• How Frontex Helps Haul Migrants Back To Libyan Torture Camps

    Refugees are being detained, tortured and killed at camps in Libya. Investigative reporting by DER SPIEGEL and its partners has uncovered how close the European Union’s border agency Frontex works together with the Libyan coast guard.

    At sunrise, Alek Musa was still in good spirits. On the morning of June 25, 2020, he crowded onto an inflatable boat with 69 other people seeking asylum. Most of the refugees were Sudanese like him. They had left the Libyan coastal city of Garabulli the night before. Their destination: the island of Lampedusa in Italy. Musa wanted to escape the horrors of Libya, where migrants like him are captured, tortured and killed by militias.

    The route across the central Mediterranean is one of the world’s most dangerous for migrants. Just last week, another 100 people died as they tried to reach Europe from Libya. Musa was confident, nonetheless. The sea was calm and there was plenty of fuel in the boat’s tank.

    But then, between 9 a.m. and 10 a.m., Musa saw a small white plane in the sky. He shared his story by phone. There is much to suggest that the aircraft was a patrol of the European border protection agency Frontex. Flight data shows that a Frontex pilot had been circling in the immediate vicinity of the boat at the time.

    However, it appears that Frontex officials didn’t instruct any of the nearby cargo ships to help the refugees – and neither did the sea rescue coordination centers. Instead, hours later, Musa spotted the Ras Al Jadar on the horizon, a Libyan coast guard vessel.

    With none of them wanting to be hauled back to Libya, the migrants panicked. "We tried to leave as quickly as possible,” says Musa, who won’t give his real name out of fear of retaliation.

    Musa claims the Libyans rammed the dinghy with their ship. And that four men had gone overboard. Images from an aircraft belonging to the private rescue organization Sea-Watch show people fighting for their lives in the water. At least two refugees are believed to have died in the operation. All the others were taken back to Libya.
    Frontex Has Turned the Libyans into Europe’s Interceptors

    The June 25 incident is emblematic of the Europeans’ policy in the Mediterranean: The EU member states ceased sea rescue operations entirely in 2019. Instead, they are harnessing the Libyan coast guard to keep people seeking protection out of Europe.

    The European Court of Human Rights ruled back in 2012 that refugees may not be brought back to Libya because they are threatened with torture and death there. But that’s exactly what Libyan border guards are doing. With the help of the Europeans, they are intercepting refugees and hauling them back to Libya. According to an internal EU document, 11,891 were intercepted and taken back ashore last year.

    The EU provides financing for the Libyan coast guard and has trained its members. To this day, though, it claims not to control their operations. “Frontex has never directly cooperated with the Libyan coast guard,” Fabrice Leggeri, the head of the border agency, told the European Parliament in March. He claimed that the Libyans alone were responsible for the controversial interceptions. Is that really the truth, though?

    Together with the media organization “Lighthouse Reports”, German public broadcaster ARD’s investigative magazine “Monitor” and the French daily “Libération”, DER SPIEGEL has investigated incidents in the central Mediterranean Sea over a period of months. The reporters collected position data from Frontex aircraft and cross-checked it with ship data and information from migrants and civilian rescue organizations. They examined confidential documents and spoke to survivors as well as nearly a dozen Libyan officers and Frontex staff.

    This research has exposed for the first time the extent of the cooperation between Frontex and the Libyan coast guard. Europe’s border protection agency is playing an active role in the interceptions conducted by the Libyans. The reporting showed that Frontex flew over migrant boats on at least 20 occasions since January 2020 before the Libyan coast guard hauled them back. At times, the Libyans drove deep in the Maltese Search and Rescue Zone, an area over which the Europeans have jurisdiction.

    Some 91 refugees died in the interceptions or are considered missing – in part because the system the Europeans have established causes significant delays in the interceptions. In most cases, merchant ships or even those of aid organizations were in the vicinity. They would have reached the migrant boats more quickly, but they apparently weren’t alerted. Civilian sea rescue organizations have complained for years that they are hardly ever provided with alerts from Frontex.

    The revelations present a problem for Frontex head Leggeri. He is already having to answer for his agency’s involvement in the illegal repatriation of migrants in the Aegean Sea that are referred to as pushbacks. Now it appears that Frontex is also bending the law in operations in the central Mediterranean.

    An operation in March cast light on how the Libyans operate on the high seas. The captain of the Libyan vessel Fezzan, a coast guard officer, agreed to allow a reporter with DER SPIEGEL to conduct a ride-along on the ship. During the trip, he held a crumpled piece of paper with the coordinates of the boats he was to intercept. He didn’t have any internet access on the ship – indeed, the private sea rescuers are better equipped.

    The morning of the trip, the crew of the Fezzan had already pulled around 200 migrants from the water. The Libyans decided to leave an unpowered wooden boat with another 200 people at sea because the Fezzan was already too full. The rescued people huddled on deck, their clothes soaked and their eyes filled with fear. "Stay seated!” the Libyan officers yelled.

    Sheik Omar, a 16-year-old boy from Gambia squatted at the bow. He explained how, after the death of his father, he struggled as a worker in Libya. Then he just wanted to get away from there. He had already attempted to reach Europe five times. "I’m afraid,” he said. "I don’t know where they’re taking me. It probably won’t be a good place.”

    The conditions in the Libyan detention camps are catastrophic. Some are officially under the control of the authorities, but various militias are actually calling the shots. Migrants are a good business for the groups, and refugees from sub-Saharan countries, especially, are imprisoned and extorted by the thousands.

    Mohammad Salim was aware of what awaited him in jail. He’s originally from Somalia and didn’t want to give his real name. Last June, he and around 90 other migrants tried to flee Libya by boat, but a Frontex airplane did a flyover above them early in the morning. Several merchant ships that could have taken them to Europe passed by. But then the Libyan coast guard arrived several hours later.

    Once back on land, the Somali was sent to the Abu Issa detention center, which is controlled by a notorious militia. “There was hardly anything to eat,” Salim reported by phone. On good days, he ate 18 pieces of maccaroni pasta. On other days, he sucked on toothpaste. The women had been forced by the guards to strip naked. Salim was only able to buy his freedom a month later, when his family had paid $1,200.

    The EU is well aware of the conditions in the Libyan refugee prisons. German diplomats reported "concentration camp-like conditions” in 2017. A February report from the EU’s External Action described widespread "sexual violence, abduction for ransom, forced labor and unlawful killings.” The report states that the perpetrators include "government officials, members of armed groups, smugglers, traffickers and members of criminal gangs.”

    Supplies for the business are provided by the Libyan coast guard, which is itself partly made up of militiamen.

    In response to a request for comment from DER SPIEGEL, Frontex asserted that it is the agency’s duty to inform all internationally recognized sea rescue coordination centers in the region about refugee boats, including the Joint Rescue Coordination Center (JRCC). The sea rescue coordination center reports to the Libyan Defense Ministry and is financed by the EU.

    According to official documents, the JRCC is located at the Tripoli airport. But members of the Libyan coast guard claim that the control center is only a small room at the Abu Sitta military base in Tripoli, with just two computers. They claim that it is actually officers with the Libyan coast guard who are on duty there. That the men there have no ability to monitor their stretch of coastline, meaning they would virtually be flying blind without the EU’s aerial surveillance. In the event of a shipping accident, they almost only notify their own colleagues, even though they currently only have two ships at their disposal. Even when their ships are closer, there are no efforts to inform NGOs or private shipping companies. Massoud Abdalsamad, the head of the JRCC and the commander of the coast guard even admits that, "The JRCC and the coast guard are one and the same, there is no difference.”

    WhatsApp Messages to the Coast Guard

    As such, experts are convinced that even the mere transfer of coordinates by Frontex to the JRCC is in violation of European law. "Frontex officials know that the Libyan coast guard is hauling refugees back to Libya and that people there face torture and inhumane treatment,” says Nora Markard, professor for international public law and international human rights at the University of Münster.

    In fact, it appears that Frontex employees are going one step further and sending the coordinates of the refugee boats directly to Libyan officers via WhatsApp. That claim has been made independently by three different members of the Libyan coast guard. DER SPIEGEL is in possession of screenshots indicating that the coast guard is regularly informed – and directly. One captain was sent a photo of a refugee boat taken by a Frontex plane. “This form of direct contact is a clear violation of European law,” says legal expert Markard.

    When confronted, Frontex no longer explicitly denied direct contact with the Libyan coast guard. The agency says it contacts everyone involved in emergency operations in order to save lives. And that form of emergency communication cannot be considered formal contact, a spokesman said.

    But officials at Frontex in Warsaw are conscious of the fact that their main objective is to help keep refugees from reaching Europe’s shores. They often watch on their screens in the situation center how boats capsize in the Mediterranean. It has already proven to be too much for some – they suffer from sleep disorders and psychological problems.

    https://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/libya-how-frontex-helps-haul-migrants-back-to-libyan-torture-camps-a-d62c396

    #Libye #push-backs #refoulements #Frontex #complicité #milices #gardes-côtes_libyens #asile #migrations #réfugiés #externalisation #Ras_Al_Jadar #interception #Fezzan #Joint_Rescue_Coordination_Center (#JRCC) #WhatsApp #coordonnées_géographiques

    ping @isskein @karine4 @rhoumour @_kg_ @i_s_

    • Frontex : l’agence européenne de garde-frontières au centre d’une nouvelle polémique

      Un consortium de médias européens, dont le magazine Der Spiegel et le journal Libération, a livré une nouvelle enquête accablante sur l’agence européenne des gardes-frontières. Frontex est accusée de refouler des bateaux de migrants en mer Méditerranée.

      Frontex, c’est quoi ?

      L’agence européenne des gardes-frontières et gardes-côtes a été créée en 2004 pour répondre à la demande d’aides des pays membres pour protéger les frontières extérieures de l’espace Schengen. Frontex a trois objectifs : réduire la vulnérabilité des frontières extérieures, garantir le bon fonctionnement et la sécurité aux frontières et maintenir les capacités du corps européen, recrutant chaque année près de 700 gardes-frontières et garde-côtes. Depuis la crise migratoire de 2015, le budget de l’agence, subventionné par l’Union Européen a explosé passant 142 à 460 millions d’euros en 2020.

      Nouvelles accusations

      Frontex est de nouveau au centre d’une polémique au sein de l’UE. En novembre 2020, et en janvier 2021 déjà, Der Spiegel avait fait part de plusieurs refoulements en mer de bateaux de demandeurs d’asile naviguant entre la Turquie et la Grèce et en Hongrie. Dans cette enquête le magazine allemand avait averti que les responsables de Frontex étaient"conscients des pratiques illégales des gardes-frontières grecs et impliqués dans les refoulements eux-mêmes" (https://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/eu-border-agency-frontex-complicit-in-greek-refugee-pushback-campaign-a-4b6c).

      A la fin de ce mois d’avril, de nouveaux éléments incriminants Frontex révélés par un consortium de médias vont dans le même sens : des agents de Frontex auraient donné aux gardes-côtes libyens les coordonnées de bateaux de réfugiés naviguant en mer Méditerranée pour qu’ils soient interceptés avant leurs arrivées sur le sol européen. C’est ce que l’on appelle un « pushback » : refouler illégalement des migrants après les avoir interceptés, violant le droit international et humanitaire. L’enquête des médias européens cite un responsable d’Amnesty International, Mateo de Bellis qui précise que « sans les informations de Frontex, les gardes-côtes libyens ne pourraient jamais intercepter autant de migrants ».

      Cet arrangement entre les autorités européennes et libyennes « constitue une violation manifeste du droit européen », a déclaré Nora Markard, experte en droit international de l’université de Münster, citée par Der Spiegel.

      Une politique migratoire trop stricte de l’UE ?

      En toile de fond, les détracteurs de Frontex visent également la ligne politique de l’UE en matière d’immigration, jugée trop stricte. Est-ce cela qui aurait généré le refoulement de ces bateaux ? La Commissaire européenne aux affaires intérieures, Ylva Johansson, s’en défendait en janvier dernier, alors que Frontex était déjà accusé d’avoir violé le droit international et le droit humanitaire en refoulant six migrants en mer Egée. « Ce que nous protégeons, lorsque nous protégeons nos frontières, c’est l’Union européenne basée sur des valeurs et nous devons respecter nos engagements à ces valeurs tout en protégeant nos frontières (...) Et c’est une des raisons pour lesquelles nous avons besoin de Frontex », expliquait la Commissaire à euronews.

      Pour Martin Martiniello, spécialiste migration à l’université de Liège, « l’idée de départ de l’Agence Frontex était de contrôler les frontières européennes avec l’espoir que cela soit accompagné d’une politique plus positive, plus proactive de l’immigration. Cet aspect-là ne s’est pas développé au cours des dernières années, mais on a construit cette notion de crise migratoire. Et cela renvoie une image d’une Europe assiégée, qui doit se débarrasser des migrants non souhaités. Ce genre de politique ne permet pas de rencontrer les défis globaux des déplacements de population à long terme ».

      Seulement trois jours avant la parution de l’enquête des médias européens incriminant Frontex, L’Union européenne avait avancé sa volonté d’accroître et de mieux encadrer les retours volontaires des personnes migrantes, tout en reconnaissant que cet axe politique migratoire était, depuis 2019, un échec. L’institution avait alors proposé à Frontex un nouveau mandat pour prendre en charge ces retours. Selon Martin Martiniello, « des montants de plus en plus élevés ont été proposés, pour financer Frontex. Même si le Parlement européen a refusé de voter ce budget, celui-ci comporte de la militarisation encore plus importante de l’espace méditerranéen, avec des drones et tout ce qui s’en suit. Et cela fait partie d’une politique européenne ».

      Les accusations de novembre et janvier derniers ont généré l’ouverture d’une enquête interne chez Frontex, mais aussi à l’Office européen de lutte antifraude (OLAF). Pour Catherine Woolard, directrice du Conseil européen des Réfugiés et Exilés (ECRE), « On voit tout le problème des structures de gouvernance de Frontex : ce sont les États membres qui font partie du conseil d’administration et de gestion de Frontex, et ces États membres ont fait une enquête préliminaire. Mais cette enquête ne peut pas être profonde et transparente, puisque ces États membres sont parties prenantes dans ce cas de figure ».

      Pour la directrice de l’ECRE, une enquête indépendante serait une solution pour comprendre et réparer les torts causés, et suggère une réforme du conseil d’administration de Frontex. « La décision du Parlement concernant le budget est importante. En plus des enquêtes internes, le Parlement a créé un groupe de travail pour reformer le scrutin au sein du conseil administratif de l’agence, ce qui est essentiel. Nous attendons le rapport de ce groupe de travail, qui permettra de rendre compte de la situation chez Frontex ».

      Certains députés européens ont demandé la démission du directeur exécutif de Frontex. « C’est un sujet sensible » souligne Catherine Woolard. « Dans le contexte de l’augmentation des ressources de Frontex, le recrutement d’agents de droits fondamentaux, ainsi que les mesures et mécanismes mentionnés, sont essentiels. Le Parlement européen insiste sur la création de ces postes et n’a toujours pas eu de réponse de la part du directeur de Frontex. Entretemps, l’agence a toujours l’obligation de faire un rapport sur les incidents où il y a une suspicion de violation du droit international et humanitaire ».

      https://www.levif.be/actualite/europe/frontex-l-agence-europeenne-de-garde-frontieres-au-centre-d-une-nouvelle-polemique/article-normal-1422403.html?cookie_check=1620307471

  • *La Marine teste l’utilisation de NETS pour piéger les migrants dans la Manche alors que des nombres record traversent illégalement*

    - Des navires militaires ont travaillé avec la UK Border Force pour essayer des tactiques en mai et juin
    - Priti Patel a révélé le stratagème en accusant Paris de la crise actuelle
    – Plus de 2 750 personnes auraient atteint le Royaume-Uni outre-Manche cette année

    La #Royal_Navy a testé l’utilisation de filets pour arrêter les migrants dans la Manche, a révélé hier #Priti_Patel.

    Des navires militaires ont travaillé avec la #UK_Border_Force en mai et juin, essayant des #tactiques pour se déployer contre de petits bateaux traversant la France.

    La ministre de l’Intérieur a fait la divulgation alors qu’elle reprochait à Paris de ne pas avoir maîtrisé la crise des migrants.

    Plus de 2 750 clandestins auraient atteint le Royaume-Uni de l’autre côté de la Manche cette année, dont 90 non encore confirmés qui ont atterri à Douvres hier.

    Ce chiffre se compare à seulement 1 850 au cours de l’année dernière. Dimanche, il y a eu un record de 180, entassés à bord de 15 dériveurs.

    Plus de 2 750 clandestins auraient atteint le Royaume-Uni de l’autre côté de la Manche cette année, dont 90 non encore confirmés qui ont atterri à #Douvres hier

    Les #chiffres montent en flèche malgré la promesse de Miss Patel, faite en octobre, qu’elle aurait pratiquement éliminé les passages de la Manche maintenant.

    Hier, elle a déclaré qu’elle s’efforçait de persuader les Français de « montrer leur volonté » et de permettre le retour des arrivées.

    Mlle Patel a affirmé que les #lois_maritimes_internationales autorisaient le Royaume-Uni à empêcher les bateaux de migrants d’atteindre le sol britannique, mais que Paris interprétait les règles différemment.

    « Je pense qu’il pourrait y avoir des mesures d’application plus strictes du côté français », a déclaré hier Mme Patel aux députés.

    « Je cherche à apporter des changements. Nous avons un problème majeur, majeur avec ces petits bateaux. Nous cherchons fondamentalement à changer les modes de travail en France.

    « J’ai eu des discussions très, très – je pense qu’il est juste de dire – difficiles avec mon homologue français, même en ce qui concerne les #interceptions en mer, car actuellement les autorités françaises n’interceptent pas les bateaux.

    « Et j’entends par là même des bateaux qui ne sont qu’à 250 mètres environ des côtes françaises.

    « Une grande partie de cela est régie par le #droit_maritime et les interprétations des autorités françaises de ce qu’elles peuvent et ne peuvent pas faire. »

    Elle a confirmé que les #navires_de_patrouille français n’interviendront pour arrêter les bateaux de migrants que s’ils sont en train de couler – et non pour empêcher les traversées illégales.

    Au sujet de la participation de la Marine, Mlle Patel a déclaré à la commission des affaires intérieures de la Chambre des communes : « Nous avons mené une série d’#exercices_dans_l’eau en mer impliquant une gamme d’#actifs_maritimes, y compris militaires.

    La ministre de l’Intérieur, photographiée hier, a fait la divulgation alors qu’elle reprochait à Paris de ne pas avoir maîtrisé la crise des migrants

    « Nous pouvons renforcer #Border_Force et montrer comment nous pouvons prendre des bateaux en toute sécurité et les renvoyer en France.

    « C’est effectivement le dialogue que nous entamons actuellement avec les Français pour savoir comment ils peuvent travailler avec nous et montrer leur volonté. Parce que cela ne sert à rien de leur pays.

    Tim Loughton, un député conservateur du comité, a demandé au ministre de l’Intérieur : « Pouvez-vous confirmer que vous pensez que les Français ont le pouvoir – qu’ils prétendent ne pas avoir – d’intercepter des bateaux en mer ? »

    Elle a répondu : ‘Absolument raison. Et c’est ce que nous nous efforçons de réaliser jusqu’au partage des #conseils_juridiques en matière de droit maritime. À travers la pandémie où le temps a été favorable, nous avons vu une augmentation des chiffres et nous devons mettre un terme à cette route.

    « Nous voulons rompre cette route, nous voulons rendre cela #non_viable. La seule façon d’y parvenir est d’intercepter et de renvoyer les bateaux en France. »

    Le ministre français de l’Intérieur, Gerald Darmanin, qui a été nommé il y a seulement dix jours, se rendra à Douvres le mois prochain pour voir l’impact des bateaux de migrants sur la communauté locale.

    « Le ministre de l’Intérieur est de plus en plus frustré par la partie française, mais nous avons de nouveaux espoirs que le nouveau ministre de l’Intérieur voudra régler ce problème », a déclaré une source de Whitehall.

    Hier, neuf passagers clandestins érythréens ont été découverts à l’arrière d’un camion lors d’un service Welcome Break sur la M40. La police a été appelée après que des témoins ont vu des mouvements à l’arrière du camion stationné dans l’Oxfordshire.

    https://www.fr24news.com/fr/a/2020/07/la-marine-teste-lutilisation-de-nets-pour-pieger-les-migrants-dans-la-manc
    #frontières #militarisation_des_frontières #asile #migrations #réfugiés #armée #NETS #Manche #La_Manche #France #UK #Angleterre #pull-back #pull-backs

    #via @FilippoFurri

  • Software spia, le nuove armi africane

    Ufficialmente introdotti contro il terrorismo, sono usati anche per controllare dissidenti politici.

    Almeno dal 2009 l’Egitto è tra i principali acquirenti di strumentazioni per la sorveglianza di massa. #Software intrusivi che si possono agganciare ai telefonini oppure alle mail e tracciare così i comportamenti di chiunque. Specialmente se considerato un nemico politico dal regime. Al Cairo, dopo la primavera araba, si è abbattuto un rigido inverno dei diritti: oppositori politici, sindacalisti, persino ricercatori universitari come Giulio Regeni sono stati fatti sparire, ammazzati o torturati. Per fare tutto questo, le agenzia di sicurezza hanno spiato i loro bersagli attraverso sistemi informatici. Tra le aziende, chi ha fatturato vendendo gli strumenti per spiare i nemici politici, c’è l’italiana #Hacking_Team, le cui mail sono state rese pubbliche da una maxi fuga di notizie nel luglio 2015.

    L’Egitto non è l’unico paese africano a fare uso di questo tipo di tecnologie. In particolare in Africa, questo genere di strumenti per tenere sotto controllo la popolazione stanno diventando una costante. Sono l’ultima frontiera del mercato delle armi. Nemico ufficiale contro cui utilizzarle: il terrorismo, che si chiami Al Shabaab, Boko Haram, Isis. In pratica, da semplici persone “sospette” a dissidenti politici.

    Una stima di Markets and Markets del 2014 prevede che per il 2019 il mercato delle “intercettazioni” varrà 1,3 miliardi di dollari. E accanto a questo corre un mercato nero dalle dimensioni inimmaginabili, dove ogni transazione avviene nel deep web, il doppio fondo del contenitore di internet. Senza bisogno di autorizzazioni, né di sistemi di licenze, come invece previsto dalle normative di tutto il mondo. I paesi africani sono tra i nuovi agguerriti compratori di queste armi 2.0, di fabbricazione per lo più israeliana ed europea.

    La mappa degli spioni

    L’utilizzo e la vendita di questi sistemi – proprio come per le armi – in diversi paesi è schermato dal segreto militare, nonostante il “duplice uso” (civile e militare) che possono avere questi strumenti. Detti, appunto, dual-use. L’inchiesta Security for Sale (https://irpi.eu/sicurezza-vendesi), condotta in febbraio da 22 giornalisti europei, ha individuato i principali importatori di tecnologie intrusive in Africa. La lista è lunga: oltre il Kenya, di cui Osservatorio Diritti ha già parlato, e l’Egitto, l’esempio più famoso, ci sono Libia (ancora sotto Gheddafi, ndr), Etiopia, Nigeria, Sudan, Sudafrica, Mauritania e Uganda.
    #Kenya #Libye #Ethiopie #Nigeria #Soudan

    In Mauritania è in carcere da due anni il cittadino italiano #Cristian_Provvisionato per una vendita di sistemi di intercettazione finita male. Provvisionato, una guardia giurata che non sarebbe mai stata in grado di vendere sistemi di questo genere, avrebbe dovuto presentare ai mauritani un sistema di intercettazione per Whatsapp, che la sua azienda – Vigilar – avrebbe a sua volta acquistato attraverso la società indiano-tedesca Wolf Intelligence. Bersaglio del sistema sarebbero dovuti essere terroristi attivi al confine mauritano, per quanto diverse organizzazioni internazionali abbiano sollevato riserve rispetto al possibile utilizzo di sistemi del genere in un paese che viola i diritti umani.
    #Mauritanie

    L’accusa nei confronti di Cristian Provvisionato, cioè truffa, non regge perché il cittadino italiano era all’oscuro, come è stato comprovato da più ricostruzioni giornalistiche, di ciò che stava presentando in Mauritania. Aveva accettato il lavoro perché gli era stato promesso che sarebbe stato veloce, pulito e con un buon guadagno. Invece si trova ancora dietro le sbarre. Per il caso Provvisionato la magistratura milanese ha aperto un’inchiesta che coinvolge anche #Vigilar e #Wolf_Intelligence. Il partner israeliano dei due è una delle aziende da sempre competitor di Hacking Team.

    La stessa Hacking Team ha venduto ad altri regimi autoritari africani (scarica la ricerca del centro studi CitizenLab – università di Toronto). Il caso più clamoroso è quello dei servizi segreti del Sudan, che nel 2012, prima che entrasse in vigore qualunque embargo, hanno acquistato merce per 960 mila euro. Anche le Nazioni Unite, nel 2014, quando è entrato in vigore l’embargo con il Sudan, hanno fatto domande ad Hacking Team in merito alle relazioni commerciali con le forze d’intelligence militare del Paese.
    #Soudan #services_secrets

    Nello stesso 2012 una compagnia britannica aveva iniziato a vendere software intrusivi alle forze militari dell’Uganda. Era l’inizio di un’operazione di spionaggio di alcuni leader politici dell’opposizione che arrivava, denunciavano media locali nel 2015, fino al ricatto di alcuni di loro. Paese di fabbricazione del software spia, come spesso accade, Israele.
    #Ouganda

    Il Sudafrica è un caso a sé: da un lato importatore, dall’altro esportatore di tecnologie-spia. Il primo fornitore di questo genere di software per il Sudafrica è la Gran Bretagna, mentre il mercato di riferimento a cui vendere è quello africano. Il Paese ha anche una propria azienda leader nel settore. Si chiama #VASTech e il suo prodotto di punta è #Zebra, un dispositivo in grado di intercettare chiamate vocali, sms e mms.
    #Afrique_du_sud

    Nel 2013 Privacy International, un’organizzazione internazionale con base in Gran Bretagna che si occupa di privacy e sorveglianza di massa, ha scoperto una fornitura di questo software alla Libia di Gheddafi, nel 2011, nel periodo in cui è stato registrato il picco di attività di spionaggio (dato confermato da Wikileaks). Eppure, dal 2009 al 2013 solo 48 potenziale contravvenzioni sono finite sotto indagine del Ncac, l’ente governativo preposto a questo genere di controlli.

    Il settore, però, nello stesso lasso di tempo ha avuto un boom incredibile, arrivando nel solo 2012 a 4.407 licenze di esportazione per 94 paesi in totale. Il mercato vale circa 8 miliardi di euro. In Sudafrica sono in corso proteste per chiedere le dimissioni del presidente Jacob Zuma, coinvolto in diversi casi di corruzione e ormai considerato impresentabile. È lecito pensare che anche questa volta chi manifesta sia tenuto sotto osservazione da sistemi di sorveglianza.


    https://www.osservatoriodiritti.it/2017/05/08/software-spia-le-nuove-armi-africane
    #Afrique #surveillance #interception #surveillance_de_masse #Egypte #business

    ping @fil

    • Security for sale

      The European Union has deep pockets when it comes to security. Major defense contractors and tech giants compete for generous subsidies, to better protect us from crime and terrorism. At least that’s the idea. But who really benefits? The public or the security industry itself?

      Over the past year, we’ve worked with more than twenty journalists in eleven European countries to investigate this burgeoning sector. We quickly discovered that the European security industry is primarily taking good care of itself – often at the expense of the public.

      In this crash course Security for Sale, we bring you up to speed on EU policy makers and industry big shots who’ve asserted themselves as “managers of unease,” on the lobbies representing major defense companies, on the billions spent on security research, and on the many ethical issues surrounding the European security industry.

      “Security for sale” is a journalistic project coordinated by Dutch newspaper De Correspondent and IRPI collaborated for the Italian context. The webportal of “Security for Sale” collects all articles produced within the project in several languages.

      https://irpi.eu/en/security-for-sale

    • Lawful Interception Market worth $1,342.4 Million by 2019

      The report “Lawful Interception Market by Network Technologies and Devices ( VOIP, LTE, WLAN, WIMAX, DSL, PSTN, ISDN, CDMA, GSM, GPRS, Mediation Devices, Routers, Management Servers); Communication Content; End Users - Global Advancement, Worldwide Forecast & Analysis (2014-2019)” defines and segments the LI market on the basis of devices, network technologies, communication content, and services with in-depth analysis and forecasting of revenues. It also identifies drivers and restraints for this market with insights on trends, opportunities, and challenges.

      Browse 80 market tables and 23 figures spread through 177 pages and in-depth TOC on “Lawful Interception Market by Network Technologies and Devices ( VOIP, LTE, WLAN, WIMAX, DSL, PSTN, ISDN, CDMA, GSM, GPRS, Mediation Devices, Routers, Management Servers); Communication Content; End Users - Global Advancement, Worldwide Forecast & Analysis (2014-2019)”
      https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/lawful-interception-market-1264.html
      Early buyers will receive 10% customization on reports.

      Lawful Interception (LI) has been proven to be very helpful for the security agencies or Law Enforcement Agencies (LEAs) for combating terrorism and criminal activities. Across the world, countries have adopted such legislative regulations and made it compulsory for the operators to make LI-enabled communication network. Since the advancement of communication channels and network technologies over the period of time, the interception techniques have also enhanced for variety of communications such as Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP), web-traffic, Electronic Mail (Email), and more. Now, the interception is possible for all networks that deliver voice, data, and Internet services.

      Sophisticated communication channels and advanced network technologies are the major driving factors for the LI market. Nowadays, communication can be done in various forms such as voice, text, video, and many more. To transfer these types of data, network technologies need to constantly upgrade. The different types of network technologies that can be intercepted are VoIP, LTE, WLAN, WiMax, DSL, PSTN, ISDN, CDMA, GSM, and GPRS, are discussed in this report.

      MarketsandMarkets has broadly segmented the LI market by devices such as management servers, mediation devices, Intercept Access Points (IAP), switches, routers, gateways, and Handover Interfaces (HIs). The LI market is also segmented on the basis of communication contents and networking technology. By regions: North America (NA), Europe (EU), Asia Pacific (APAC), Middle East and Africa (MEA), and Latin America (LA).

      The LI market is expected to grow at a rapid pace in the regional markets of APAC and MEA. The investments in security in APAC and MEA are attracting the players operating in the LI market. These regions would also be the highest revenue generating markets in the years to come. Considerable growth is expected in the NA and European LI markets. New wireless network and network technologies like LTE, WiMax, NGN, and many more are expected to be the emerging technological trends in the LI market.

      MarketsandMarkets forecasts the Lawful Interception market to grow from $251.5 million in 2014 to $1,342.4 million by 2019. In terms of regions, North America and Europe are expected to be the biggest markets in terms of revenue contribution, while Asia-Pacific, Middle East and Africa, and Latin America are expected to experience increased market traction, during the forecast period.

      About MarketsandMarkets

      MarketsandMarkets is a global market research and consulting company based in the U.S. We publish strategically analyzed market research reports and serve as a business intelligence partner to Fortune 500 companies across the world.

      MarketsandMarkets also provides multi-client reports, company profiles, databases, and custom research services. M&M covers thirteen industry verticals, including advanced materials, automotives and transportation, banking and financial services, biotechnology, chemicals, consumer goods, energy and power, food and beverages, industrial automation, medical devices, pharmaceuticals, semiconductor and electronics, and telecommunications and IT.

      We at MarketsandMarkets are inspired to help our clients grow by providing apt business insight with our huge market intelligence repository.

      https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/PressReleases/lawful-interception.asp

    • Antiterrorismo con licenza d’uccidere

      Kenya osservato speciale: le ong parlano di vittime, sparizioni e intercettazioni diffuse.

      Da gennaio a ottobre 2016 in Kenya sono state uccise dalle forze dell’ordine 177 persone. Lo scrive nel suo rapporto annuale 2016/2017 la ong Amnesty international. Uccisioni stragiudiziali per mano delle cosiddette Kenyan Death Squads, gli squadroni della morte in azione contro presunti terroristi. A risalire la catena di comando, si arriva fino ai piani alti del governo, come aveva raccontato Al Jazeera in un’inchiesta del 2015.

      Il Kenya ha conosciuto il terrorismo di matrice jihadista alla fine del 1998, all’epoca della prima bomba all’ambasciata americana di Nairobi: un attentato che ha lanciato nel mondo il marchio Al Qaeda. Il Paese è passato attraverso centinaia di attentati e oggi il terrorismo si chiama Al-Shabaab (leggi “Al-Shabaab avanza in Somalia”). Ma i presunti terroristi sono solo una parte delle vittime degli squadroni della morte: anche avvocati, attivisti e oppositori politici sono finiti sulla lista dei torturati e uccisi. Fare leva sulla paura dei cittadini, in Kenya, è facile.

      Dal 2010 al 2015 si ha notizia di almeno 500 persone fatte sparire da questi nuclei interni di alcuni corpi speciali delle forze dell’ordine del Kenya. Operazioni supervisionate dal Nis, i servizi segreti, svolte poi da agenti della Criminal investigation division (Cid), oppure dall’unità Recce o ancora dalle Kenyan Defence Forces. «Si potrebbero chiamare “morti accettabili”», dice un ufficiale dei servizi segreti kenyoti intervistato sulla vicenda da un ricercatore della ong Privacy International.

      INTERCETTAZIONI DIFFUSE

      E l’argomento “terrorismo” è sufficiente a giustificare un sistema d’intercettazioni persistente, dove non esiste comunicazione che non sia tracciata, né supporti informatici che le forze dell’ordine non possano acquisire. Tutto il meccanismo per rintracciare “i nemici” passerebbe dalle comunicazioni telefoniche, ignorando qualunque norma costituzionale kenyota. «Gli ufficiali che abbiamo intervistato hanno ammesso che spesso si finisce sotto intercettazione per motivi politici e non solo per presunte attività di terrorismo», continua il ricercatore di Privacy International che ha curato il report “Traccia, cattura, uccidi” (per motivi di sicurezza, non è possibile rivelare il suo nome).

      Le forze speciali del Kenya avrebbero una presenza stabile all’interno delle compagnie telefoniche del paese. «Agenti Nis sono informalmente presenti nelle strutture per le telecomunicazioni, apparentemente sotto copertura», si legge nel rapporto. Elementi che sarebbero stati confermati da dipendenti di compagnie telefoniche e agenti. «I dipendenti hanno paura che negare l’accesso possa avere delle ripercussioni», aggiunge il ricercatore.

      Safaricom è la più importante compagnia telefonica del paese: controlla oltre il 60% del mercato della telefonia kenyota. Azionista di maggioranza è Vodafone e secondo il rapporto al suo interno ci sarebbero dieci agenti della Cid. Attraverso un’interfaccia, avrebbero libero accesso al database interno in cui sono registrate telefonate, proprietari, transazioni monetarie attraverso la rete mobile. Un universo.

      Questo è quello che raccontano le fonti interne scovate da Privacy International. Mentre Safaricom, ufficialmente, nega questo flusso di informazioni. L’amministratore delegato di Safaricom, Bob Collymore, tra gli uomini più ricchi del Kenya, ha risposto alla ong sostenendo che la sua azienda «non ha relazioni con Nis riferite alla sorveglianza delle comunicazioni in Kenya e non ci sono ufficiali Nis impiegati nell’azienda, ufficialmente o sotto copertura».

      Il Kenya acquista all’estero le strumentazioni di cui è dotato il sistema di intercettazioni in funzione nel paese. «Le fonti a cui abbiamo avuto accesso nominavano aziende inglesi ed israeliane, ma non sanno come funziona l’acquisto degli strumenti per intercettazioni», aggiunge il ricercatore di Privacy International. Gli strumenti più diffusi sono i famosi IMSI Catcher. All’apparenza, delle semplice valigette con un involucro nero all’estero, rinforzato. In realtà sono delle antenne attraverso cui è possibile intercettare telefonate effettuate nel raggio di circa 300 metri.

      Ci sono poi anche software intrusivi, che agganciano il telefono una volta che l’utente apre uno specifico messaggio via Sms o WhatsApp. Nel 2015 le rivelazioni su Hacking Team, l’azienda milanese che vendeva in mezzo mondo dei software spia, avevano permesso di scoprire anche trattative in corso con forze speciali del Kenya. Gli obiettivi dello spionaggio sarebbero stati uomini legati all’opposizione.

      https://www.osservatoriodiritti.it/2017/04/12/antiterrorismo-con-licenza-di-uccidere
      #anti-terrorisme #opposition #opposants_au_régime #persécution

  • WhatsApp, sa porte discrète du fond et les #backdoors de Signal

    https://linuxfr.org/users/apichat/journaux/whatsapp-sa-porte-discrete-du-fond-et-les-backdoors-de-signal

    Nous le savons tous #WhatsApp n’a pas de #backdoor, c’est d’ailleurs pour ça que son code source n’est pas public : ya rien à voir, tchatez.

    Une très bonne explication est publiée sur le site de Reflet :

    > Il suffit à WhatsApp d’ajouter un nouvel appareil virtuel au compte de Bob, cet appareil recevra ainsi les #messages qui lui sont destinés
    > De manière générale c’est le problèmes des systèmes où le lien entre personne physique et clef de chiffrement est établi et contrôlé par un acteur tiers, comme WhatsApp, ou en utilisant des mécanismes peu fiables, comme le contrôle du numéro de téléphone.
    > C’est également un problème par ex. chez #Apple ( #iMessage ) : Apple gère la liste des appareils liés à un compte et est donc en mesure d’ajouter un appareil « fantôme » au compte qui recevrai alors tous les messages qui lui sont destinés, et peut se faire passer pour ce compte.

    Cependant, selon certains avis avisés de la #Free Software Foundation Europe, il y aurait un certain nombre de BackdoorS présenteS lors de l’utilisation du logiciel #Signal

    [...]

    #sécurité_informatique #Crypto #Cryptographie #Interceptions #Sécurité

  • #IOL à l’heure de cette France en état d’urgence permanent, mais qui va mieux
    https://reflets.info/iol-a-lheure-de-cette-france-en-etat-durgence-permanent-mais-qui-va-mieux

    Mediapart et Reflets viennent tout juste de vous révéler IOL, ou comment dès 2006, la FRance déployait un dispositif qui se positionnait aux frontières de la légalité. IOL est le second projet « confidentiel défense » après Kairos et apparu au cours de nos investigations sur la société Qosmos, sur lequel nous pouvons aujourd’hui faire la lumière. IOL […]

    #Bienvenue_chez_Qosmos #GIC #Interceptions_administratives #Interceptions_Obligatoires_Légales #Renseignement

  • Qosmos et le gouvernement Français, très à l’écoute du Net dès 2009
    https://reflets.info/qosmos-et-le-gouvernement-francais-tres-a-lecoute-du-net-des-2009

    Lorsque les enquêteurs se sont penchés sur les activités de Qosmos dans le cadre de poursuites pour une éventuelle complicité de torture en Syrie, ils se sont vus opposer le secret-défense pour quatre « clients » de l’entreprise. Ceux-ci disposaient de codes : KAIROS, CHARLIE, #IOL et DELTA. Le Monde a levé le voile sur le projet […]

    #Bienvenue_chez_Qosmos #Deep_Packet_Inspection #France #Technos #Bouygues #CNCIS #Commission_nationale_de_contrôle_des_interceptions_de_sécurité #DSLAM #François_Fillon #Free #GIC #Interceptions #interceptions_légales #Jean-Marie_Delarue #Jean-Paul_Faugère #Loi_de_programmation_militaire #LPM #NSA #Orange #Protobook #Sarkozy #SFR #Snowden

  • Internet Monitoring
    https://www.privacyinternational.org/node/12

    Internet monitoring is the act of capturing data as it travels across the internet towards its intended destination. The units being monitored or captured are often referred to as ‘packets’. Packets are the broken up parts of the data sent (messages, emails, images, web pages, files) over Internet Protocol which computers break into small chunks, rout through a network of computers and then reassemble at their destination to become the message, web page, image or file presented to you on your (...)

    #surveillance #Privacy_International