécurité_maritime et à mieux repérer les bateaux de réfugiés tentant de rejoindre l’Europe

    À la même période, Thales s’est impliqué dans le projet #Oparus, financé à hauteur de 1,19 million d’euros par la Commission européenne. À ses côtés pour penser une stratégie européenne de la surveillance terrestre et maritime par #drones, #EADS (ancien nom d’#Airbus) ou #Dassault_Aviation. Depuis le 1er janvier dernier, l’industriel français coordonne aussi le projet Gambas (1,6 million de financement), qui vise à renforcer la sécurité maritime en améliorant le système de surveillance par #radar #Galileo, développé dans le cadre d’un précédent #projet_de_recherche européen pour mieux repérer les bateaux de réfugiés tentant de rejoindre l’Europe. Une #technologie installée depuis 2018 aux frontières européennes.

    Des subventions sont rattachées aux derniers programmes de recherche et d’innovation de l’Union européenne : #PR7 (2007-13) et #Horizon_2020 (2014-20). Leur petit frère, qui court jusqu’en 2027, s’intitule, lui, #Horizon_Europe. L’une de ses ambitions : « La sécurité civile pour la société ». Alors que ce programme s’amorce, Thales place ses pions. Le 23 novembre 2020, l’entreprise s’est entretenue avec #Jean-Éric_Paquet, directeur général pour la recherche et l’innovation de la Commission européenne. Sur quels thèmes ? Ont été évoqués les programmes Horizon 2020 et Horizon Europe, et notamment « dans quelles mesures [les] actions [de la Commission] pourraient susciter l’intérêt de Thales, en vue d’un soutien renforcé aux PME mais aussi aux écosystèmes d’innovation au sein desquels les groupes industriels ont un rôle à jouer », nous a répondu par mail Jean-Éric Paquet.

    L’European Organisation for Security s’intéresse aussi directement aux frontières européennes. Un groupe de travail, coprésidé par #Peter_Smallridge, chef des ventes de la division « #borders_and_travel » de Thales et ancien de Gemalto, poursuit notamment l’ambition « d’encourager le financement et le développement de la recherche qui aboutira à une industrie européenne de la sécurité plus forte ». Entre 2014 et 2019, EOS a organisé 226 réunions pour le compte d’Airbus, Leonardo et Thales, dépensant 2,65 millions d’euros pour la seule année 2017. Le chercheur Mark Akkerman est formel : « Toutes les actions de lobbying sur les frontières passent par l’EOS et l’#AeroSpace_and_Defence_Industries_Association_of_Europe (#ASD) », l’autre hydre de l’influence européenne.

    L’AeroSpace and Defence Industries Association of Europe a particulièrement souligné la nécessité de renforcer les liens entre les politiques de sécurité européennes et l’industrie de la sécurité.
    Sonya Gospodinova, porte-parole de la Commission chargée de l’industrie de la défense

    Dans ses derniers comptes publiés, datés de 2018, EOS déclare des dépenses de lobbying en nette baisse : entre 100 000 et 200 000 euros, un peu moins que les 200 000 à 300 000 euros de l’ASD. La liste des interlocuteurs de ces structures en dit beaucoup. Le 12 février 2020, des représentants d’EOS rencontrent à Bruxelles #Despina_Spanou, cheffe de cabinet du Grec #Margarítis_Schinás, vice-président de la Commission européenne chargé des Migrations. Le 11 juin, c’est au tour de l’ASD d’échanger en visioconférence avec Despina Spanou, puis début juillet avec un autre membre du cabinet, #Vangelis_Demiris. Le monde de l’influence européenne est petit puisque le 30 juin, c’est Ecso, le nouveau bébé de Luigi Rebuffi, d’organiser une visioconférence sur la sécurité européenne avec le trio au grand complet : Margarítis Schinás, Despina Spanou et Vangelis Demiris. Pour la seule année 2020, c’est la troisième réunion menée par Ecso avec la cheffe de cabinet.

    Également commissaire chargé de la Promotion du mode de vie européen, Margarítis Schinás a notamment coordonné le rapport sur la « stratégie de l’UE sur l’union de la sécurité ». Publié le 24 juillet 2020, il fixe les priorités sécuritaires de la Commission pour la période 2020-2025. Pour lutter contre le terrorisme et le crime organisé, le texte indique que « des mesures sont en cours pour renforcer la législation sur la sécurité aux frontières et une meilleure utilisation des bases de données existantes ». Des points qui étaient au cœur de la discussion entre l’ASD et son cabinet, comme l’a confirmé aux Jours Sonya Gospodinova, porte-parole de la Commission chargée de l’industrie de la défense. « Lors de cette réunion, l’ASD a particulièrement souligné la nécessité de renforcer les liens entre les politiques de sécurité européennes et l’industrie de la sécurité », confie-t-elle. Difficile d’avoir le son de cloche des lobbyistes. Loquaces quand il s’agit d’échanger avec les commissaires et les députés européens, Luigi Rebuffi, ASD, EOS et Thales n’ont pas souhaité répondre à nos questions. Pas plus que l’une des autres cibles principales des lobbyistes de la sécurité, Thierry Breton. Contrairement aux Jours, l’AeroSpace and Defence Industries Association of Europe a décroché deux entretiens avec l’ancien ministre de l’Économie de Jacques Chirac en octobre dernier, pour aborder des sujets aussi vastes que le marché international de l’#aérospatiale, la #défense ou la #sécurité. À Bruxelles, Thales et ses relais d’influence sont comme à la maison.

    https://lesjours.fr/obsessions/thales-surveillance/ep7-lobbying-europe

    #complexe_militaro_industriel #surveillance_des_frontières #migrations #réfugiés #contrôles_frontaliers #lobby

    • Thales police les frontières

      De Calais à Algésiras, l’entreprise met ses technologies au service de la politique antimigratoire de l’Europe, contre de juteux contrats.

      Cette journée d’octobre, Calais ne fait pas mentir les préjugés. Le ciel est gris, le vent âpre. La pluie mitraille les vitres de la voiture de Stéphanie. La militante de Calais Research, une ONG qui travaille sur la frontière franco-anglaise, nous promène en périphérie de la ville. Un virage. Elle désigne du doigt un terrain poisseux, marécage artificiel construit afin de décourager les exilés qui veulent rejoindre la Grande-Bretagne. À proximité, des rangées de barbelés brisent l’horizon. Un frisson claustrophobe nous saisit, perdus dans ce labyrinthe de clôtures.

      La pilote de navire marchand connaît bien la région. Son collectif, qui réunit chercheurs et citoyens, effectue un travail d’archiviste. Ses membres collectent minutieusement les informations sur les dispositifs technologiques déployés à la frontière calaisienne et les entreprises qui les produisent. En 2016, ils publiaient les noms d’une quarantaine d’entreprises qui tirent profit de l’afflux de réfugiés dans la ville. Vinci, choisi en septembre 2016 pour construire un mur de 4 mètres de haut interdisant l’accès à l’autoroute depuis la jungle, y figure en bonne place. Tout comme Thales, qui apparaît dans la liste au chapitre « Technologies de frontières ».

      Thales vend son dispositif comme un outil pour protéger les employés, mais on voit bien que c’est pour empêcher les réfugiés de passer.
      Stéphanie, militante de l’ONG Calais Research

      Stéphanie stoppe sa voiture le long du trottoir, à quelques mètres de l’entrée du port de Calais. Portes tournantes et lecteurs de badges, qui permettent l’accès aux employés, ont été conçus par Thales. Le géant français a aussi déployé des dizaines de caméras le long de la clôture de 8 000 mètres qui encercle le port. « Thales vend son dispositif comme un outil pour protéger les employés, glisse Stéphanie, mais on voit bien que c’est pour empêcher les réfugiés de passer. » Le projet Calais Port 2015 – année initialement fixée pour la livraison –, une extension à 863 millions d’euros, « devrait être achevé le 5 mai 2021 », d’après Jean-Marc Puissesseau, PDG des ports de Calais-Boulogne-sur-Mer, qui n’a même pas pu nous confirmer que Thales en assure bien la sécurité, mais chiffre à 13 millions d’euros les investissements de sécurité liés au Brexit. Difficile d’en savoir plus sur ce port 2.0 : ni Thales ni la ville de Calais n’ont souhaité nous répondre.

      Les technologies sécuritaires de Thales ne se cantonnent pas au port. Depuis la mise en place du Brexit, la société Eurotunnel, qui gère le tunnel sous la Manche, a mis à disposition de la police aux frontières les sas « Parafe » (« passage automatisé rapide aux frontières extérieures ») utilisant la reconnaissance faciale du même nom, conçus par Thales. Là encore, ni Eurotunnel ni la préfecture du Pas-de-Calais n’ont souhaité commenter. L’entreprise française fournit aussi l’armée britannique qui, le 2 septembre 2020, utilisait pour la première fois le drone Watchkeeper produit par Thales. « Nous restons pleinement déterminés à soutenir le ministère de l’Intérieur britannique alors qu’il s’attaque au nombre croissant de petits bateaux traversant la Manche », se félicite alors l’armée britannique dans un communiqué. Pour concevoir ce drone, initialement déployé en Afghanistan, Thales a mis de côté son vernis éthique. Le champion français s’est associé à Elbit, entreprise israélienne connue pour son aéronef de guerre Hermes. En 2018, The Intercept révélait que ce modèle avait été utilisé pour bombarder Gaza, tuant quatre enfants. Si le patron de Thales, Patrice Caine, appelait en 2019 à interdire les robots tueurs, il n’éprouve aucun état d’âme à collaborer avec une entreprise qui en construit.

      Du Rafale à la grande mosquée de la Mecque, Thales s’immisce partout mais reste invisible. L’entreprise cultive la même discrétion aux frontières européennes

      À Calais comme ailleurs, un détail frappe quand on enquête sur Thales. L’entreprise entretient une présence fantôme. Elle s’immisce partout, mais ses six lettres restent invisibles. Elles ne figurent ni sur la carlingue du Rafale dont elle fournit l’électronique, ni sur les caméras de vidéosurveillance qui lorgnent sur la grande mosquée de la Mecque ni les produits informatiques qui assurent la cybersécurité du ministère des Armées. Très loquace sur l’efficacité de sa « Safe City » mexicaine (lire l’épisode 3, « Thales se prend un coup de chaud sous le soleil de Mexico ») ou les bienfaits potentiels de la reconnaissance faciale (lire l’épisode 5, « Thales s’immisce dans ta face »), Thales cultive la même discrétion sur son implication aux frontières européennes. Sur son site francophone, une page internet laconique mentionne l’utilisation par l’armée française de 210 mini-drones Spy Ranger et l’acquisition par la Guardia civil espagnole de caméras Gecko, œil numérique à vision thermique capable d’identifier un bateau à plus de 25 kilomètres. Circulez, il n’y a rien à voir !

      La branche espagnole du groupe est plus bavarde. Un communiqué publié par la filiale ibérique nous apprend que ces caméras seront installées sur des 4x4 de la Guardia civil « pour renforcer la surveillance des côtes et des frontières ». Une simple recherche sur le registre des appels d’offres espagnols nous a permis de retracer le lieu de déploiement de ces dispositifs. La Guardia civil de Melilla, enclave espagnole au Maroc, s’est vue attribuer une caméra thermique, tout comme celle d’Algésiras, ville côtière située à quelques kilomètres de Gibraltar, qui a reçu en complément un logiciel pour contrôler les images depuis son centre de commandement. Dans un autre appel d’offres daté de novembre 2015, la Guardia civil d’Algésiras obtient un des deux lots de caméras thermiques mobiles intégrées directement à un 4x4. Le second revient à la police des Baléares. Montant total de ces marchés : 1,5 million d’euros. Des gadgets estampillés Thales destinés au « Servicio fiscal » de la Guardia civil, une unité dont l’un des rôles principaux est d’assurer la sécurité aux frontières.

      Thales n’a pas attendu 2015 pour vendre ses produits de surveillance en Espagne. D’autres marchés publics de 2014 font mention de l’acquisition par la Guardia civil de Ceuta et Melilla de trois caméras thermiques portables, ainsi que de deux systèmes de surveillance avec caméras thermiques et de quatre caméras thermiques à Cadix et aux Baléares. La gendarmerie espagnole a également obtenu plusieurs caméras thalesiennes « Sophie ». Initialement à usage militaire, ces jumelles thermiques à vision nocturne, dont la portée atteint jusqu’à 5 kilomètres, ont délaissé les champs de bataille et servent désormais à traquer les exilés qui tentent de rejoindre l’Europe. Dans une enquête publiée en juillet dernier, Por Causa, média spécialisé dans les migrations, a analysé plus de 1 600 contrats liant l’État espagnol à des entreprises pour le contrôle des frontières, dont onze attribués à Thales, pour la somme de 3,8 millions d’euros.

      Algésiras héberge le port le plus important du sud de l’Espagne, c’est depuis des années l’une des portes d’entrées des migrants en Europe.
      Salva Carnicero, journaliste à « Por Causa »

      Le choix des villes n’est bien sûr pas anodin. « Algésiras héberge le port le plus important du sud de l’Espagne, c’est depuis des années l’une des portes d’entrées des migrants en Europe », analyse Salva Carnicero, qui travaille pour Por Causa. Dès 2003, la ville andalouse était équipée d’un dispositif de surveillance européen unique lancé par le gouvernement espagnol pour contrôler sa frontière sud, le Système intégré de surveillance extérieure (SIVE). Caméras thermiques, infrarouges, radars : les côtes ont été mises sous surveillance pour identifier la moindre embarcation à plusieurs dizaines de kilomètres. La gestion de ce système a été attribuée à l’entreprise espagnole Amper, qui continue à en assurer la maintenance et a remporté plusieurs appels d’offres en 2017 pour le déployer à Murcie, Alicante et Valence. Une entreprise que Thales connaît bien, puisqu’elle a acquis en 2014 l’une des branches d’Amper, spécialisée dans la création de systèmes de communication sécurisés pour le secteur de la défense.

      Ceuta et Melilla, villes autonomes espagnoles ayant une frontière directe avec le Maroc, sont considérées comme deux des frontières européennes les plus actives. En plus des caméras thermiques, Thales Espagne y a débuté en septembre 2019, en partenariat avec l’entreprise de sécurité suédoise Gunnebo, l’un des projets de reconnaissance faciale les plus ambitieux au monde. Le logiciel thalesien Live Face Identification System (LFIS) est en effet couplé à 35 caméras disposées aux postes-frontières avec l’Espagne. L’objectif : « Surveiller les personnes entrant et sortant des postes-frontières », et permettre « la mise en place de listes noires lors du contrôle aux frontières », dévoile Gunnebo, qui prédit 40 000 lectures de visages par jour à Ceuta et 85 000 à Melilla. Une technologie de plus qui complète l’immense clôture qui tranche la frontière. « Les deux vont de pair, le concept même de barrière frontalière implique la présence d’un checkpoint pour contrôler les passages », analyse le géographe Stéphane Rosière, spécialisé dans la géopolitique et les frontières.

      Chercheur pour Stop Wapenhandel, association néerlandaise qui milite contre le commerce des armes, Mark Akkerman travaille depuis des années sur la militarisation des frontières. Ses rapports « Border Wars » font figure de référence et mettent en exergue le profit que tirent les industriels de la défense, dont Thales, de la crise migratoire. Un des documents explique qu’à l’été 2015, le gouvernement néerlandais a accordé une licence d’exportation de 34 millions d’euros à Thales Nederland pour des radars et des systèmes C3. Leur destination ? L’Égypte, un pays qui viole régulièrement les droits de l’homme. Pour justifier la licence d’exportation accordée à Thales, le gouvernement néerlandais a évoqué « le rôle que la marine égyptienne joue dans l’arrêt de l’immigration “illégale” vers Europe ».

      De l’Australie aux pays du Golfe, l’ambition de Thales dépasse les frontières européennes

      L’ambition de Thales dépasse l’Europe. L’entreprise veut surveiller aux quatre coins du monde. Les drones Fulmar aident depuis 2016 la Malaisie à faire de la surveillance maritime et les caméras Gecko – encore elles –, lorgnent sur les eaux qui baignent la Jamaïque depuis 2019. En Australie, Thales a travaillé pendant plusieurs années avec l’entreprise publique Ocius, aidée par l’université New South Wales de Sydney, sur le développement de Bluebottle, un bateau autonome équipé d’un radar dont le but est de surveiller l’espace maritime. Au mois d’octobre, le ministère de l’industrie et de la défense australien a octroyé à Thales Australia une subvention de 3,8 millions de dollars pour développer son capteur sous-marin Blue Sentry.

      Une tactique rodée pour Thales qui, depuis une quinzaine d’années, profite des financements européens pour ses projets aux frontières. « L’un des marchés-clés pour ces acteurs sont les pays du Golfe, très riches, qui dépensent énormément dans la sécurité et qui ont parfois des problèmes d’instabilité. L’Arabie saoudite a barriérisé sa frontière avec l’Irak en pleine guerre civile », illustre Stéphane Rosière. En 2009, le royaume saoudien a confié la surveillance électronique de ses 8 000 kilomètres de frontières à EADS, aujourd’hui Airbus. Un marché estimé entre 1,6 milliard et 2,5 milliards d’euros, l’un des plus importants de l’histoire de la sécurité des frontières, dont l’attribution à EADS a été vécue comme un camouflet par Thales.

      Car l’entreprise dirigée par Patrice Caine entretient une influence historique dans le Golfe. Présent aux Émirats Arabes unis depuis 45 ans, l’industriel y emploie 550 personnes, principalement à Abu Dhabi et à Dubaï, où l’entreprise française est chargée de la sécurité d’un des plus grands aéroports du monde. Elle y a notamment installé 2 000 caméras de vidéosurveillance et 1 200 portillons de contrôle d’accès.

      Au Qatar, où elle comptait, en 2017, 310 employés, Thales équipe l’armée depuis plus de trois décennies. Depuis 2014, elle surveille le port de Doha et donc la frontière maritime, utilisant pour cela des systèmes détectant les intrusions et un imposant dispositif de vidéosurveillance. Impossible de quitter le Qatar par la voie des airs sans avoir à faire à Thales : l’entreprise sécurise aussi l’aéroport international d’Hamad avec, entre autres, un dispositif tentaculaire de 13 000 caméras, trois fois plus que pour l’intégralité de la ville de Nice, l’un de ses terrains de jeu favoris (lire l’épisode 1, « Nice, le “little brother” de Thales »).

      La prochaine grande échéance est la Coupe du monde de football de 2022, qui doit se tenir au Qatar et s’annonce comme l’une des plus sécurisées de l’histoire. Thales participe dans ce cadre à la construction et à la sécurisation du premier métro qatari, à Doha : 241 kilomètres, dont 123 souterrains, et 106 stations. Et combien de milliers de caméras de vidéosurveillance ?

      https://lesjours.fr/obsessions/thales-surveillance/ep6-frontieres-europe

  • [après la terrible leçon de Sainte Soline] Manifestation contre le projet d’autoroute A69 : le cortège principal défile dans le calme, plusieurs sites privés envahis par des manifestants
    https://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2023/10/21/manifestation-contre-l-a69-dans-le-tarn-les-opposants-au-projet-d-autoroute-

    La manifestation a mobilisé plus de 10 000 personnes, selon les organisateurs. La préfecture du Tarn a fait état de 2 400 personnes dans le cortège principal, et de 2 500 « individus radicaux et violents en dehors ».

    .... La manifestation s’est scindée en plusieurs cortèges au fil de l’après-midi.

    Les organisateurs (...) avaient pris soin de brouiller les pistes. Six cortèges sont partis du camp de base, non loin de Saïx, dont cinq sur des parcours qui n’avaient pas été déposés.

    L’objectif du cortège le plus « déterminé » était une #cimenterie de la société Carayon, un site qui n’était pas protégé par les forces de l’ordre. C’est le cortège « rouge », au nom de code « économie locale », composé de quelque 2 000 personnes – chaque cortège était différencié par des drapeaux de couleur et répondait à des appellations diverses comme « utilité publique », « décarbonation » ou encore « désenclavement » –, qui était chargé de pénétrer sur le site du cimentier. Après une marche sportive sur chemins et routes, les manifestants ont forcé le portail de la cimenterie pour y taguer des slogans hostiles à l’#A69, et déployer une grande banderole « No Macadam » sur une centrale à #béton, une grande cuve en métal.

    Trois camions toupies ont été incendiés. Selon les organisateurs, cela n’était pas prévu. La préfecture, dans son communiqué de fin de journée, explique que « des individus hostiles ont dégradé une cimenterie, y déclenchant un incendie ». « Après avoir été entravés par les manifestants, qui ont été repoussés par les forces de l’ordre, les sapeurs-pompiers sont intervenus sur le lieu de l’incendie », avancent ensuite les autorités. Selon le journaliste du Monde présent sur place, aucun contact n’a cependant eu lieu avec les forces de l’ordre ou avec les pompiers, les #manifestants ayant quitté les lieux bien avant que les véhicules de secours ou de gendarmes ne s’approchent du site.

    Bardou, une autre entreprise tarnaise du #BTP, à Cambounet-sur-le-Sor, qui intervient sur le #chantier de l’A69, a aussi été prise pour cible par des opposants, selon une porte-parole d’Atosca. Des individus se sont « introduits par effraction sur le site », a confirmé la préfecture, ajoutant qu’ils avaient « pris son vigile à partie, degradé le bâtiment et arraché ses clotûres, avant d’être repoussés par les forces de l’ordre ». Selon la préfecture, les gendarmes ont tiré soixante-quatorze grenades pour « repousser la menace, sans donner lieu à une confrontation directe ». Deux policiers ont par ailleurs été légèrement blessés, selon la préfecture, qui fait aussi état d’un manifestant pris en charge par les secours pour une entorse au genou.

    Dans le cortège principal, des milliers de personnes – 2 400 selon la préfecture du Tarn – ont défilé sur le parcours autorisé, une boucle d’environ 5 kilomètres, dans une atmosphère joyeuse et paisible, et devant des commerces au rideau baissé. Fanfares, batucada, perruques et déguisements multicolores, tracteurs qui klaxonnent et pancartes plus ou moins inventives (« Stop A69 », « Plus de moisson, moins de béton », « Aux arbres citoyens », « Le 69 oui, l’A69 non ») ont constitué le décor d’une marche à laquelle ont participé beaucoup d’enfants, comme la fille d’Elvia, 10 ans, ou celles de Sandrine, 7 et 10 ans.

    Les fillettes « voient qu’on abat des arbres tous les trois jours, et elles ont compris qu’une usine à bitume allait être implantée à 1 kilomètre de leur école, expliquent ces deux quadragénaires venues du village de Saint-Germain-des-Prés, que la future A69 doit couper en deux. Alors ce sont presque nos enfants qui veulent venir manifester et nous qui les suivons ». L’éventualité de débordements – finalement presque inexistants – ne les a jamais dissuadées de venir : « On sait qu’il y a des gens très en colère, et on est en colère nous aussi, mais on voulait que nos enfants voient ça, et on savait qu’il y aurait un cortège fait pour nous. » A 16 h 30, le cortège avait regagné le camp de base d’où il était parti en début d’après-midi, et où la mobilisation doit se poursuivre jusqu’à dimanche soir.

    Mille six cents policiers et gendarmes déployés

    « On est plus déterminés que jamais, on ne veut pas du futur auquel ils nous condamnent, notre mot d’ordre, c’est “Amour et rage, no macadam !” », déclarait plus tôt lors d’un point presse Amalia, d’Extinction Rébellion Toulouse, l’un des collectifs qui appelaient à la mobilisation contre l’A69 ce week-end. S’appuyant sur un sondage IFOP réalisé il y a quelques jours auprès de la population du Tarn et de la Haute-Garonne, Gilles Garric, du collectif La Voie est libre, soulignait que 61 % des sondés étaient favorables à l’abandon du projet d’autoroute et qu’ils étaient 82 % à se prononcer pour un référendum local.

    edit

    La préfecture fait état de 2 400 manifestants dans le cortège principal de la #manifestation et estime à 2 500 le « nombre d’individus radicaux et violents en dehors du cortège » principal. Le collectif La Voie est libre, qui organise la manifestation, affirme que « 9 500 personnes » ont participé à ce rassemblement.
    https://www.francetvinfo.fr/monde/environnement/crise-climatique/manifestation-contre-l-a69-entre-toulouse-et-castres-un-groupe-de-400-p

    #luttes #A69 #Atosca #Pierre_Fabre #écologie #articialisation_des_sols #autoroute #bitume #bagneule #police #gendarmerie

  • #atos : La société qui voulait faire travailler les cancéreux en phase terminale
    Ainsi que les personnes lourdement handicapées.

    Le contrat signé par le ministère britannique du travail et des pensions avec la filiale Atos Healthcare, portant sur l’évaluation des capacités de travail de personnes touchant des prestations d’invalidité et s’élevant à plus de 100 millions de livres sterling (126 millions d’euros), fait l’objet d’une polémique substantielle(115). Des évaluations, réalisées par le Département du Travail et des Retraites, sont critiquées par le Parlement du Royaume-Uni, des juristes, des médias, ou des associations de défense de personnes handicapées(116), au motif d’avoir conclu à la capacité de travailler de personnes en phase terminale de cancer ou de personnes lourdement handicapées(117).

    Au cours du débat qui s’est ensuivi à la Chambre des communes, des parlementaires opposés au projet du Département du Travail et des Retraites avancent que 1 300 personnes sont décédées (118) après avoir été déclarées aptes au travail par des assesseurs d’invalidité faisant l’objet d’une enquête de la part du Conseil de l’Ordre(119).

    #travail #ATOS #Fin_de_vie #DMP #esclavage #cancer #handicap #multi_nationale

    Extrait de : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atos Et il n’y a pas que ça

    Autres sources :

    Disability benefit assessments ’unfair’, says ex-worker
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22546036

    Atos comes under attack in emotional Commons debate
    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/jan/17/atos-attack-emotional-commons-debate

    Atos doctors could be struck off
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2011/aug/13/atos-doctors-improper-conduct-disability

  • Frontex : les lobbyistes derrière la politique migratoire de l’Europe
    https://www.alternatives-economiques.fr/frontex-lobbyistes-derriere-politique-migratoire-de-leurope/00098362

    Frontex, l’agence européenne de garde-frontières et de garde-côtes, défend les intérêts des entreprises plutôt que les droits de l’homme, dénonce un nouveau rapport de l’ONG Corporate Europe Observatory. Le millésime 2020 n’a pas été bon pour Frontex. L’agence a fait la Une des journaux à cause d’une recrudescence de violations des droits humains et d’expulsions illégales de migrants et de réfugiés. Elle fait à présent l’objet d’une enquête de l’Office européen de lutte anti-fraude (Olaf). « Le scandale de (...)

    #Airbus #Atos #Frontex #Idemia #Leonardo_ #NEC #migration #fraude #frontières (...)

    ##surveillance

  • Reconnaissance faciale : officiellement interdite, elle se met peu à peu en place
    https://www.franceinter.fr/reconnaissance-faciale-officiellement-interdite-elle-se-met-peu-a-peu-en

    Nice, Metz, Marseille... Toutes ces villes tentent d’expérimenter des dispositifs qui s’apparentent à de la reconnaissance faciale, toujours interdite en France. La Cnil veille au grain, mais n’exclut pas de rendre un avis favorable pour les Jeux olympiques de Paris en 2024. Imaginez : le 26 juillet 2024. Les Jeux olympiques de Paris débutent. Une foule compacte se presse devant les grilles d’entrée du Stade de France. À l’entrée sud, une file semble avancer plus vite que les autres. En effet, (...)

    #Atos #CapGemini #Cisco #Dassault #Datakalab #Europol #Idemia #RATP #Two-I #algorithme #Alicem #capteur #CCTV #QRcode #SmartCity #smartphone #biométrie #racisme #consentement #émotions #facial #reconnaissance #son (...)

    ##[fr]Règlement_Général_sur_la_Protection_des_Données__RGPD_[en]General_Data_Protection_Regulation__GDPR_[nl]General_Data_Protection_Regulation__GDPR_ ##biais ##comportement ##discrimination ##enseignement ##masque ##sport ##TAJ ##bug ##CNIL ##LaQuadratureduNet

  • 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 ##_

  • Peur sur la ville : le marché des « safe cities »
    https://theconversation.com/peur-sur-la-ville-le-marche-des-safe-cities-138313

    À Nice, Marseille, Saint-Étienne ou encore Valenciennes, se développent des projets de « safe city », pendant sécuritaire de la « smart city ». Ce terme désigne des dispositifs numériques destinés à lutter contre les dangers de l’espace urbain : vidéosurveillance « intelligente », où l’analyse d’image s’appuie sur des algorithmes de détection de mouvements de foule, de violences, d’intrusion ; des plates-formes dites d’hypervision, comme à Dijon, permettant de gérer ensemble différents services municipaux dont (...)

    #Engie #Atos #Gemalto #Ring #Thalès #Airbnb #Amazon #Uber #algorithme #CCTV #smartphone #SmartCity #sonnette #biométrie #biopolitique #police #facial #métadonnées #reconnaissance #vidéo-surveillance #violence #BigData #mouvement #surveillance (...)

    ##LaQuadratureduNet

  • « La société américaine Palantir, proche de la CIA, est toujours indispensable aux espions français »
    https://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/2019/11/29/l-americain-palantir-est-toujours-indispensable-aux-espions-francais_6021016

    La DGSI vient de renouveler son contrat avec la société américaine spécialisée dans l’analyse de données. La France peine à faire émerger une alternative à une entreprise aussi bien financée, analyse Philippe Escande, éditorialiste au « Monde ». Chronique. Branle-bas de combat à l’Assemblée nationale. Au son du clairon, les troupes se mobilisent au nom de la souveraineté technologique dans le domaine militaire. Des élus de tous bords ont écrit une lettre commune au premier ministre pour s’alarmer de la (...)

    #Airbus #Atos #Huawei #In-Q-Tel #Microsoft #Nokia_Siemens #Palantir #Safran #Sony #CIA #algorithme #anti-terrorisme #firme #migration #BigData #surveillance (...)

    ##DGSI

  • 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

  • Jean Rohmer
    Vice President at Institut Fredrik Bull
    5 j. · Modifié

    Suivre
    Le STUPEFIANT message de Google à ses clients avant-hier au Google Cloud Summit : nous vous aidons à faire chez vous de l’INTELLIGENCE ARTIFICIELLE SANS TALENTS ... puisqu’ils sont tous chez nous !!!
    Abandonnez l’idée de maîtriser vous-même l’essence du deep learning, du machine learning, des briques applicatives.
    Il y a seulement 10 000 talents en deep learning dans le monde, et ils sont tous chez nous et les autres GAFA.
    Abandonnez l’idée d’en recruter vous-mêmes.
    Idem pour les data scientists, qui ne sont que deux millions, ne luttez pas avec nous, laissez tomber.
    Nous avons précisément développé nos plateformes et nos outils dans l’esprit d’aider des gens comme vous, DES GENS SANS TALENTS

    STUPEFIANT !

    #healthdatahub #thales #lvmh #atos #puissance #plateformes #google #cloudcomputing #intelligenceartificielle

  • Biometric data in large EU IT systems in the areas of borders, visa and asylum – fundamental rights implications

    The EU has developed common rules for managing external borders, for issuing visas and for dealing with asylum requests. These rules require cooperation between EU Member States, including the exchange of personal data concerning third-country nationals. The EU has developed three large scale IT systems to exchange personal data in the areas of asylum, borders and visa: #Eurodac, #SIS II (#Schengen_Information_System) and #VIS (#Visa_Information_System). This project will analyse the fundamental rights implications of inserting, storing and using biometric data – such as fingerprints – in these IT systems. Both the negative as well as the positive fundamental rights implications will be studied.

    http://fra.europa.eu/en/project/2014/biometric-data-large-eu-it-systems-areas-borders-visa-and-asylum-fundamen
    #biométrie #surveillance #frontières #surveillance_frontalière #contrôles_frontaliers #visa #asile #migrations #réfugiés #Schengen #données_biométriques #empreintes_digitales #droits_humains #droits_fondamentaux #rapport

    Mais je ne trouve pas le rapport à télécharger...

    Sous “publications”, par contre, d’autres documents intéressants:
    Fundamental rights implications of the obligation to provide fingerprints for Eurodac

    Processing biometric data for immigration, asylum and border management purposes has become common. This focus paper looks at measures authorities can take to enforce the obligation of newly arrived asylum seekers and migrants in an irregular situation to provide fingerprints for inclusion in Eurodac.

    http://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2015/fundamental-rights-implications-obligation-provide-fingerprints-eurodac

    #Smart_Borders Pilot Project Technical Report Annexes
    https://www.eulisa.europa.eu/Publications/Reports/Smart%20Borders%20-%20Technical%20Annexes.pdf
    #frontières_intelligentes

    • Europe: l’enjeu des #données_mobiles des migrants

      Les téléphones portables sont de véritables lignes de vie pour les migrants. Outils de documentation, systèmes de navigation, mais aussi et surtout moyens de communication, ils leur permettent d’établir un contact régulier avec leurs proches, les passeurs, et toute autre personne susceptible de les aider dans leur périple. Mais justement parce qu’ils leur permettent de rester connectés, les téléphones portables exposent aussi les migrants à de véritables risques. Parmi eux, l’exploitation de leurs données mobiles par les autorités de certains pays européens, qui peut permettre de retracer leur parcours ou vérifier leur identité.

      Lorsqu’ils sont contraints de quitter leur pays d’origine, des milliers de migrants laissent derrière eux leurs foyers avec pour seuls bagages quelques billets, et un téléphone portable. Juste de quoi leur permettre d’atteindre l’Europe. Être connecté est un point essentiel dans une situation de migration forcée, pour rester en contact avec ses proches, mais aussi pour pouvoir joindre les secours.

      Pour des questions de mobilité, de localisation et de sécurité, les téléphones sont donc des outils indispensables aux migrants, mais pas seulement. Selon Wired UK, la déclinaison britannique du mensuel américain Wired, certains gouvernements européens utilisent les téléphones portables des migrants et en extraient les données mobiles de #géolocalisation et de #messagerie.

      Des entreprises spécialisées dans l’extraction de données

      « Ça ne me surprendrait pas, affirme Carleen Maitland, professeur associée à l’université des sciences de l’information et technologie de Pennstate. Il y a 20 ans déjà, si quelqu’un faisait une demande d’asile, les agents de l’immigration demandaient des preuves pour vérifier les propos des demandeurs. C’est extrêmement inquiétant, et décevant pour des gens qui ont déjà tout perdu de devoir perdre, en plus, leurs #souvenirs_numériques ».
      –-> #audition, donc. Et #vraisemblance

      Un acte rendu possible par la recrudescence d’entreprises spécialisées dans ce domaine, comme par exemple au Royaume-Uni. Là-bas, plusieurs entreprises possèdent même des contrats avec les forces de police britanniques, comme le révèle un rapport de Privacy International, une organisation non gouvernementale basée à Londres, militant pour le droit à la vie privée.

      Selon l’une de ces sociétés, MSAB, 97% des forces de police britanniques utiliseraient le logiciel #XRY, donnant même un accès aux données supprimées des appareils mobiles, qu’il s’agisse de smartphones, de #modem_3G, de #GPS ou encore de #tablettes.

      Manque de transparence

      Aujourd’hui, Privacy International n’a pas la preuve que les forces de police ont recours à ce type de pratique envers les migrants, et ce malgré les révélations du journal The Guardian en 2016, statuant que le Home office, le ministère de l’Intérieur britannique, pouvait bel et bien avoir accès aux données mobiles des téléphones des migrants soupçonnés d’avoir commis un crime. Mais sur quels critères ? Le problème pour Privacy International : un manque de transparence sur cette question, régulée par une loi, selon eux, obsolète - la loi sur la police et les preuves pénales, datant de 1984. Elle accorde à la police le pouvoir d’exiger « n’importe quelle information stockée sous toute forme électronique ».

      « Nous craignons que les données mobiles des migrants soient extraites de leurs téléphones portables quand ils sont détenus dans des centres de rétention, ou lorsqu’ils passent d’un centre à un autre (au Royaume-Uni), sans que personne ne le sache vraiment », s’inquiète Millie Graham Wood, avocate au sein de Privacy International. « La loi sur laquelle ils disent s’appuyer est inadéquate et inapplicable aux nouvelles technologies », ajoute-t-elle.

      Un volume d’informations important

      Une inquiétude d’autant plus légitime lorsque l’on sait à quelles informations peuvent accéder les services de police britanniques quand ils ont recours à la technologie de #Cellebrite : les numéros de chacun des contacts enregistrés dans le téléphone, le journal d’appel, les messages textes et images envoyés, toutes les vidéos et images ainsi que leur date et heure de création (parfois même accompagnées de leur géolocalisation), les fichiers audio, les e-mails, les informations de navigation, les données GPS, les messages et contacts des applications de réseaux sociaux, tous les réseaux bluetooth auxquels a été connecté le téléphone, les codes de déverrouillages (qu’il s’agisse de chiffres ou de schémas), et même les données supprimées.

      « Ils n’ont aucune idée du volume d’informations qui peut leur être pris, et comment cela pourrait être utilisé contre eux dans le futur », explique Millie Graham Wood. D’autant que les informations trouvées dans le téléphone ne sont pas forcément précises et fiables à 100%. « Avec ce manque de transparence autour de la question de la provenance des données des migrants et de leur utilisation, il y a un risque d’erreur judiciaire, qui pourrait conduire à des expulsions à cause de ce qu’on a trouvé sur les téléphones et qui pourrait s’avérer incorrect. »

      Mais le #Royaume-Uni n’est pas le seul pays d’Europe où les données mobiles peuvent se retourner contre les migrants. En #Allemagne, la loi est plus claire : depuis le 18 mai 2017, les autorités peuvent examiner les #métadonnées des migrants potentiels et déterminer dans quels pays ils ont été, et à quel moment - vérifier, donc, leurs #témoignages lors de leur demande d’asile en cas de doute.

      Selon Wired, les autorités allemandes ont recours à un logiciel informatique appelé #Atos, qui utilise les technologies de deux entreprises spécialisées dans l’analyse forensique des téléphones, #T3K... et MSAB. Une combinaison d’outils qui permet d’accéder aux métadonnées contenues dans les téléphones portables.

      Des politiques différentes en Europe

      En Allemagne, la loi sur la surveillance des téléphones ne peut s’appliquer que dans le cas où l’identité ou la nationalité d’un demandeur d’asile ne peut pas être prouvée, et s’appuie sur la section 15a de l’Asylum Act, selon Annegret Korff, porte-parole de l’Office allemand des migrations (BAMF), interrogée par confrères du site Infomigrants. Seul le BAMF peut ensuite traiter ces données.

      En 2017, la #Belgique s’est aussi inspirée de son voisin allemand ; au mois de novembre, la Chambre a adopté la réforme du droit d’asile du secrétaire d’Etat Theo Francken. Un texte qui donne aux autorités la possibilité d’inspecter les téléphones portables des demandeurs d’asile, mais aussi d’éplucher leurs profils sur les réseaux sociaux afin de vérifier le récit du candidat quant à son parcours. L’objectif est aussi de contrôler leur #identité s’ils ne possèdent pas de documents pouvant la prouver. En cas de refus de rendre accessible son téléphone portable et ses réseaux sociaux, le demandeur d’asile peut être enfermé.

      Même chose en #Turquie. Là-bas aussi, les autorités se penchent sur les profils des migrants, dès leur passage à la frontière avec la Syrie. C’est ce que l’on peut lire dans un article de Marie Gillespie, professeur de sociologie à l’Open University du Royaume-Uni, et Souad Osseiran, anthropologiste spécialisée sur les questions de migrations et réfugiés en Turquie, ainsi que Margie Cheesman, de l’université d’Oxford au Royaume-Uni. Ils ont interrogé Saleem, qui témoigne : « quand je suis arrivé à la frontière en Turquie, le garde a pris mon téléphone et m’a demandé mon mot de passe Facebook. Au début, je ne voulais pas lui donner parce que j’avais peur, mais ils m’ont mis en prison pendant 15 jours, et m’ont frappé. Ils avaient pris mon téléphone, et j’étais coincé. »

      Dans l’article, on apprend aussi que la #surveillance en ligne peut continuer une fois les frontières européennes passées, puisque les autorités demandent aux demandeurs d’asile des informations à propos de leur compte #Facebook, les incitant à « nettoyer » leurs profils.

      La #France adopte, elle, une position différente de ses voisins : les autorités ne peuvent surveiller les données mobiles des migrants pour des procédures administratives telles que des demandes d’asile, sauf dans le cadre de la lutte contre le #terrorisme - où n’importe quelle personne suspectée peut être mise sur écoute.

      Mais alors pourquoi de telles différences de pratiques entre les pays européens ? Interrogé par Infomigrants en mars 2018, le Bureau des migrations et des affaires intérieures de la Commission européenne a répondu que le droit européen ne réglementait pas cette question. Chaque Etat-membre est donc en mesure de décider si oui ou non les demandeurs d’asile doivent remettre leur téléphone portable aux autorités, et s’ils font appel à des entreprises comme #MSAB. La firme résume d’ailleurs bien quelles sont ses possibilités en matière d’exploitation des données : « si vous avez accès à une #carte_SIM, vous avez accès à la vie entière d’une personne ».

      http://www.rfi.fr/europe/20180730-europe-donnees-mobiles-migrants-immigration-portables
      #smartphones #téléphones_portables #SIM

  • La industria del control migratorio ¿Quién gana con las políticas fronterizas de la Unión Europea?

    La investigación de porCausa permite, por primera vez, probar que existe en España una Industria del Control Migratorio, identificar a los actores que operan en ella, estimar su magnitud y acceder a las herramientas para estudiarla en detalle.

    https://porcausa.org/industriacontrolmigratorio
    #rapport #frontières #asile #migrations #réfugiés #business #Espagne #INDRA #AMPER #EUROCOPTER #ALBIE #TELECOMUNICACIÓN-ELECTRÓNICA Y CONMUTACIÓN #ATOS #DRAGADOS #FERROVIAL #SIEMENS #TELEFÓNICA_ESPAÑOLA_Y_GMV #industrie #complexe_militaro-industriel #frontex

    Lien vers le rapport:
    https://www.porcausa.org/industriacontrolmigratorio/media/porcausa_LaIndustriaDelControlMigratorio.pdf

    • How the Security Industry Reaps the Rewards of E.U. Migration Control

      In austerity-stricken Europe, increasing funds are flowing to arms and security firms positioning themselves as experts on border control. Researcher Mark Akkerman documents the companies profiting from E.U. border externalization and the industry’s lobbying power.

      At a time when European Union budgets are threatened by Brexit, Italian political instability and an unfinished economic crisis, the European Commission’s proposal for triple funding for borders, migration and asylum suggests an unusual consensus in favor of border security.

      The increase in funding gained considerable press attention, but the role of the European military and security industry in shaping these policies and then reaping the plentiful financial rewards remains largely underexposed.

      Research by the United Kingdom’s Statewatch and Belgian NGO “Vredesactie” shows how successful these industries have been in shaping E.U. military and security policies. Large European arms companies, such as #Airbus (Pan-European), #Leonardo (Italian, formerly called #Finmeccanica) and #Thales (French) engage in extensive lobbying. Their lobby associations, notably the #European_Organisation_for_Security (#EOS) and the #AeroSpace_and_Defence Industries Association of Europe (#ASD), have gained influence to the point that their proposals are sometimes adopted almost wholesale by E.U. bodies.

      E.U. and member states’ officials and industry executives forge strong relationships through a constant cycle of congresses, conferences, roundtables, security fairs and industry days by E.U. border agency #Frontex. Since December 2014, senior European Commission officials met with EOS 15 times and ASD 29 times, as well as holding many meetings with Airbus (131), Leonardo (25) and Thales (18).

      Concrete proposals that were first advocated by the industry, such as the establishment of a European border guard and of the E.U.-wide border monitoring system #EUROSUR, eventually become E.U. policies. These then create the demand that fuels an expanding global border security market, valued at more than 16 billion euros ($18.7 billion) in 2017 and estimated to grow 8 percent annually in coming years.

      According to Martin Lemberg-Pedersen at the Aalborg University in Copenhagen, arms companies “establish themselves as experts on border security, and use this position to frame immigration to Europe as leading to ever more security threats in need of ever more” purchases of the products they sell.

      The increasing focus on exporting border control measures to countries neighboring Europe has further expanded the market, as my recent report “Expanding the Fortress” for the research groups Stop Wapenhandel and the Transnational Institute (TNI) shows.

      Many non-E.U.-countries, especially in Africa, get donations of border security equipment or funding for such purchases. Some examples include donations of large amounts of equipment from Airbus and #Hensoldt (the former border security division of Airbus) to Tunisia by Germany, Italian donations of patrol boats from shipbuilder Intermarine to Libya and the E.U.-funded purchase of six vessels from Dutch shipbuilder #Damen to Turkey, to strengthen the capacities of its coast guard.

      Despite the austerity measures in place in some areas of Europe, the increase in funding for militarizing border security seems to be limitless. Frontex, which now has new powers to buy its own equipment, could see its current annual budget of 320 million euros ($375 million) increase almost sixfold to 1.87 billion euros ($2.19 billion) by 2027.

      During 2018, Frontex will test two military drones for maritime border surveillance in the Mediterranean Sea: the #Heron from #Israeli_Aerospace_Industries (#IAI) and the #Falco from #Leonardo. IAI will be paid 4.75 million euros ($5.57 million) for 600 hours of trial flights, while Leonardo will secure 1.7 million euros ($2 million) for 300 hours of trial flights.

      The proposed E.U. Integrated Border Management Fund will have a 9.3 billion euro ($10.9 billion) budget for 2021–27, almost double the combined budget of its predecessors for the period 2004–20 (#External_Borders_Fund, the #Internal_Security_Fund – Borders and the Schengen Facility). With these funds, member states have purchased thousands of vehicles for border patrol, dozens of patrol vessels, airplanes, border surveillance systems, cameras, thermal vision equipment, biometric and I.T. systems – many bought from European arms and security firms.

      In the case of Finland and Romania, E.U.-financed helicopter purchases came from Airbus, while Leonardo delivered helicopters to Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Estonia, Italy, Latvia and Malta. This has led to the perverse outcome that some of these companies profit from both sides of the refugee tragedy. As our 2016 report “Border Wars” shows, some firms are both arming countries at war, repressive regimes and human rights violators in the Middle East and North Africa – thereby fueling the reasons people are forced to flee – and then winning the contracts to prevent refugees entering Europe.

      The preferential role for industry is no coincidence nor just the result of the industry’s own efforts. In fact, it is a stated objective of the E.U. to support the global competitiveness of the European military and security industry. And the E.U. does all it can to further intensify the close ties.

      In February 2018, for example, the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs (DG Home) organized an “Industry Day on Border Surveillance and Integrated Border Management” in which Giorgi Gulienetti of Italian arms firm Leonardo gave a keynote address. Later DG Home wrote that it hoped the day “on a longer term […] would set the foundations of an improved cooperation with research and industry communities in the area of border surveillance and border management.”

      While the proposed increases of the E.U. border security and control budget clearly respond to a number of factors, the increasing role, funding and support for industry will ensure that they become one of the few beneficiaries from the refugee “crisis.” Ultimately this is not just a concern about corporate influence but also about entrenching a militarized response to a complex crisis. This will do little to tackle the root causes of the refugee crisis but rather provides another arena for profiteering from human suffering.

      https://www.newsdeeply.com/refugees/community/2018/06/04/how-the-security-industry-reaps-the-rewards-of-e-u-migration-control

  • Elca et Atos vont livrer des logiciels de surveillance à la Confédération
    http://www.ictjournal.ch/news/2017-08-03/elca-et-atos-vont-livrer-des-logiciels-de-surveillance-a-la-confederation

    La Confédération a octroyé des mandats de plusieurs millions de francs à Elca et Atos dans le cadre de la mise en place des nouveaux systèmes de surveillance des télécommunications. Le Centre de services informatiques (CSI-DFJP) du Département fédéral de justice et police (DFJP) a récemment conclu trois contrats pour la mise en place de nouveaux systèmes de surveillance des télécommunications. Suite à un appel d’offre publié en février dernier, le CSI-DFJP a octroyé des mandats à deux fournisseurs, Elca (...)

    #Atos #spyware #écoutes #sécuritaire #surveillance #web

  • #Thierry_Breton et l’asile politique de #Philippe_Vannier
    https://reflets.info/thierry-breton-et-lasile-politique-de-philippe-vannier

    S’il y a bien un patron d’entreprise qui a été carbonisé par la presse, c’est bien Philippe Vannier. Rassurons-nous, le patron d’Amesys, puis de #Bull, l’homme qui a organisé la vente de systèmes d’écoutes massives […]

    #Bienvenue_chez_Amesys #Amesys #Atos #Cries_de_guerre

  • #Amesys : #LesDix passés à la question par les enquêteurs confirment l’implication de #Philippe_Vannier
    https://reflets.info/amesys-lesdix-passes-a-la-question-par-les-enqueteurs-confirment-limplicat

    Amesys est une véritable Saga sur Reflets. Le 22 février 2011, Bluetouff lance l’affaire sur Reflets avec un tweet et un court article titré « Probablement pas … » puis présente le fameux #Eagle (GLINT) d’Amesys dans […]

    #Bienvenue_chez_Amesys #Technos #Alten #Atos #Bull #Cerebro #Criteo #Kadhafi #Libye #Nexa #Renaud_Roques #Stéphane_Salies #Thierry_Breton

  • Vom Profit mit der Not

    Weltweit sind rund 65 Millionen Menschen auf der Flucht. Es gibt so viele Flüchtlingslager wie nie zuvor. Eigentlich als Provisorien gedacht, sind viele Camps heute Dauereinrichtungen. Ein neues Geschäftsfeld ist entstanden, ein Geschäftsfeld, das private Unternehmen für sich zu nutzen wissen.

    https://www.srf.ch/play/tv/dok/video/vom-profit-mit-der-not?id=03b022a4-9627-48d9-90b1-bf04ed1b5069

    #camps_de_réfugiés #asile #migrations #réfugiés #profit #économie #privatisation #marché #business #vidéo #film #documentaire #technologie #ONU #nations_unies #ikea #biométrie #surveillance #HCR #UNHCR #Jordanie #IrisGuard #supermarchés #données #terrorisme #Dadaab #liberté_de_mouvement #liberté_de_circulation #apatridie #Kenya #réfugiés_somaliens #accord_UE-Turquie #Turquie #Poseidon #Frontex #Grèce #Lesbos #Moria #hotspots

    Les conseillers de #IrisGuard :
    #Richard_Dearlove : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dearlove (il a travailler pour les #services_secrets britanniques)
    #Frances_Townsend : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frances_Townsend (conseillère de #Georges_Bush)

    L’entreprise IrisGuard a son siège aux #îles_Caïmans #Cayman_Islands (#paradis_fiscaux)

    #G4S assure la protection des travailleurs humanitaires à Dadaad... L’ONU a dépensé, selon ce documentaire, 23 mio de USD pour la protection de ses employés, le 2ème plus haut poste de dépenses après l’eau potable...

    • Market Forces: the development of the EU security-industrial complex

      While the European Union project has faltered in recent years, afflicted by the fall-out of the economic crisis, the rise of anti-EU parties and the Brexit vote, there is one area where it has not only continued apace but made significant advances: Europe’s security policies have not only gained political support from across its Member States but growing budgets and resources too.

      Transnational corporations are winning millions of euros of public research funds to develop ever more intrusive surveillance and snooping technologies, a new report by Statewatch and the Transnational Institute reveals today.

      The report, Market Forces, shows how the EU’s €1.7 billion ‘Secure societies’ research programme has been shaped by the “homeland security” industry and in the process is constructing an ever more militarised and security-focused Europe.

      The research programme, in place since 2007, has sought to combat a panoply of “threats” ranging from terrorism and organised criminality to irregular migration and petty crime through the development of new “homeland security” technologies such as automated behaviour analysis tools, enhanced video and data surveillance, and biometric identification systems.

      Key beneficiaries of this research funding have been companies: #Thales (€33.1m), #Selex (€23.2m), #Airbus (€17.8m), #Atos (€14.1m) and #Indra (€12.3m are the five biggest corporate recipients. Major applied research institutes have also received massive amounts of funding, the top five being: #Fraunhofer_Institute (€65.7 million); #TNO (€33.5 million); #Swedish_Defence_Research_Institute (€33.4 million); #Commissariat_à_l'énergie_atomique_et_aux_énergies_alternatives (€22.1 million); #Austrian_Intstitute_of_Technology (€16 million).

      Many of these organisations and their lobbies have played a significant role in designing the research programme through their participation in high-level public-private forums, European Commission advisory groups and through lobbying undertaken by industry groups such as the European Organisation for Security (#EOS).

      The report also examines EU’s €3.8 billion #Internal_Security_Fund, which provides funding to Member States to acquire new tools and technologies: border control #drones and surveillance systems, #IMSI catchers for spying on mobile phones, tools for monitoring the web and ‘pre-crime’ predictive policing systems are currently on the agenda.

      It is foreseen that the fund will eventually pay for technologies developed through the security research programme, creating a closed loop of supply and demand between private companies and state authorities.

      Despite the ongoing economic crisis, EU funding for new security tools and technologies has grown from under €4 billion to almost €8 billion in the 2014-20 period (compared to 2007-13) and the report warns that there is a risk of further empowering illiberal tendencies in EU governments that have taken unprecedented steps in recent years towards normalising emergency powers and undermining human rights protection in the name of fighting terrorism and providing “security”.

      Market Forces argues that upcoming negotiations on the next round of funding programmes (2021-27) provide a significant opportunity to reform the rationale and reasoning behind the EU’s development of new security technologies and its funding of tools and equipment for national authorities.


      http://statewatch.org/marketforces

      Lien vers le #rapport:
      http://statewatch.org/analyses/marketforces.pdf

    • #Burundi refugees refuse ’biometric’ registration in #DRC

      More than 2 000 Burundian refugees living in a transit camp in Democratic Republic of Congo are resisting plans to register them on a biometric database, claiming it would violate their religion.

      They belong to an obscure Catholic sect that follows a female prophet called #Zebiya and claim to have fled their homeland due to religious persecution.

      https://www.news24.com/Africa/News/burundi-refugees-refuse-biometric-registration-in-drc-20171207
      #résistance #Congo #camps_de_réfugiés #persécution_religieuse

  • #Philippe_Vannier, l’oublié (pour l’instant) du scandale #Amesys
    https://reflets.info/philippe-vannier-loublie-pour-linstant-du-scandale-amesys

    On peut le tourner dans tous les sens possibles, lorsqu’une entreprise fait l’objet d’une instruction pour complicité de torture par un pôle dont l’intitulé est « génocide et crimes contre l’humanité, crimes et délits de guerre », […]

    #Bienvenue_chez_Amesys #Deep_Packet_Inspection #Abdallah_Senoussi #AMF #Atos #Bull #Crescendo_Industries #Dominique_Lesourd #Kadhafi #Marc_Hériard-Dubreuil

  • 60 millions de « fichés », un seul « responsable » pour les protéger
    http://www.slate.fr/story/128792/donnees-fichier-monstre

    L’Agence nationale des titres sécurisés conserve des centaines de millions de données personnelles des plus sensibles, mais c’est d’abord et avant tout un « call center », externalisant nombre de ses missions auprès du secteur privé. Qui est « responsable » de la protection de vos données et de les garder secrètes ? Ou plutôt, qui est responsable de la protection de ce « fichier monstre » qui fait débat depuis quelques semaines, validé par le gouvernement et le Conseil constitutionnel, qui devrait réunir (...)

    #Atos #Bull #Morpho #Orange #Safran #Passeport #biométrie #surveillance #surveillance #TES (...)

    ##CNIL

  • #Amesys, de la dictature de Khadafi au fichier controversé « des 60 millions de Français »
    http://multinationales.org/Amesys-de-la-dictature-de-Khadafi-au-fichier-controverse-des-60-mil

    La controverse fait rage en #France sur le projet de méga-fichier TES destiné à regrouper les données biométriques de 60 millions de français. Un appel d’offres devrait intervenir dans plusieurs semaines. L’Agence nationale des titres sécurisés, en charge du dossier, a des liens étroits avec plusieurs entreprises de #Services_informatiques, à commencer par #Atos et sa filiale Amesys - une entreprise poursuivie pour complicité de torture en raison de ses prestations pour la dictature de Khadafi. Mais qui (...)

    Actualités

    / #Rue89, France, Services informatiques, Atos, Amesys, #privatisation, #vie_privée, #marchés_publics, droits (...)

    #droits_humains
    "http://rue89.nouvelobs.com/2016/11/09/amesys-file-coup-main-a-lagence-charge-fichier-monstre-265610"

  • Marché des radars automatiques : une enquête pour favoritisme viserait les anciens ministres Thierry Breton et Francis Mer
    http://multinationales.org/Marche-des-radars-automatiques-une-enquete-pour-favoritisme-viserai

    Suite à une plainte de l’association Anticor, la justice a ouvert une enquête sur les #marchés_publics relatifs aux radars automatiques, longtemps trustés par deux firmes : #Atos (en tant que gestionnaire du système) et #Safran-Morpho (fabricant des équipements). Seraient également visés les deux ministres successifs des Finances Therry Breton et Francis Mer - le premier est devenu depuis PDG d’Atos, tandis que le second est président d’honneur de Safran. Mediapart résume les faits : La justice a (...)

    Actualités

    / #France, #Services_informatiques, Atos, Safran, marchés publics, #influence

    « https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/france/011016/la-justice-ouvre-une-enquete-sur-les-marches-publics-des-radars-automatiqu »
    « http://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/societe/radars-amendes-electroniques-opa-sur-les-pv_1692404.html »
    « https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/economie/051016/radars-automatiques-une-lettre-de-la-societe-atos »
    « https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/france/290316/les-manoeuvres-du-groupe-safran-et-de-linterieur-pour-abattre-un-prefet?on »

  • Passeports sans frontières - Culture / Next
    http://next.liberation.fr/livres/2016/09/28/passeports-sans-frontieres_1513711

    #passeport #circulation #visas - pour @fil

    Parce que ça me fait penser à ça (en lien)

    Voyager sans visa
    http://visionscarto.net/voyager-sans-visa

    Alors que bon nombre de Britanniques sont encore sonnés par le Brexit annoncé dans la nuit du 23 juin 2016, les ambassades des autres pays européens reçoivent par centaines, dès potron-minet, des demandes de citoyenneté pour conserver le précieux sésame de l’Union européenne. Un mouvement amplifiant des demandes qui avaient déjà été faites par précaution avant le vote. On découvre alors que tous les passeports ne se valent pas et qu’être citoyen estampillé UE donne des facilités pour circuler et s’installer. On saura dans quelque temps quelle fut l’ampleur de ce mouvement.

    • ah tiens Libé fait désormais comme le Guardian en mettant son logo sur les images destinées aux réseaux sociaux

    • En attendant, #Atossa_Araxia_Abrahamian a enquêté sur le #marché mondial des passeports dans un #livre d’autant mieux renseigné que la journaliste est elle-même suisse, iranienne et canadienne vivant à New York. Une plongée dans l’#industrie de la #citoyenneté qui n’aurait pas pu être écrite il y a quelques décennies. Car les faits rapportés par l’auteure sont récents. Il y eut toujours une poignée d’hommes d’affaires et des artistes collectionneurs de #passeports, mais son récit offre une géographie mondiale de la citoyenneté, qui n’est plus figée dans le marbre de l’Etat westphalien. On pense au fossé entre les pauvres migrants poussés par la pauvreté et la guerre au péril de leur vie durant le voyage ou pendant leur misérable existence dans des pays riches exploitant leur force de travail, un fossé avec les riches, citoyens de pays démocratiques, circulant sans peine pour des motifs les plus futiles, voire les ultra-riches (0,1 % de la population mondiale) qui se sont octroyé le titre de « citoyens du monde » dont ils jouissent avec des passeports achetés à prix fort. La citoyenneté de La Dominique est sur le marché à 200 000 dollars, celle de Malte (où l’on ne paie pas d’impôts) et de l’Autriche peut atteindre plusieurs millions d’euros.

      #business #marchandise

      Citoyennetés à vendre. Enquête sur le marché international des passeports

      La citoyenneté – le « droit d’avoir des droits », comme l’a définie Hannah Arendt – est aujourd’hui refusée à des centaines de millions de personnes – déracinés, réfugiés, apatrides et autres « illégaux ». Pour quelques happy fews, en revanche, les passeports sont des produits de luxe qu’ils collectionnent comme des toiles de maître, pour se simplifier la vie et payer moins d’impôts.

      Ce reportage montre ce qu’est devenue l’idée de citoyenneté à l’ère des gigantesques mouvements de population et de la privatisation des États. D’un côté, les ultra-riches ont accaparé le titre de « citoyens du monde » et sont les seuls à jouir, avec leurs capitaux, d’une planète sans frontières. De l’autre, des nationalités bradées, comme dans l’invraisemblable transaction conclue entre l’une des nations les plus pauvres du monde, les Comores, et les Émirats arabes unis qui, pour régulariser la situation des apatrides sur leur territoire, ont acheté au prix de gros des dizaines de milliers de passeports comoriens


      https://www.luxediteur.com/catalogue/citoyennetes-a-vendre

    • Così Malta mette in vendita la cittadinanza europea ai ricchi del mondo

      “Sono più che infastidita dal fatto che un’azienda si senta autorizzata a vendere la cittadinanza di un Paese contro la volontà dei suoi cittadini, dopo un subdolo accordo sottoscritto con un governo che non ha avuto, su questo, alcun mandato”. Le parole sono di Daphne Caruana Galizia. Era il 12 maggio 2017, e in un post del suo blog Running Commentary scriveva a Christian Kalin, presidente della società di consulenza Henley&Partners. Una società specializzata nel costruire sistemi per attrarre ricchi che vogliono acquistare una seconda cittadinanza europea. Il governo di La Valletta ha un contratto con loro che scadrà nel 2019. Ma non sono i soli: Henley&Partners lavora da decenni in tutto il mondo, e da due anni spinge per l’introduzione di un sistema simile anche in Italia.

      Le domande che Daphne si ponevano erano semplici: chi sono i nuovi cittadini maltesi? Caruana Galizia aveva trovato alcune risposte. Il consorzio Daphne Project è partito dal suo lavoro per scavare più a fondo sulle conseguenze di questo sistema e sull’azienda che lo ha lanciato a Malta.

      https://irpi.eu/cosi-malta-mette-in-vendita-la-cittadinanza-europea-ai-ricchi-del-mondo

      v. aussi:
      Daphne Project, così Malta mette in vendita la cittadinanza europea ai ricchi del mondo

      Dal 2014 a oggi, circa mille stranieri hanno ottenuto il passaporto di La Valletta, al costo minimo di un milione di euro. Del meccanismo si occupa la società #Henley&Partners che ha incassato non meno di 20 milioni di euro. Tra i ’nuovi cittadini’ uomini vicini a Putin, banchieri dal Kenya, ex parlamentari dal Vietnam, imprenditori nigeriani, cinesi e arabi

      http://www.repubblica.it/esteri/2018/04/18/news/daphne_caruana_galizia_daphne_project_malta_la_valletta_henley_partners-194219157/?ref=RHPPLF-BL-I0-C8-P3-S1.8-T2

  • #déchéance de nationalité : les leçons de Vichy
    https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/culture-idees/220916/decheance-de-nationalite-les-lecons-de-vichy

    Avec Dénaturalisés. Les retraits de nationalité sous Vichy, l’historienne #Claire_Zalc propose une étude minutieuse de la façon dont la révolution nationale voulue par le maréchal Pétain s’est appuyée sur l’exclusion de la nationalité de milliers de Français, souvent juifs. Une plongée dans l’Histoire qui éclaire les écueils du présent.

    #Culture-Idées #Atossa_Araxia_Abrahamian #citoyenneté #dénaturalisation #Essais #Histoire #nationalité #naturalisation #passeport

  • Cuatro empresas españolas, entre las que controlan el negocio de la seguridad en las fronteras

    #Indra, #Mora_Salazar, #GMV y #Atos componen la cabeza nacional de la seguridad fronteriza en la Unión Europea, un sector en pleno auge por el robustecimiento del proyecto ’smart borders’, fronteras inteligentes, de la Unión Europea al calor de la lucha contra la inmigración irregular, la crisis de refugiados, el terrorismo yihadista y, sobre todo, del poderoso lobby de la industria de seguridad y defensa en Europa.


    http://www.bez.es/288495568/El-negocio-de-las-fronteras-cuatro-empresas-espanolas-entre-las-principales-bene
    #business #contrôles_frontaliers #argent #économie #migrations #asile #réfugiés #Espagne