company:northrop grumman

  • Attaques dans le Golfe : l’Iran affirme avoir abattu un « drone espion » américain
    https://www.latribune.fr/economie/international/attaques-dans-le-golfe-l-iran-affirme-avoir-abattu-un-drone-espion-america


    Selon un responsable américain, le drone de l’US Navy qui a été neutralisé par un missile iranien était un MQ-4C Triton (du fabricant américain Northrop Grumman).
    Crédits : Reuters

    Les autorités iraniennes et un responsable américain ont annoncé ce jeudi 20 juin qu’un drone de l’armée américaine avait été abattu par un missile iranien, tout en divergeant sur le modèle et le lieu où l’incident s’est produit.
    Selon les Gardiens de la Révolution islamique, cités par les agences officielles iraniennes, un drone « espion » américain a été abattu alors qu’il venait d’entrer dans l’espace aérien iranien dans la province côtière d’Hormozgan, dans le sud du pays. L’agence Irna précise que le drone abattu était un RQ-4 Global Hawk.

    De son côté, le responsable américain a déclaré à Reuters que le drone avait été abattu par un missile sol-air alors qu’il se trouvait dans l’espace aérien international au-dessus du détroit d’Ormuz. Il a précisé qu’il s’agissait d’un drone MQ-4C Triton de l’US Navy. Le MQ-4C Triton a un temps de vol, une altitude et un rayon d’action légèrement inférieurs à ceux du RQ-4 Global Hawk. Tous deux sont construits par Northrop Grumman.

    Avant que le responsable américain ne s’exprime, un porte-parole du Commandement central l’armée américaine avait déclaré qu’aucun drone américain n’avait survolé l’espace aérien iranien jeudi, sans fournir plus de détails.

  • Eyes on the Sea: Companies Compete for Australian Maritime Surveillance Contract - The New York Times
    https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2019/03/04/world/europe/04reuters-australia-airshow-security.html

    Major global defense contractors want to sell Australia on cutting-edge technology such as high-altitude, solar-electric powered drones and optionally manned aircraft to keep an eye on the oceans.

    Airbus SE, Italy’s Leonardo SpA, Northrop Grumman Corp and Lockheed Martin Corp are among the companies that have expressed interest in providing Australia’s Department of Home Affairs with such equipment, showcased at the Australian International Airshow last week.

    The four companies said they have responded to a request for information issued late last year; the next step, after the government responds, would be to submit proposals.

    The final contracts could be worth several hundred millions dollars depending on the scope, according to two industry sources who declined to be named because they were not authorized to speak to the media.

    The country is looking to replace 10 Bombardier Inc Dash 8 maritime patrol turboprops that began service more than a decade ago.

    Australia has the world’s third-largest economic exclusion zone behind France and the United States, and the world’s largest maritime search and rescue region, covering about 10 percent of the Earth’s surface.

    Australia faces smuggling of people, drugs and weapons; illegal fishing; and search and rescue at sea, making it an ideal market for sophisticated aerial surveillance technology.

    What works for large merchant ships or naval formations may not work for a tiny wooden vessel moving at slow speed with no electronic signature,” said James Goldrick, a retired rear admiral in the Royal Australian Navy and former border protection commander.

    The government aims to have all of the new equipment operating by 2024, the department said when it announced the request for information in late October.

    #surveillance_maritime
    #lutte_contre_l'immigration_clandestine

  • L’Allemagne bloque l’exportation du missile Meteor de MBDA vers l’Arabie Saoudite
    https://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-finance/industrie/aeronautique-defense/l-allemagne-bloque-l-exportation-du-missile-meteor-de-mbda-vers-l-arabie-s


    Le missile air-air longue portée Meteor est opérationnel depuis décembre sur les Eurofighter.
    Crédits : MBDA

    Berlin bloque les licences d’exportation de matériels allemands intégrés sur le missile air-air longue portée Meteor, vers l’Arabie Saoudite. Les Allemands fabriquent notamment le système de propulsion et les charges militaires.

    Les temps sont durs pour MBDA... Le missilier européen est l’un des groupes de défense, qui joue le plus le jeu de la coopération européenne mais, revers de la médaille, il devient finalement très (trop ?) vulnérable aux aléas politiques des pays où il confie de la charge de travail. Après les déconvenues en Egypte avec l’interdiction des Etats-Unis d’exporter de certains composants du missile de croisière Scalp vers Le Caire (réglementation ITAR) aujourd’hui en voie de résolution, MBDA doit faire face à une nouvelle interdiction d’exportation d’un de ses missiles.

    Cette fois-ci, c’est au tour de Berlin de bloquer les licences d’exportation de matériels allemands intégrés sur le missile air-air longue portée Meteor, vers l’Arabie Saoudite. Contacté par La Tribune, MBDA n’a pas souhaité commenter. Ryad souhaiterait armer ses futurs Typhoon proposés par Londres avec des missiles air-air Meteor. Ce missile, qui est opérationnel depuis décembre sur les Typhoon, a pour principale mission de détruire ou de neutraliser des cibles aériennes à longue distance. Un missile qui ne devrait pas être utilisé dans le cadre du conflit au Yémen. Cette décision de Berlin va sans douter sérieusement agacer Londres. Le Royaume d’Arabie saoudite et MBDA avaient déjà signé en 2014 un premier contrat d’exportation du missile d’un montant estimé à 1 milliard de dollars.

    Des matériels « #German_free » ?
    A l’image de la volonté des industriels français de développer des matériels #ITAR_Free pour éviter les interdictions américaines, certains d’entre eux se posent désormais la question de développer des matériels sans équipement allemand. Pour autant, les équipements allemands du Meteor, qui sont au cœur même du missile, peuvent être très difficilement dupliqu[és]. Car il s’agit du système de propulsion (Bayern Chemie) et de la charge militaire (TDW) ainsi qu’à, un degré moindre, du système de mesures inertielles (Northrop Grumman LITEF GmbH). Bayern-Chemie et TDW sont des filiales de MBDA en Allemagne.

    L’Allemagne complique sérieusement les programmes en coopération, surtout dans le cadre du SCAF (Système de combat aérien du futur) et du MGCS (Main ground combat system ou char du futur), deux projets franco-allemands de très grande envergure. Déjà le missile Meteor est l’un des programmes européens les plus emblématiques de l’industrie de défense avec la mise en place d’une coopération qui rassemble six pays. C’est également une réussite. Car le Meteor a des performances nettement supérieures à celles des missiles actuellement en service ou des missiles air-air à statoréacteur susceptibles d’être mis en œuvre à l’horizon 2020.

    • Coïncidence…

      Exportations d’armes : « La France doit prendre en compte l’Allemagne » (Thomas Gassilloud, LREM)
      https://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-finance/industrie/aeronautique-defense/exportation-d-armes-la-france-doit-prendre-en-compte-l-allemagne-thomas-ga


      "La France est prête à dire dans le cadre de l’exportation des programmes MGCS ou SCAF, qu’il faut prendre en compte les intérêts et avis de l’Allemagne", a déclaré le député du Rhône Thomas Gassilloud (LREM).
      Crédits : Thomas Gassilloud

      Dans une interview accordée à La Tribune, le député du Rhône Thomas Gassilloud (LREM) appelle la France à prendre en compte « les intérêts et les avis » de l’Allemagne sur le char franco-allemand du futur (Main Ground Combat System) et sur les exportations d’armes. Il appelle l’Allemagne à s’assumer elle même pour se défendre et ne plus compter exclusivement sur l’OTAN.

      La Tribune : Une petite délégation de parlementaires français (1), à laquelle vous avez participé, a rencontré en Allemagne des députés de la commission de défense du Bundestag et des hauts responsables de la défense. En tant que rapporteur du budget de l’armée de terre, avez-vous le sentiment que le programme du futur char franco-allemand est « blindé » ?
      […]
      Deuxième enjeu important, l’harmonisation de la politique d’exportation des armes entre Berlin et Paris, qui est un point divergent entre les deux pays. Avez-vous le sentiment lors de votre visite à Berlin que des points de convergences peuvent être atteints ?
      Parler de la question de l’exportation est effectivement fondamental avant de se lancer dans des programmes en commun. Développer et fabriquer un programme à deux veut clairement dire que chaque pays n’est plus en mesure de produire de manière autonome cet équipement sauf à dupliquer les chaines d’assemblage, les approvisionnements... Ce qui serait absolument sous-optimal. Il faut donc effectivement harmoniser les conditions d’exportation pour qu’il n’y ait pas de blocage et donc des malentendus entre les deux pays. C’est un point qu’il faut traiter rapidement. Les programmes MGCS et SCAF peuvent être des programmes accélérateurs pour aboutir à une convergence entre la France et l’Allemagne

      Faut-il moderniser le traité Debré-Schmidt ?
      Le Traité d’Aix-la-Chapelle, qui doit être ratifié, prévoit déjà les grandes lignes...

      ... Mais il n’y a rien de concret et ni de précis dans le nouveau Traité sur ce point ?
      Il y a déjà un cadre global. Une des pistes est de parvenir à un Traité Debré/Schmidt 2.0, qui vise à clarifier les conditions d’export entre les deux pays, avec potentiellement un organe consultatif de gouvernance commun. Cet organisme pourrait émettre des avis sur les licences d’exportation à accorder ou pas. Ce qui aurait permis par exemple d’éviter récemment le cas saoudien où un pays de manière unilatérale [a décrété] un embargo. Je ne pense pas qu’on aura un rapprochement immédiat des doctrines d’export entre la France et l’Allemagne mais on peut au moins se doter d’un organe de gouvernance commun. Chacun faisant un pas vers l’autre, on peut arriver à cheminer vers quelque chose de plus acceptable.

      Estimez-vous que la France soit prête à brader un pan de sa souveraineté sur les questions d’exportation ?
      Non. En revanche, la France est prête à dire dans le cadre de l’exportation des programmes MGCS ou SCAF, qu’il faut prendre en compte les intérêts et avis de l’Allemagne. C’est l’une des conditions pour être plus forts ensemble mais, en aucun cas, c’est un renoncement. Il faut que les deux pays déterminent en amont les conditions sur lesquelles ils peuvent exporter. En matière d’exportation, l’Allemagne est souvent soumise à des aléas politiques car les partis majoritaires en Allemagne ont des visions assez différentes sur ce dossier. Il y a des risques d’une moins grande prévisibilité des décisions en fonction des équilibres politiques en Allemagne. En France, un certain consensus a été établi car chacun se rend bien compte que les exportations sont une condition de notre souveraineté, mais bien entendu qu’il faut fortement les encadrer.

    • Un «  organisme commun  » serait certainement moins dépendant des «  équilibres politiques  » en Allemagne où quelques partis qui comptent persistent à être sensibles à une certaine réprobation publique des ventes d’armes à n’importe qui, contrairement à la France où (presque) tout le monde trouve que c’est bon pour son PIB, son emploi, etc. Et, accessoirement, sans doute plus sensible aux amicales sollicitations du lobby militaro-industriel.

  • ‘We Would Be Opening the Heavens to War’ | FAIR
    https://fair.org/home/we-would-be-opening-the-heavens-to-war

    And I wanted to ask you about that question of priorities, finally. The Washington Post had an article headlined “Potential Winners if a Space Force Flies,” which delivered the no doubt shocking news that “a group of government contractors sees a chance to profit.” Hold onto your hat! An analyst tells the Post, “Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and Harris Corporation may be particularly well positioned to benefit from Trump’s Space Force.” I found it odd to present military contractors as sort of savvily responding to policy, as opposed to driving it, but then, to your point, there was vanishingly little reference in media coverage to who would not benefit from this allocation of funds, to what would be lost, to what would be harmed, and so I wanted to underscore that point that you made, just to say, media didn’t talk about it either.

  • #SpaceX : la mission secrète du gouvernement américain aurait échoué
    https://www.lesechos.fr/industrie-services/air-defense/0301121201051-spacex-la-mission-secrete-du-gouvernement-americain-aurait-ec


    L’engin, construit par la société Northrop Grumman, n’a pas pu se détacher du second étage de la fusée
    SIPA/CATERS

    Le satellite espion n’a pas pu se détacher du second étage de la fusée #Falcon_9 et aurait disparu, selon plusieurs médias. SpaceX dément.

    Tout avait pourtant bien commencé. Dimanche soir, la société californienne SpaceX annonçait le succès du premier lancement de l’année de sa fusée Falcon 9. Mais moins de 36 heures après le décollage de son lanceur, les choses se compliquent pour la société d’Elon Musk.

    Selon plusieurs médias américains, le satellite espion américain, porté par la fusée Falcon 9, n’a pas réussi à atteindre son orbite et est considéré comme perdu. L’engin, construit par la société Northrop Grumman, n’a pas pu se détacher du second étage de la fusée, lancé de Cap Canaveral en Floride.

    Le satellite espion aurait été pulvérisé dans l’espace ou se serait abîmé en mer, selon le Wall Street Journal, qui a révélé l’information. Une enquête a été ouverte.

    • Zuma, le satellite secret lancé par SpaceX, est perdu
      https://www.futura-sciences.com/sciences/actualites/satellite-militaire-zuma-satellite-secret-lance-spacex-perdu-69800

      Le satellite militaire américain Zuma aura davantage fait parlé de lui qu’il n’aura fonctionné en orbite ! Quelques instants après son lancement par un Falcon 9 de SpaceX (le 7 janvier), le satellite aurait disparu des radars et terminé son vol désintégré dans l’atmosphère. Ce qu’il en reste aurait coulé au fond de l’océan Indien.
      En raison de la nature secrète du satellite, aucune information officielle n’est disponible. Bien que quelques sources expliquent que Zuma n’aurait pas réussi à se séparer de l’étage supérieur du Falcon 9, il est peu probable que le lanceur de SpaceX soit en cause. Comme le souligne Gwynne Shotwell, présidente et CEO de SpaceX, « après avoir examiné toutes les données du vol, il apparaît que le lanceur a fonctionné normalement. Si nous ou d’autres personnes trouvions le contraire sur la base d’un examen plus approfondi, nous le signalerons immédiatement ». Comme les données du vol sont aussi exploitées par l’US Air Force, on imagine mal SpaceX cacher des informations.

      Quant à Northrop Grumman, le constructeur du satellite, il devait réaliser la recette du satellite et le mettre en service. Il faut savoir que les satellites communiquent en permanence avec le sol. La télémétrie a donc dû fonctionner jusqu’à la destruction du satellite, ce qui laisse à penser que les données reçues pourraient parler. Mais, comme le souligne le porte-parole de la société, « nous ne commentons pas les missions classifiées ». En conclusion, il sera très difficile de savoir ce qu’il s’est réellement passé et à quoi devait servir ce satellite. D’ailleurs, le National Reconnaissance Office, qui gère d’ordinaire les satellites espions américains, a assuré auprès d’Aviation Week ne pas détenir ce satellite !

      Au vu des déclarations de SpaceX, il semble peu probable que le lanceur Falcon 9 soit en cause.

  • Marvel drops Northrop Grumman tie-in after Comic Con fan rebellion
    https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2017/oct/07/marvel-northrop-grumman-comic-con-fan-rebellion

    The Marvel comic company dropped a partnership with the defense industry giant Northrop Grumman and canceled a launch event scheduled for New York Comic Con on Saturday, after plans for a special series featuring branded superheroes alongside the legendary Avengers characters met with fierce opposition.

    “Marvel and Northrop Grumman continue to be committed to elevating, and introducing, STEM [science, technology, engineering and mathematics] to a broad audience.”

    #armes #propagande

    • The Border / La Frontera

      For the native nations living along the US-Mexico border, the border is a barbed wire fence through their living room. Over the course of generations, they’ve formed connections on both sides of the border, and yet they’re considered foreigners and illegal immigrants in their ancestral homelands. In the O’odham language, there is no word for “state citizenship.” No human being is illegal.

      In this map, the territories of the #Kumeyaay, #Cocopah, #Quechan, #Tohono_O’odham, #Yaqui, #Tigua, and #Kickapoo are shown straddling the 2,000 mile border, with the red dots along the border representing official border crossings.


      https://decolonialatlas.wordpress.com/2017/03/21/the-border-la-frontera
      #cartographie #visualisation #frontières

    • No wall

      The Tohono O’odham have resided in what is now southern and
      central Arizona and northern Mexico since time immemorial.
      The Gadsden Purchase of 1853 divided the Tohono O’odham’s
      traditional lands and separated their communities. Today, the
      Nation’s reservation includes 62 miles of international border.
      The Nation is a federally recognized tribe of 34,000 members,
      including more than 2,000 residing in Mexico.

      Long before there was a border, tribal members traveled back
      and forth to visit family, participate in cultural and religious
      events, and many other practices. For these reasons and many
      others, the Nation has opposed fortified walls on the border for
      many years.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QChXZVXVLKo


      http://www.tonation-nsn.gov/nowall

    • A Standing Rock on the Border?

      Tohono O’odham activist #Ofelia_Rivas has a reputation for clashing with U.S. Border Patrol. On her tribe’s 4,500-square-mile reservation, which straddles the U.S.-Mexico border, that can be a stressful vocation. But she doesn’t show it, sharing conversational snippets and a slight, quick grin. Her skin is the color of stained clay, and she cuts a stylish figure: narrow glasses and a red-flecked scarf trailing in the slight breeze. Her black sneakers are gray with dust.


      http://progressive.org/dispatches/a-standing-rock-on-the-border-wall-180406

    • How Border Patrol Occupied the Tohono O’odham Nation

      In March 2018, Joaquin Estevan was on his way back home to Sells, Ariz., after a routine journey to fetch three pots for ceremonial use from the Tohono O’odham community of Kom Wahia in Sonora, Mexico (where he grew up)—a trek his ancestors have made for thousands of years. His cousin dropped him off on the Mexico side of the San Miguel border gate, and he could see the community van of the Tohono O’odham Nation waiting for him just beyond.

      But when Estevan handed over his tribal card for identification, as he had done for years, to the stationed Border Patrol agent, he was accused of carrying a fraudulent ID, denied entry to Arizona and sent back to Mexico.

      Tohono O’odham aboriginal land, in what is now southern Arizona, historically extended 175 miles into Mexico, before being sliced off—without the tribe’s consent—by the 1853 Gadsden Purchase. As many as 2,500 of the tribe’s more than 30,000 members still live on the Mexico side. Tohono O’odham people used to travel between the United States and Mexico fairly easily on roads without checkpoints to visit family, go to school, visit a doctor or, like Estevan, a traditional dancer, perform ceremonial duties.

      But incidents of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) aggression toward members of the Tohono O’odham Nation have become increasingly frequent since 9/11, as Border Patrol has doubled in size and further militarized its border enforcement. In 2007 and 2008, the United States built vehicle barriers on the Tohono O’odham Nation’s stretch of the U.S.-Mexico border, and restricted crossings.

      The Tohono O’odham’s struggles with Border Patrol received little attention, however, until President Donald Trump took office and pushed forward his vision for a wall along the border. Verlon Jose, Tohono O’odham vice chairman, announced in 2016 that the wall would be built “over my dead body,” a quote that went viral.

      What the border wall debate has obscured, however, is the existing 650 miles of walls and barriers on the U.S. international divide with Mexico, including the 62 miles of border that run through the Tohono O’odham Nation. An increasingly significant part of that wall is “virtual,” a network of surveillance cameras, sensors and radar systems that let Border Patrol agents from California to Texas monitor the remote desert stretches where border crossers have been deliberately pushed—a strategy that has led to thousands of migrant deaths in the dangerous desert terrain. The virtual wall expands away from the international boundary, deep into the interior of the country.

      As Trump fights Congress and the courts to get $5 billion in “emergency funding” for a border wall, Border Patrol is already tapping into existing funds to expand both physical and virtual walls. While new border barrier construction on the Tohono O’odham Nation remains in limbo, new surveillance infrastructure is moving onto the reservation.

      On March 22, the Tohono O’odham Legislative Council passed a resolution allowing CBP to contract the Israeli company Elbit Systems to build 10 integrated fixed towers, or IFTs, on the Nation’s land, surveillance infrastructure that many on the reservation see as a high-tech occupation.

      The IFTs, says Amy Juan, Tohono O’odham member and Tucson office manager at the International Indian Treaty Council, will make the Nation “the most militarized community in the United States of America.”

      Amy Juan and Nellie Jo David, members of the Tohono O’odham Hemajkam Rights Network (TOHRN), joined a delegation to the West Bank in October 2017 convened by the Palestinian organization Stop the Wall. It was a relief, Juan says, to talk “with people who understand our fears … who are dealing with militarization and technology.”

      Juan and David told a group of women in the Palestinian community about the planned IFTs, and they responded unequivocally: “Tell them no. Don’t let them build them.”

      The group was very familiar with these particular towers. Elbit Systems pioneered the towers in the West Bank. “They said that the IFTs were first tested on them and used against them,” says David. Community members described the constant buzzing sounds and the sense of being constantly watched.

      These IFTs are part of a broader surveillance apparatus that zigzags for hundreds of miles through the West Bank and includes motion sensor systems, cameras, radar, aerial surveillance and observation posts. In distant control rooms, soldiers monitor the feeds. The principal architect, former Israeli Col. Danny Tirza, explained in 2016, “It’s not enough to construct a wall. You have to construct all the system around it.”

      That is happening now in the U.S.-Mexico borderlands.

      The massive post-9/11 bolstering of border enforcement dramatically changed life on the Tohono O’odham Nation. At a UN hearing in January on the rights of indigenous peoples in the context of borders, immigration and displacement, Tohono O’odham Nation Chairman Edward Manuel testified that when he came back to the Nation in 2009 after six years living off-reservation, it had become “a military state.”

      Border Patrol has jurisdiction 100 miles inland from U.S. borders, giving it access to the entirety of the reservation. Drones fly overhead, and motion sensors track foot traffic. Vehicle barriers and surveillance cameras and trucks appeared near burial grounds and on hilltops amid ancient saguaro forests, which are sacred to the Tohono O’odham.

      “Imagine a bulldozer parking on your family graveyard, turning up bones,” then-Tohono O’odham Nation Chairman Ned Norris Jr. testified to Congress in 2008. “This is our reality.”

      Around 2007, CBP began installing interior checkpoints that monitored every exit from the reservation—not just on the U.S.-Mexico border, but toward Tucson and Phoenix.

      “As a person who once could move freely on our land, this was very new,” Amy Juan says. “We have no choice but to go through the armed agents, dogs and cameras. We are put through the traumatic experience every day just to go to work, movies, grocery shopping, to take your children to school.”

      Juan calls this “checkpoint trauma.” The most severe impact is on children, she says, recalling one case in which two kids “wet themselves” approaching a checkpoint. Previously the children had been forcefully pulled out of a car by Border Patrol agents during a secondary inspection.

      Pulling people out of their vehicles is one in a long list of abuses alleged against the Border Patrol agents on the Tohono O’odham Nation, including tailing cars, pepper spraying people and hitting them with batons. Closer to the border, people have complained about agents entering their homes without a warrant.

      In March 2014, a Border Patrol agent shot and injured two Tohono O’odham men after their truck sideswiped his vehicle. (The driver said he was swerving to avoid a bush and misjudged; Border Patrol charged him with assault with a deadly weapon.) In 2002, a Border Patrol agent ran over and killed a Tohono O’odham teenager.

      Between checkpoints and surveillance, there is a feeling of being “watched all the time,” Tohono O’odham member Joseph Flores told Tucson television station KVOA.

      “I’ve gotten flat tires, then when I come to the checkpoint the agents made comments about me having a flat earlier in the day,” says Joshua Garcia, a member of TOHRN. “I felt like they were trying to intimidate me.”

      An anonymous respondent to TOHRN’s O’odham Border Patrol Story Project said, “One time a BP told me, ‘We own the night,’ meaning that they have so much surveillance cameras and equipment on the rez, they can see everything we do all the time.”

      Undocumented migrants are the ostensible targets, but agents have long indicated that Tohono O’odham are also in the crosshairs. One Tohono O’odham youth (who wishes to remain anonymous because of fears of reprisal) says that when they complained to a Border Patrol agent in February about a camera near their house, the agent responded, “It’s your own people that are smuggling, so you really need to ask yourself what is going on in that area for a camera to be set up in the first place.” That perception is common. Geographer Kenneth Madsen quotes an agent who believed as many as 80% to 90% of residents were involved in drug or human smuggling. Madsen believes the numbers could only be that high if agents were counting humanitarian acts, such as giving water to thirsty border-crossers.

      Elder and former tribal councilman David Garcia acknowledges some “smuggling that involves tribal members.” As Tohono O’odham member Jay Juan told ABC News, there is “the enticement of easy money” in a place with a poverty rate over 40%.

      Nation Vice Chairman Verlon Jose also told ABC, “Maybe there are some of our members who may get tangled up in this web. … But the issues of border security are created by the drugs … intended for your citizen[s’] towns across America.”

      Estevan knew the agent who turned him back at the border—it was the same agent who had accused him of smuggling drugs years prior and who had ransacked his car in the search, finding nothing and leaving Estevan to do the repairs. A few days after being turned away, Estevan tried again to get home, crossing into the United States at a place known as the Vamori Wash—one of the planned locations for an IFT. He got a ride north from a friend (the kind of favor that Border Patrol might consider human smuggling). Eleven miles from the border on the crumbling Route 19, the same agent flashed his lights and pulled them over. According to Estevan, the agent yanked him out of the car, saying, “I told you that you were not supposed to come here,” and handcuffed him.

      Estevan was transported to a short-term detention cell at Border Patrol headquarters in Tucson, where he was stripped of everything “except my T-shirt and pants,” he says. The holding cell was frigid, and Border Patrol issued him what he describes as a “paper blanket.” Estevan contracted bronchitis as he was shuffled around for days, having his biometrics and picture taken for facial recognition—Border Patrol’s standard practice for updating its database.

      At one point, Estevan faced a judge and attempted to talk to a lawyer. But because he was not supplied a Tohono O’odham interpreter, he had only a vague idea of what was going on. Later, Estevan was taken 74 miles north to a detention center in Florence, Ariz., where the private company CoreCivic holds many of the people arrested by Border Patrol. Estevan was formally deported and banished from the United States. He was dropped off in the late afternoon in Nogales, Mexico.

      Estevan is far from the only Tohono O’odham from Mexico to say they have been deported, although there has not been an official count. The Supreme Council of the O’odham of Mexico—which represents the Tohono O’odham who live on the Mexican side of the border—made an official complaint to the Tohono O’odham Nation’s government in May 2018, saying the Nation was “allowing the deportation of our people from our own lands.”

      Some members of the Nation, such as Ofelia Rivas, of the Gu-Vo district, have long contended that the Legislative Council is too cozy with Border Patrol. Rivas said in a 2006 interview that the Nation “has allowed the federal government to control the northern territory [in the U.S.] and allows human rights violations to occur.” The Nation has received grants from the federal government for its police department through a program known as Operation Stonegarden. Over the years, the Legislative Council has voted to allow a checkpoint, surveillance tech and two Border Patrol substations (one a Forward Operating Base) on the reservation.

      These tensions resurfaced again around the IFTs.

      ***

      In 2006, Border Patrol began to use southern Arizona as a testing ground for its “virtual wall.” The agency awarded the Boeing Company a contract for a technology plan known as SBInet, which would build 80-foot surveillance towers in the Arizona desert.

      When Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano cancelled the plan in 2011, complaining about cost, delays and ineffectiveness, CBP launched a new project, the 2011 Arizona Border Surveillance Technology Plan. As part of it, Elbit Systems won a $145 million contract to construct 53 IFTs in 2014. As CBP’s Chief Acquisition Officer Mark Borkowski explained in 2017 at the San Antonio Border Security Expo, CBP sought technology that “already existed” elsewhere. Elbit, with its towers in the West Bank, fit the bill.

      The IFTs take the all-seeing eye of Border Patrol to a whole new level. Jacob Stukenberg, a Border Patrol public information officer, tells In These Times they are “far superior than anything else we’ve had before,” adding that “one agent can surveil an area that it might take 100 agents on foot to surveil.”

      The IFT system has high-definition cameras with night vision and a 7.5-mile radius, along with thermal sensors and a 360-degree ground-sweeping radar. The data feeds into command centers where agents are alerted if any of thousands of motion sensors are tripped. In an interview in May with the Los Angeles Times, Border Patrol tribal liaison Rafael Castillo compared IFTs to “turning on a light in a dark room.”

      As with other monitoring, the towers—some as tall as 140 feet and placed very visibly on the tops of hills—have already driven migrants into more desolate and deadly places, according to a January paper in the Journal of Borderlands Studies. The first IFT went up in January 2015, just outside of Nogales, Ariz. By 2017, according to Borkowski, nearly all the towers had been built or were about to be built around Nogales, Tucson, Douglas, Sonoita and Ajo. The holdout was the Tohono O’odham Nation.

      Between 2015 and 2018, Joshua Garcia of TOHRN gave more than 30 presentations around the Nation raising the negatives of the IFTs, including federal government encroachment on their lands, the loss of control over local roads, the potential health consequences and racism in border policing. “I didn’t expect people necessarily to agree with me,” Garcia says, “but I was surprised at how much the presentations resonated.”

      Garcia joined other tribal and community members and Sierra Club Borderlands in contesting CBP’s 2016 draft environmental assessment—required for construction to begin—which claimed the IFTs would have “no significant impact” on Tohono O’odham land. Garcia listed the sites that new roads would threaten, like a saguaro fruit-harvesting camp and his own family’s cemetery.

      The Sierra Club argued the assessment had failed to properly look at the impacts on endangered species, such as the cactus ferruginous pygmy owl and the lesser longnosed bat, and hadn’t adequately studied how electro-magnetic radiation from the towers might affect people, birds and other wildlife. CBP agreed that more study was needed of the “avian brain,” but issued its final report in March 2017: no significant impact.

      In July 2017, the Gu-Vo district passed a resolution in opposition to the IFTs. “Having the land remain open, undeveloped and home to food production and wildlife, and carbon sequestration with natural water storage is crucial to the community,” the statement read.

      At the March 22 Legislative Council meeting, Garcia, the tribal elder (and a close relative of Estevan), implored the Council not to approve the IFTs. He looked to Councilman Edward Manuel, who had two months earlier described the Border Patrol presence on the Nation as a “military state,” and said, “Veto it, if it passes.”

      The resolution passed, without veto, although with a number of stipulations, including compensation for leased land.

      Nation Vice Chairman Jose told the Los Angeles Times that the vote was intended to be a compromise to dissuade the federal government from building the wall. The Nation is “only as sovereign as the federal government allows us to be,” Jose said.

      A Border Patrol spokesperson told the Los Angeles Times, however, that there are no plans to reduce agents, and that the IFTs do not eliminate the need for a wall.

      ***

      Garcia and other resisters are up against an enormous system. Trump’s plan has never been just about a border wall: The administration wants to fortify a massive surveillance apparatus built over multiple presidencies. Asked in February what he thought about the focus on the wall, Border Patrol’s Stukenberg said it was just one component of border infrastructure. Three things are required—fence, technology and personnel, he said, to build a “very solid system.”

      The endeavor is certainly very profitable. Boeing received more than $1 billion for the cancelled SBInet technology plan. For the 49 mobile surveillance trucks now patrolling the border, CBP awarded contracts to the U.S.-based private companies FLIR Systems and Telephonics. Another contract went to General Dynamics to upgrade CBP’s Remote Video Surveillance Systems, composed of towers and monitoring systems. As of 2017, 71 such towers had been deployed in desolate areas of southern Arizona, including one on the Tohono O’odham Nation. Other major companies that have received CBP contracts include Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and KBR (a former Halliburton subsidiary).

      These companies wield tremendous lobbying power in Washington. In 2018, General Dynamics spent more than $12 million on lobbying and gave $143,000 in campaign contributions to members of the House Homeland Security Committee. To compare, the Tohono O’odham Nation spent $230,000 on lobbying and $6,900 on campaign contributions to the committee members in 2018.

      Meanwhile, at the UN hearing in January, Serena Padilla, of the nearby Akimel O’odham Nation, described an incident in which Border Patrol agents held a group of youth at gunpoint. She ended her testimony: “As a woman who is 65 years old with four children, 15 grandchildren, 33 great-grandchildren—I’ll be damned if I won’t go down fighting for my future great-great-grandchildren.”

      http://inthesetimes.com/article/21903/us-mexico-border-surveillance-tohono-oodham-nation-border-patrol

  • #Think_Tank Scholar or Corporate Consultant? It Depends on the Day
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/09/us/politics/think-tank-scholars-corporate-consultants.html

    An examination of 75 think tanks found an array of researchers who had simultaneously worked as registered lobbyists, members of corporate boards or outside consultants in litigation and regulatory disputes, with only intermittent disclosure of their dual roles.

    With their expertise and authority, think tank scholars offer themselves as independent arbiters, playing a vital role in Washington’s political economy. Their imprimatur helps shape government decisions that can be lucrative to corporations.

    But the examination identified dozens of examples of scholars conducting research at think tanks while corporations were paying them to help shape government policy. Many think tanks also readily confer “nonresident scholar” status on lobbyists, former government officials and others who earn their primary living working for private clients, with few restrictions on such outside work.

    Largely free from disclosure requirements, the researchers’ work is often woven into elaborate corporate lobbying campaigns.

    #lobbying #fraude

  • Who profits from our new war ? Inside #NSA and private contractors’ secret plans | Tim Shorrock, Salon, 24/09/2014
    http://www.salon.com/2014/09/24/heres_who_profits_from_our_new_war_inside_nsa_and_an_army_of_private_contract

    Under its terms, 21 companies, led by Booz Allen Hamilton, BAE Systems, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman, will compete over the next five years to provide “fully integrated intelligence, security and information operations” in Afghanistan and “future contingency operations” around the world.

    #OEI #silicon_army (notamment)

  • Zone Militaire » Blog Archive Dassault Aviation et la DGA récompensés aux Etats-Unis pour le démonstrateur de drone nEUROn » Zone Militaire
    http://www.opex360.com/2014/03/07/dassault-aviation-la-dga-recompenses-aux-etats-unis-pour-le-demonstrateur-d

    Le constructeur aéronautique Dassault Aviation et la Direction générale de l’armement (DGA) ont été distingués, le 6 mars, aux Etats-Unis en se voyant décerner, par le magazine spécialisé Aviation Week, le premier prix des “Laureate Awards” dans la catégorie “Défense” pour la gestion du programme européen de drone de combat nEUROn. Pourtant, dans ce domaine, les industriels américains avaient quelques arguments à faire valoir, comme par exemple Northrop Grumman et son X-47B, premier drone à opérer depuis le pont d’un porte-avions.

    “Ce prix, qui honore les valeurs et l’esprit pionnier de l’industrie aérospatiale et de défense en général, récompense les défis technologiques relevés et les solutions industrielles d’avant-garde imaginées pour développer la première grande plate-forme aérienne furtive en Europe”, a commenté Dassault Aviation, par voie de communiqué.

    Lancé en 2003 et notifié trois ans plus tard par la DGA à Dassault Aviation qui en assure la maîtrise d’oeuvre, le programme nEUROn est le fruit d’une coopération européenne qui rassemble, outre la France, l’Espagne, la Grèce, l’Italie, la Suède et la Suisse. L’objectif est de démontrer “la maturité et l’efficacité des solutions techniques qui préfigureront l’avenir de l’industrie de l’aviation de combat au cours des vingt prochaines années”.

    Le démonstrateur nEUROn a réalisé son vol inaugural le 1er décembre 2012. Une première en Europe pour un appareil de ce type (le Taranis de BAE Systems n’a volé pour la première fois que l’année passée). Depuis, explique la DGA, cet appareil “n’a cessé de démontrer ses qualités que ce soit en essais au sol ou en vol”.

    “Financé sur le budget des études amont du ministère de la Défense, nEUROn marque un effort de recherche et technologie majeur pour préparer l’avenir et maintenir des compétences industrielles essentielles. Il inaugure la prochaine génération d’aéronefs de combat, qu’ils soient pilotés ou non, avec l’ambition de préserver l’autonomie européenne dans ce domaine. C’est un défi majeur tant sur le plan technologique qu’industriel”, a encore fait valoir la DGA, qui assure la maîtrise d’ouvrage d’ensemble du programme.

    #Aviation
    #Dassault-Aviation
    #DGA
    #drone
    #Etats-Unis

  • Why Is ‘The_New Republic’ Taking Money From an NSA Contractor to Run Defenses of the NSA? | The Nation
    http://www.thenation.com/blog/177688/why-new-republic-taking-money-nsa-contractor-run-defenses-nsa

    The National Security Agency has a friend at the Harvard Law School. And at the Brookings Institution. And at The New Republic. And at The Washington Post.

    Benjamin Wittes, who is not a lawyer, is a senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution, where he is “Research Director in Public Law, and Co-Director of the Harvard Law School-Brookings Project on Law and Security.” He also has a Web site, Lawfare, where he’s been blogging on the report on the abuses of the National Security Agency just out from the President’s Review Group on Intelligence and Communication Technologies, in terms highly favorable to the super-secretive and media-shy agency. He also enjoys extraordinary access to the NSA, for instance in this series of podcasts with its top officials. (“We Brought In a Recoding Device So You Don’t Have To,” the series is titled—cute!)

    Why is Lawfare the NSA’s media portal of choice? Well, consider this. Lawfare, in turn, partners with The New Republic, where this post was republished in its entirety. The joint Lawfare/TNR project is titled “Security States,” and it is sponsored, Wittes proudly notes, by the Northrop Grumman Corporation. Grumman, in turn, is a major NSA contractor—see this $220 million deal it scored with the NSA “to develop an advanced information management and data storage system that will support efforts to modernize the nation’s electronic intelligence and broader signals intelligence capabilities,” a fact TNR does not disclose to its readers.

    And the NSA is apparently well-pleased with the arrangement. “Check out Lawfare’s interview with NSA’s acting Deputy Director Fran Fleisch,” the agency enthused today, one of the NSA’s public affairs office’s six breathless tweets booming “Lawfare” over the past five days. Surely they also enjoy the laundering of the content of “the indispensable Lawfare blog” through The Washington Post, courtesy of its hack right-wing blogger Jennifer Rubin. (“The NSA will falter unless Obama does his job.”)

    Meanwhile, Wittes’s Lawfare co-blogger Jack Goldsmith, late of George W. Bush’s Pentagon and Justice Department, is a professor at the Harvard Law School, but does not disclose any conflict of interest, as most Harvard Law professors do, for being part of such a project sponsored by a commercial entity.

    Let’s hear from Professor Goldsmith as to whether he is paid by Northrop for his posts at Lawfare, and whether he thinks he has disclosed that to his Harvard employers, and whether he should make the arrangement public. Let’s hear from The New Republic. Why is it taking money from an NSA contractor to run defenses of the NSA? I’ll be sending this post straightaway to TNR editor Franklin Foer, an old friend. And I’ll e-mail it too Professor Goldsmith, too. I’ll let you know what they say.

    #conflit_d’intérêt

  • The U.S. Government Is Paying Through the Nose For Private Contractors
    http://www.newsweek.com/us-government-paying-through-nose-private-contractors-224370

    The budget (...) deal (...) does nothing to curtail wasteful spending on companies that are among the nation’s richest and most powerful – from Booz Allen Hamilton, the $6 billion-a-year management-consulting firm, to Boeing, the defense contractor boasting $82 billion in worldwide sales.

    In theory, these contractors are supposed to save taxpayer money, as efficient, bottom-line-oriented corporate behemoths. In reality, they end up costing twice as much as civil servants, according to research by Professor Paul C. Light of New York University and others has shown. Defense contractors like Boeing and Northrop Grumman cost almost three times as much.

    Essentially, the federal government operates two contracting systems, separate and unequal. One hires profit-making corporations, the other handles nonprofits.

    Washington lavishes taxpayers’ money on for-profits. Many smaller contracting firms making good money for doing relatively little work ring the nation’s capital and are commonly known as Beltway Bandits. Remarkably, some of these enterprises set themselves up with a Bermuda mailbox to escape paying the federal taxes – perhaps most notably Accenture, which runs the IRS website. (Accenture maintains that its structure was not designed to avoid taxes.)

    (...)

    (...) shoddy work doesn’t mean you will get fired from a government contract. Nor can that lackluster effort, like the disaster that is the Obamacare signup website, be blamed on inadequate pay to hire talent to set up a reliable website. Last year, contractors were allowed to charge the government as much as $763,029 per worker.

    Under the new budget deal, there was a small effort to reform this spendthrift system. The top contractor salary that can be charged to taxpayers is expected to fall to $487,000, a bit more than President Obama’s $400,000 salary.

    For-profit contractors charge not just for salaries, but also for management pay and perks – like corporate golf outings and executive retreats – as well as the cost of renting space or operating buildings the contractors own, plus any other overhead. In a congressional hearing in March Senator Claire McCaskill, D-Missouri, revealed that of the $31.5 billion in invoices contractors submitted to the U.S. Army, $16.6 billion was for overhead.

    The nonprofit contractors that get federal contracts are varied. They include soup kitchens and emergency shelter providers, some run by churches and others by secular institutions. They are forced to operate under much more stringent rules than those regulating the for-profit sector.

    A study by the investigative arm of Congress, the Government Accountability Office, found that many nonprofit contractors get between nothing and 3 percent of a contract to cover overhead, a sum the office said was woefully inadequate. Urban Institute studies show that overhead costs for nonprofit human services agencies typically run about 17 percent. “The government expects nonprofits to do work for less than the cost of doing the work,” said Rick Cohen, who negotiated nonprofit contracts with federal agencies and now writes about such issues for Nonprofit Quarterly.

    Cohen broke into laughter when asked about a nonprofit billing for overhead costs. “Unlike corporations, the feds don’t let you charge anything for indirect costs, certainly not anything close to reality,” he said. “Corporate contractors operate in whole different world from nonprofits,” which he said are treated with suspicion and are closely audited compared to corporate contractors.

    “The government also makes it a practice to be late paying nonprofits, which is why so many of them are in a constant cash crisis,” he said.

    When asked about a nonprofit seeking reimbursement for a salary in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, as for-profits routinely do, Cohen chuckled. “Out of the question,” he said. “Beyond imagining.”

    A host of studies going back more than 30 years has shown that nonprofit contractors, particularly human service agencies, cost far less than civil servants, and generally pay less and offer fewer benefits than government or corporations.

    But nonprofit contractors operate under tougher rules than for-profits. And Uncle Sam lays a heavier hand on them, and the poor, than on for-profit contractors. For example, math errors on tax forms can result in poor people being denied tax credits for two years. The government is much more lenient with corporate contractors caught cheating on their contracts or taxes. These firms can be debarred, bureaucratic-speak for being banned for misconduct. But the principals just organize a new business and quickly get new contracts. “Private contractors know how to play the system,” says Scott Amey, general counsel at the Project on Government Oversight, a watchdog that barks about the high cost of military contractors.

     Pentagon auditors identify contractors that fail to pay taxes or, in some cases, broke the law by not withholding taxes from worker paychecks. When they get caught, the Pentagon terminates the contracts, but does not disclose their names.

    About 27,000 Pentagon contractors, one in nine, evaded taxes and yet continued to get Defense Department contracts, according to a 2004 GAO study requested by then-senator Norm Coleman, a Minnesota Republican. The Pentagon says federal law prevents it from identifying any of the firms by name.

    It’s not as if this can’t be fixed. Congress could ban the owners and executives of any firm that does this from any government contracts for 10 years, the same penalty it applies to the working poor who cheat on the Earned Income Tax Credit. It could also make public the names of contractors, and their major owners, caught cheating on their taxes.

    Congress could also save taxpayers money – as much as $300 billion annually, according to Light’s research – by replacing corporate contract workers with civil servants, streamlining bureaucratic management and at the same time relying more on low-cost nonprofit contractors while paying them enough to be effective and efficient.

    But without popular demand to stop lavishing money on corporate contractors whose work does not measure up, the chances for real reform are about the same as the perennial political promise of more government for less money.

  • 10 companies profiting the most from war
    http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/03/10/10-companies-profiting-most-from-war/1970997

    10. United Technologies (UTX) — aircraft, electronics, engines
    Arm sales: $11.6 billion, total sales: $58.2 billion
    Gross profit: $5.3 billion, total workforce: 199,900
    United Technologies makes a wide range of arms — notably military helicopters, including the Black Hawk helicopter for the U.S. Army and the Seahawk helicopter for the U.S. Navy. The company was the biggest employer in the top 10 though arms sales accounted for just 20% of revenue. UTX also produces elevators, escalators, air-conditioners and refrigerators. International sales comprised 60% of the company’s revenue in 2012.

    9. L-3 Communications (LLL) — electronics
    Arm sales: $12.5 billion, total sales: $15.2 billion
    Gross profit: $956 million, total workforce: 61,000
    Some 83% of L-3 Communications sales in 2011 came from arms sales, but this was down from what it sold the prior year. The company has four business segments: electronic systems; aircraft modernization and maintenance; national security solutions; and command, control, communications, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance. Among many products manufactured, the company has become a major provider of unmanned aircraft systems.

    8. Finmeccanica — aircraft, artillery, engines, electronics, vehicles and missiles
    Arms sales, $14.6 billion, total sales: $24.1 billion
    Gross profit: $ -3.2 billion, total workforce: 70,470
    Italian company Finmeccanica makes a wide range of arms, including helicopters and security electronics. Nearly 60% of the company’s sales in 2011 were in arms. Finmeccanica lost $3.2 billion in 2011. The Italian company is currently fending off allegation that it paid bribes to win an approximately $750 million contract to provide 12 military helicopters to the Indian government in 2010. The then-head of the company, Giuseppe Orsi, was arrested in February but has denied wrongdoing. Other executives, including the head of the company’s helicopter unit, have been replaced, and the company has delayed the release of recent financial results.

    7. EADS — aircraft, electronics, missiles and space
    Arm sales: $16.4 billion, total sales: $68.3 billion
    Gross profit: $1.4 billion, total workforce: 133,120
    The European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company (EADS), based in the Netherlands, had sales in 2011 roughly in line with the prior year. Arms sales comprised just 24% of the company’s revenue. EADS and BAE Systems unsuccessfully attempted to merge for $45 billion in 2012, which would have created the world’s largest aerospace company. The deal collapsed in October after German Chancellor Angela Merkel expressed concerns about the merger.

    6. Northrop Grumman (NOC) — aircraft, electronics, missiles, ships, space
    Arm sales: $21.4 billion, total sales: $26.4 billion
    Gross profit: $2.1 billion, total workforce: 72,500
    Northrop Grumman’s 2011 arms sales comprised about 81% of total sales even after a sharp decline in arms sales year over year. The company attributed the decline to reduced government spending on defense projects. Nevertheless, the company was more profitable than in the prior year.

    5. Raytheon (RTN) — electronics, missiles
    Arm sales: $22.5 billion, total sales: $24.9 billion
    Gross profit: $1.9 billion, total workforce: 71,000
    Raytheon, based in Waltham, Mass., is one of the largest defense contractors in the U.S. The company makes the Tomahawk Cruise Missile, among others. Arms sales comprised about 90% of the company’s sales in 2011 though they as a total they were lower than in the prior year. The slide hasn’t let up. Total sales in 2012 fell 1.5%, and Raytheon is expecting sales to fall 3% in 2013, a projection which doesn’t take into account the effects of mandated budget cuts. The company can rely on overseas customers to somewhat offset weak sales at home. As of January, approximately 40% of the company’s backlog was booked overseas. The company expects approximately a 5% increase in international sales in 2013.

    4. General Dynamics (GD) — artillery, electronics, vehicles, small arms, ships
    Arm sales: $23.8 billion, total sales: $32.7 billion
    Gross profit: $2.5 billion, total workforce: 95,100
    With 18,000 transactions in 2011, General Dynamics was the third-largest contractor to the U.S. government. Of those contracts, approximately $12.9 billion worth went to the Navy, while an additional $4.6 billion went to the Army. The company’s arms sales in 2011 comprised 73% of total sales. Arms sales in 2011 were slightly below 2010 levels. The company makes a host of products, including electric boats, tracked and wheeled military vehicles, and battle tanks. The company announced layoffs in early March, blaming mandated federal budget cuts.

    3. BAE Systems — aircraft, artillery, electronics, vehicles, missiles, ships
    Arm sales: $29.2 billion, total sales: $30.7 billion
    Gross profit: $2.3 billion, total workforce: 93,500
    BAE Systems was the largest non-U.S. company based on arms sales. Arms sales represented 95% of the company’s total sales in 2011 even though they were lower as a total of overall sales compared to the prior year. The products BAE sells include the L-ROD Bar Armor System that shields defense vehicles and the Hawk Advanced Jet Trainer that provides sophisticated simulation training for military pilots. In 2013, the company said its growth would likely come from outside the U.S. and Great Britain — its home market. BAE noted that its outlook for those two countries was “constrained,” likely due to the diminished presence in international conflicts and government budget cuts.

    2. Boeing (BA) — aircraft, electronics, missiles, space
    Arm sales: $31.8 billion, total sales: $68.7 billion
    Gross profit: $4 billion, total workforce: 171,700
    Boeing was the second-largest U.S. government contractor in 2011, with about $21.5 billion worth of goods contracted. The Chicago-based company makes a wide range of arms, including strategic missile systems, laser and electro-optical systems and global positioning systems. Despite all these technologies, just 46% of the company’s total sales of $68.7 billion in 2011 came from arms. Boeing is the largest commercial airplane manufacturer in the world, making planes such as the 747, 757 and recently, the 787 Dreamliner. The company is also known for its space technology — Boeing had $1 billion worth of contracts with NASA in 2011.

    1. Lockheed Martin (LMT) — aircraft, electronics, missiles, space
    Arm sales:$36.3 billion, total sales: $46.5 billion
    Gross profit: $2.7 billion, total workforce, 123,000
    Lockheed Martin notched $36.3 billion in sales in 2011, slightly higher than the $35.7 billion the company sold in 2010. The arms sales comprised 78% of the company’s total 2011 sales. Lockheed makes a wide range of products, including aircraft, missiles, unmanned systems and radar systems. The company and its employees have been concerned about the effects of the “fiscal cliff” and sequestration, the latter of which includes significant cuts to the U.S. Department of Defense. In the fall of 2012, the company planned on issuing layoff notices to all employees before backing down at the White House’s request.

  • The Vulnerabilities Market and the Future of Security
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/bruceschneier/2012/05/30/the-vulnerabilities-market-and-the-future-of-security

    This market is larger than most people realize, and it’s becoming even larger. Forbes recently published a price list for zero-day exploits, along with the story of a hacker who received $250K from “a U.S. government contractor” (At first I didn’t believe the story or the price list, but I have been convinced that they both are true.) Forbes published a profile of a company called Vupen, whose business is selling zero-day exploits. Other companies doing this range from startups like Netragard and Endgame to large defense contractors like Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics, and Raytheon.

    This is very different than in 2007, when researcher Charlie Miller wrote about his attempts to sell zero-day exploits; and a 2010 survey implied that there wasn’t much money in selling zero days. The market has matured substantially in the past few years.

    This new market perturbs the economics of finding security vulnerabilities. And it does so to the detriment of us all.

    I’ve long argued that the process of finding vulnerabilities in software system increases overall security. This is because the economics of vulnerability hunting favored disclosure. As long as the principal gain from finding a vulnerability was notoriety, publicly disclosing vulnerabilities was the only obvious path. In fact, it took years for our industry to move from a norm of full-disclosure — announcing the vulnerability publicly and damn the consequences — to something called “responsible disclosure”: giving the software vendor a head start in fixing the vulnerability. Changing economics is what made the change stick: instead of just hacker notoriety, a successful vulnerability finder could land some lucrative consulting gigs, and being a responsible security researcher helped. But regardless of the motivations, a disclosed vulnerability is one that — at least in most cases — is patched. And a patched vulnerability makes us all more secure.

    This is why the new market for vulnerabilities is so dangerous; it results in vulnerabilities remaining secret and unpatched. That it’s even more lucrative than the public vulnerabilities market means that more hackers will choose this path. And unlike the previous reward of notoriety and consulting gigs, it gives software programmers within a company the incentive to deliberately create vulnerabilities in the products they’re working on — and then secretly sell them to some government agency.

  • The Global Intelligence Files - http://wikileaks.org/the-gifiles.html

    LONDON—Today, Monday 27 February, WikiLeaks began publishing The Global Intelligence Files – more than five million emails from the Texas-headquartered “global intelligence” company Stratfor. The emails date from between July 2004 and late December 2011. They reveal the inner workings of a company that fronts as an intelligence publisher, but provides confidential intelligence services to large corporations, such as Bhopal’s Dow Chemical Co., Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon and government agencies, including the US Department of Homeland Security, the US Marines and the US Defense Intelligence Agency.

    Comme à chaque fois c’est maintenant que le plus dur commence : parcourir, trier, faire émerger, maintenir l’attention publique. Bien du courage. #wikileaks