Daily Deal: The Premium Coding Skills Bundle

from the good-deals-on-cool-stuff dept

The Premium Coding Skills Bundle has 9 courses to help you learn the essentials of coding. Courses cover C++, MySQL, Python, Flutter, Dart, and more. You will also get exam prep for MTA, PCEP, and ITIL 4. It's on sale for $29.

Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

Filed Under: daily deal

Prosecutors Drop Criminal Charges Against Fake Terrorist Who Duped Canadian Gov't, NYT Podcasters

from the borat-without-the-punchlines dept

For a couple of years, a prominent terrorist remained untouched by Canadian law enforcement. Abu Huzayfah claimed to have traveled to Syria in 2014 to join the Islamic State. A series of Instagram posts detailed his violent acts, as did a prominent New York Times Peabody Award-winning podcast, "Caliphate."

But Abu Huzayfah, ISIS killer, never existed, something the Royal Canadian Mounted Police verified a year before the podcast began. Despite that, Ontario resident Shehroze Chaudhry -- who fabricated tales of ISIS terrorist acts -- remained a concern for law enforcement and Canadian government officials, who believed his alter ego was not only real, but roaming the streets of Toronto.

All of this coalesced into Chaudhry's arrest for the crime of pretending to be a terrorist. Chaudry was charged with violating the "terrorism hoax" law, which is a real thing, even though it's rarely used. Government prosecutors indicated they intended to argue Chaudhry's online fakery caused real world damage, including the waste of law enforcement resources and the unquantifiable public fear that Ontario housed a dangerous terrorist.

Chaudry was facing a possible sentence of five years in prison, which seems harsh for online bullshit, but is far, far less than charges of actual terrorism would bring. But it appears everything has settled down a bit and the hoaxer won't be going to jail for abusing the credulity of others, a list that includes Canadian government officials and New York Times podcasters.

A Canadian man admitted in court on Friday that he made up tales about serving as an Islamic State fighter and executioner in Syria. In exchange, Canadian authorities dropped criminal charges against him of perpetrating a hoax involving the threat of terrorism.

This is pretty much where this was always going to end up. Chaudhry's acts were stupid, not criminal. That others were taken in by his tales shouldn't raise it from "potentially embarrassing" to "federally criminal." And given the fact that the RCMP had already interviewed him and decided not to pursue him as a terrorism suspect nearly a year before he became the central figure in a New York Times podcast indicates the government knew his online persona was a hoax for years before suddenly deciding it should be treated as a criminal act.

Chaudhry is now (mostly) free. He's no longer facing criminal charges but he will be treated like a criminal for at least the next couple of years.

Under the terms of the peace bond, which is reserved for people who the authorities fear may commit terrorist acts, Mr. Chaudhry must remain in Ontario for the next year and live with his parents. He is prohibited from owning any weapons, must continue to receive counseling and is required to report any changes in his virtual or physical addresses to the police.

Fool us once, shame on us. Fool us for multiple episodes, well… that's on you, buddy. This has wrapped up one of the weirder tales of the War on Terror, a complete reversal of the expectations here in the US, where it's the feds who are the fake terrorists.

Filed Under: abu huzayfah, canada, fake terrorist, isis, rcmp, shehroze chaudhry, terrorism, terrorism hoax

Broadband Data Caps Mysteriously Disappear When Competition Comes Knocking

from the funny-how-that-works dept

We've noted for years how broadband data caps (and monthly overage fees) are complete bullshit. They serve absolutely no technical function, and despite years of ISPs trying to claim they "help manage network congestion," that's never been remotely true. Instead they exist exclusively as a byproduct of limited competition. They're a glorified price hike by regional monopolies who know they'll see little (or no!) competitive or regulatory pressure to stop nickel and diming captive customers.

The latest case in point: Cox Communications employs a 1,280 GB data cap, which, if you go over, requires you either pay $30 per month more for an additional 500 GB, or upgrade your plan to an unlimited data offering for $50 more per month. While Cox's terabyte-plus plan is more generous than some U.S. offerings (which can be as low as a few gigabytes), getting caught up in whether the cap is "fair" is beside the point. Because, again, it serves absolutely no function other than to impose arbitrary penalties and additional monthly costs for crossing the technically unnecessary boundaries.

And, mysteriously, when wireless broadband providers begin offering fixed wireless services over 5G services in limited areas, Cox lifts the restrictions completely to compete:

"With unlimited home wireless broadband from T-Mobile and Verizon starting to take a dent out of Cox Communications’ customer base, the cable operator is shoring up a defensive position by waiving its arbitrary data cap for existing customers signed up for gigabit speed service in select areas...The fact Cox is willing to waive its own arbitrary data cap for marketing and competition reasons further demonstrates that artificial limits imposed on internet service have nothing to do with congestion, “fairness,” or network management."

The problem, of course, is that 5G wireless competition isn't consistently available, and won't be for millions of Americans deemed too unprofitable to adequately serve. 83 million Americans live under a broadband monopoly that sees no competitive pressure. And whereas in a functioning market regulators would then step in to either regulate prices or embrace policies that drive more competition to market, the U.S. generally suffers from regulatory capture (aka doing whatever the regional and politically powerful telecom monopolies want). As a result, the U.S. remains mired in mediocrity in nearly every meaningful broadband metric except one: we exceed at charging U.S. consumers way more than the global developed nation average.

Like net neutrality violations, privacy violations, high prices, and terrible customer service, arbitrary, confusing, and punitive broadband usage caps are just another symptom of limited competition. But the majority of both U.S. political parties not only haven't been doing anything to fix that problem, it's fairly rare you can get anyone to admit the very obvious problem is even real. Instead, we get some nebulous hand waving about the "digital divide," billions more in tax breaks, subsidies, and regulatory favors thrown at entrenched regional monopolies, and little substantive change.

Filed Under: broadband, competition, data caps, network management

Public Backlash Leads Tulsa Park To Stop Bullying Coffee Shop Over Trademark

from the going-public dept

A good public outcry and backlash can lead to many, many good things. We see it here at Techdirt all the time, particularly when it comes to aggressive bullying episodes over intellectual property. Some person or company will try to play IP bully against some victim, the public gets wind of it and throws a fit, and suddenly the necessity over the IP action goes away. Retailers, manufacturers, breweries: public outcry is a great way to end ridiculous legal actions.

A recent example of this comes out of Tulsa, OK, where a riverside park of all places decided it had to sue a coffee shop over a similar, if fairly generic, name. Gathering Place is a park in Tulsa, a... place... where people... you know... gather. The Gathering Place is a coffee shop in Shawnee, 90 miles from Tulsa, where people get coffee and, I imagine, occasionally gather. But despite any gathering similarities, coffee shops are not parks and 90 miles is a fairly long way away. Which makes a lawsuit over trademark infringement brought by the park very, very strange.

The lawsuit alleged the coffee shop "intentionally mimicked" the name of the park to unjustly benefit from its fame.

"This couldn’t be further from the truth," the coffee shop owners countered in a Facebook post. "It is hard to think that someone would actually be confused between a world renowned outdoor play space and a small local coffee shop located an hour and a half apart."

It appears the public very much agrees with the coffee shop owners, as many went online to register their displeasure over the lawsuit. Several thousand people also signed an online petition backing The Gathering Place.

Hundreds lashed out at the park on Facebook after the lawsuit was filed, with some vowing never to go there again.

"Shouldn't be suing PEOPLE. Especially mom and pop businesses. SHAME SHAME SHAME!" one critic commented on the park's Facebook page.

The result was fairly swift. Suddenly, both sides came together and entered one of those annoying settlements I complain about so much, where nobody gets to learn any details of the terms. What has been made public is that The Gathering Place has gotten a license from the park, Gathering Place, to continue to use its name. As the source post notes, often times these licensing arrangements come with some sort of money changing hands, but what that amount might be is anyone's guess. Given the size of The Gathering Place, you have to imagine it is fairly minimal.

Instead, the park probably witnessed the backlash and decided a quick exit is what was needed. Both to limit the legal costs of litigation as well as the cost to the reputation of the park due to the backlash by the public. Either way, I very much doubt this settlement would have been reached so quickly without the public outcry.

Filed Under: gathering place, public backlash, shawnee, trademark, tulsa
Companies: gathering place

LinkedIn Caves Again, Blocks US Journalists' Accounts In China

from the block-enough-accounts-and-it's-really-not-a-network,-is-it dept

LinkedIn -- the business-oriented social media platform owned by Microsoft -- has spent the last few years increasing its compliance with the Chinese government's demands for censorship. A couple of years back, the network drew heat for not only blocking accounts of Chinese pro-democracy activists but also critics of the government located elsewhere in the world.

The blocking only occurred in China, but that was enough to cause PR trouble for LinkedIn, which restored some of the accounts following some deserved backlash. The Chinese government didn't care much for LinkedIn's temporary capitulations so it turned up the heat. After failing to block enough content, the Chinese government ordered LinkedIn's local office to perform a self-audit and report on its findings to the country's internet regulator. It was also blocked from signing up any new Chinese citizens for 30 days.

The pressure appears to have worked. China is again asking for censorship of voices it doesn't like. And, again, LinkedIn is complying. Here's the report from Bethany Allen-Ebrahimian of Axios, who was one of those targeted by the latest round of account blocking.

LinkedIn blocked the profiles of several U.S. journalists from the company's China-based platform this week, citing "prohibited content." My account was one of the profiles affected.

[...]

LinkedIn customer service sent me an email on Sept. 27 stating that, due to "prohibited content" in the summary section of my profile, the company was blocking my profile from being viewable in China.

• Melissa Chan, a former China correspondent who now works as a journalist in Berlin, posted on Twitter that she had received a similar email on Sept. 28.

• Greg Bruno, the author of a book about China's soft-power push against Tibetans, also posted on Twitter on Sept. 28 that he had received an email from LinkedIn. It cited the "publications" section of his profile, in which the only publication listed is his book.

The Chinese government's ability to block foreign journalists from appearing on the local version of LinkedIn has drawn more attention to its censorship practices. But that's pretty much the thing that China does all the time, so it's hardly surprising it would seek to keep its citizens from interacting with people it doesn't approve of.

What's more disturbing is Microsoft/LinkedIn's compliance, which has drawn the attention of Senator Rick Scott, who is now asking the company to explain why it's helping China with its censorship.

The letter [PDF] from Scott makes some good points, but makes some of those points badly.

The censorship of these journalists raises serious questions about Microsoft’s intentions and its commitment to standing up against Communist China’s horrific human rights abuses and repeated attacks against democracy. These acts of censorship by your company, and the apparent broader Microsoft censorship policy of, “offering a localized version of LinkedIn in China,” is gross appeasement and an act of submission to Communist China.

That's a good point. The follow-up is a bit more self-serving.

While Microsoft is censoring journalists abroad, it is actively spreading misinformation domestically. In March 2021, Microsoft openly decried an election security law passed by the Georgia legislature which made it easier for Georgia residents to vote while reducing the possibility of fraud.

Meanwhile, your company has been silent on Communist China rigging its elections and General Secretary Xi declaring himself ruler for life. In the face of these true assaults on democracy, Microsoft is openly suppressing those who try to expose Xi’s authoritarian rule.

The election security law is really about voter suppression, something Rick Scott certainly isn't going to publicly acknowledge. This is some useless point scoring thrown in to make it appear Microsoft's opposition to this bill is on par with its acquiescence to authoritarian rulers in another part of the world.

Here's what the supposedly pro-democracy "election security" bill passed in Georgia actually does:

In Georgia, Governor Brian Kemp just signed into law a bill that adds many obstacles to voting, including reducing the number of ballot boxes, shrinking the window for early voting, adding additional photo ID requirements, and allowing state officials to circumvent the work of county election officials if they don’t like the outcomes they are seeing. The Georgia bill even goes so far as to make it illegal for outside groups to give water or food to voters stuck in long lines.

It's not about security. It's about making democracy accessible to those with the most resources and expendable time. So, that's some bullshit and Scott would have been better off sticking to chastising LinkedIn for carrying the Chinese government's censorship water rather than pretending his associates in Georgia are all about that democracy.

Scott does ask some good questions, though, which hopefully will generate some explanation for LinkedIn's decision to engage in proxy censorship to maintain access to a sizable number of Chinese users.

Is censorship of user views that are not aligned with the Chinese Communist Party a function of LinkedIn’s “localized version” of its platform in China?

How many accounts has LinkedIn censored because of content the Chinese Communist Party disliked, or that LinkedIn feared might upset Chinese Communist Party authorities?

Why does Microsoft choose to weigh in on domestic political matters, but stay silent on foreign political matters, and what is its decision-making process for speaking on political matters?

The last question is still a good one, even though Scott undercut this point earlier by claiming a voter suppression bill was actually an election security bill. And it could be that LinkedIn does weigh in on local issues in China. It's just that the Chinese government doesn't care what LinkedIn thinks and has offered the platform the option of complying or leaving.

So far, the answer is still compliance. And that's really not an acceptable tradeoff. American companies shouldn't willingly do business with authoritarians. Any compliance only affirms that the party holding the real power is the political party issuing the orders. Demands for censorship will only increase. And opening a local office pretty much guarantees the government will start demanding full access to Chinese residents' data and communications. If you cave on the easier stuff, you've got nothing left to stand on when they come for the rest of it.

Filed Under: censorship, china, content moderation, journalism
Companies: linkedin, microsoft

Prudish Mastercard About To Make Life Difficult For Tons Of Websites

from the content-moderation-at-the-financial-layer dept

For all the attention that OnlyFans got for its shortlived plan to ban sexually explicit content in response to "pressures" from financial partners, as we've discussed, it was hardly the only website to face such moderation pressures from financial intermediaries. You can easily find articles from years back highlighting how payment processors were getting deeply involved in forcing website to moderate content.

And the OnlyFans situation wasn't entirely out of nowhere either. Back in April we noted that Mastercard had announced its new rules for streaming sites, and other sites, such as Patreon, have already adjusted their policies to comply with Mastercard's somewhat prudish values.

However, as those new rules that were announced months ago are set to become official in a few days, the practical realities of what Mastercard requires are becoming clear, and it's a total mess. Websites have received "compliance packages" in which they have to set up a page to allow reports for potential abuse. In theory, this sounds reasonable -- if there really is dangerous or illegal activity happening on a site, making it easier for people to report it makes sense. But some of it is highly questionable:

The form features a checklist of clickable boxes that anyone visiting an adult site is encouraged to use to report what they believe to be “exposed personally identifiable information,” “impersonation,” “underage material,” “copyright/trademark infringement” and “spam" as well as “prostitution or trafficking,” “weapons,” “drugs” and “other.”

First off "prostitution" and "trafficking" are different things, and lumping them together is already somewhat problematic. As a webmaster explained to Xbiz, this seems to have come from "Morality in Media" -- a horrifically repressed group of prudish busybodies who renamed themselves the "National Center on Sexual Exploitation" (NCOSE) and who were a major force behind FOSTA, which they admitted was part of their plan to outlaw all pornography. Last year, we noted that the group had put a major focus on demanding credit card companies stop working with porn sites, and some of Mastercard's new rules are clearly designed to appease them.

“Groups like NCOSE are convinced that all adult content falls under ‘prostitution or trafficking,’” the webmaster noted. “This form is just encouraging them to bury us in paperwork that won’t accomplish anything.”

Not only that, but every such report is cc'd back to Mastercard, which seems bizarrely stupid. Of course, as we've seen with things like copyright takedowns, having the mechanism means that it will get abused. A lot. And then campaigners like NCOSE will try to use the number of "reports" (not proof of anything actually illegal) as proof of "illegal activity" and push for new regulations.

Also, the rules requiring the form to be linked from every page is likely to have much wider consequences as well:

The webmaster also noted that the form essentially forces all adult sites to add the words “underage material,” “prostitution or trafficking,” “weapons” and “drugs” to their metadata, which then puts them at risk of AI shadowbans or even state surveillance.

“I don’t want that metadata associated with my brands,” they protested.

As we've said in other situations, one of the big questions and concerns that comes about when infrastructure layer partners get into the content moderation game is that it matters how much competition there is the market. If websites could simply drop Mastercard maybe it wouldn't be such a big deal. But, unfortunately, right now, it's hard for a site that wants to accept payments to not work with Mastercard. Both it and Visa (and to a lesser extent, American Express) are basically required if you want to accept payments for anything. Perhaps that will change over time (and things like this might help drive that change). But in the meantime, it certainly appears that a disingenuous and dishonest campaign by a prudish group that hates pornography has convinced Mastercard to make life difficult on lots of websites.

Filed Under: adult content, content moderation, infrastructure, infrastructure moderation, payment processors, pornography, sex trafficking
Companies: mastercard

In Latest Black Eye For NSO Group, Dubai's King Found To Have Used NSO Spyware To Hack His Ex-Wife's Phone

from the slumming-it-as-a-service dept

NSO Group has endured some particularly bad press lately, what with leaked data pointing to its customers' targeting of journalists, political figures, religious leaders, and dissidents. That its powerful spyware would be abused by its customers was not surprising. Neither were the findings from the leaked data, which only confirmed what was already known.

Despite this, NSO continues to make contradictory claims. First, it says it has no control (or visibility) as to how its customers use its products -- customers that include some notorious abusers of human rights. Second, it says that it cuts off customers who abuse its products to target people who only annoy their governments, rather than directly threaten it with criminal or terrorist acts.

Well, it's either one or the other. And if NSO is waiting for secondhand reports about abusive deployments to act, it really shouldn't be in the intel business. If NSO wants to stay above the fray, it could start by being a lot more selective about who it sells to.

If you're not selective, your customers will not only pettily target people (critics, activists, journalists, dissidents) the government doesn't like but will move on to the extreme pettiness of targeting people certain government officials don't like.

This latest nadir for NSO Group comes courtesy of court proceedings, which illustrates the danger of putting powerful cellphone exploits in the hands of the wrong people.

Dubai's ruler Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum ordered the phones of his ex-wife and her lawyers to be hacked as part of a "sustained campaign of intimidation and threat" during the custody battle over their children, England's High Court has ruled.

Mohammed used the sophisticated "Pegasus" software, developed by Israeli firm NSO for states to counter national security risks, to hack the phones of Princess Haya bint al-Hussein, half-sister of Jordan's King Abdullah, and some of those closely connected to her, according to the rulings.

That's the sort of thing you can expect to happen when powerful hacking tools are given to people who have never proven they're capable of handling power responsibly. Adding to the irony is the fact that the King's ex was tipped off by the wife of Tony Blair, who used to work as an outside legal adviser for NSO Group.

Now that this has been exposed, NSO is finally ready to take action.

Once the hacking was uncovered, NSO cancelled its contract with the UAE, Haya's lawyers said. The Israeli firm said it could not immediately comment on the case, but said it took action if it received evidence of misuse of Pegasus.

Well, duh (to use a technical term). But if NSO is so supposedly "proactive" why even sell to the UAE at all? It's not as though it has a long, storied history of respecting rights, much less those possessed by women who also happen to have angered the king? While I understand it might be difficult to promise investors steadily-increasing returns if you choose not to sell to questionable entities, it seems like a long run of bad press and government investigations might have the same effect on the bottom line. Or maybe NSO's investors are just as unconcerned about its partnerships with abusive governments as it is. Whatever the case is, it's led NSO to where it is now: a company best known for giving oppressive governments even more oppression options.

Filed Under: dubai, hacking, malware, pegasus, princess haya bint al-hussein, sheikh mohammed bin rashid al-maktoum, spyware
Companies: nso group

Facebook's Nick Clegg Makes It Clear: If You're Looking To Undermine Section 230, That's EXACTLY What Facebook Wants

from the look-at-that-briar-patch dept

Facebook policy dude/failed UK politician Nick Clegg has written an op-ed for USA Today confirming what has been obvious to everyone who understands Section 230, but (for reasons I don't quite understand) seems obscured from basically every politician out there: >Facebook wants to destroy Section 230. And it's practically giddy that politicians are so eager to grant it its wish, while pretending that doing so will somehow hurt Facebook.

It remains absolutely bizarre to me that many people still believe that getting rid of Section 230 (or even reforming it) is a way to "stop" or "hurt" Facebook. Section 230 is a protection for the users of the internet more than it is for the companies. By making it clear that companies are not liable for user speech, it makes more websites willing to host user speech, especially smaller ones which could easily be sued out of existence. Indeed, over the last couple of years, it's become clear that Facebook desperately wants to kill Section 230 because it knows that it alone has enough money to handle the liability, and removing Section 230 will really only burden the startups that threaten to take users away from Facebook.

A year and a half ago, Mark Zuckerberg made it clear that he was cool with getting rid of Section 230. Earlier this year, he suggested a "reform proposal" that was effectively gutting 230 in extremely anti-competitive ways. And for months now, Facebook has blanketed DC (and elsewhere, but mostly DC) with commercials and ads that don't say Section 230, but refer obliquely to "comprehensive internet regulations" passed in "1996." That's Section 230 that they're talking about.

This is why it's so ridiculous that the takeaway of some people to the Facebook whistleblower last week was that Section 230 needs to change. That's exactly what Facebook wants, because it will cement Facebook's dominant position and make it that much more difficult for competitors to emerge or succeed.

Here's what Clegg had to say:

Much has been said about Facebook recently, but there’s one thing we agree on: Congress should pass new internet regulations.

We’ve been advocating for new rules for several years. For too long, many important issues have been left to private companies to decide.

Please regulate us! Facebook has stocked up on former politicians (like Clegg) and political operatives (like Joel Klein). It's not at all worried about a new regulatory regime. It knows that it will run any new regulatory regime. Facebook is not scared of the government. What Facebook is so obviously afraid of is new competitors drawing away its user base. When looked through this lens, Facebook would love regulations. It knows it can control the process, while it would burden all the up and coming startups that are stripping away Facebook's userbase.

We’ve argued for creating a new digital regulatory agency to navigate competing trade-offs in the digital space – much like the Federal Communications Commission oversees telecoms and media.

This is the key quote that proves that Facebook wants to do away with Section 230, though it may only be obvious to those who really know the history of Section 230. When Ron Wyden and Chris Cox wrote Section 230, it was explicitly done to prevent other politicians from creating a Federal Computer Commission to oversee internet companies. Here is what Chris Cox said during the floor debate over Section 230 as compared to alternative approaches, like that of Senator Exon (whose "Communications Decency Act" was later merged with Section 230, only to be thrown out as completely unconstitutional soon after):

Some have suggested, Mr. Chairman, that we take the Federal Communications Commission and turn it into the Federal Computer Commission, that we hire even more bureaucrats and more regulators who will attempt, either civilly or criminally, to punish people by catching them in the act of putting something into cyberspace.

Frankly, there is just too much going on on the Internet for that to be effective. No matter how big the army of bureaucrats, it is not going to protect my kids because I do not think the Federal Government will get there in time. Certainly, criminal enforcement of our obscenity laws as an adjunct is a useful way of punishing the truly guilty.

Note that there was "just too much going on on the Internet" in 1995 when this was said. Section 230 was the alternative proposal so that the FCC or any new agency would not regulate the internet. And here's Facebook saying that we need exactly that kind of agency? It's asking for the effective repeal of Section 230.

The rest of Clegg's article is just "please, sir, regulate us so we know what to do," behind a smirk that is obviously knowing how that will lock in Facebook not just as the power behind the regulator, but as the only company who can still survive in the space.

It’s long past time for Congress to set clear and fair rules. That’s how we’ll make the internet safer, while also ensuring that creativity and competition continue to thrive online.

Translation: it's long past time for Congress to make it so that Facebook is firmly established controlling the mechanisms of internet regulations, such that the competitors who are already eating away at our base of users cannot continue to compete.

Filed Under: fcc, internet regulations, nick clegg, section 230
Companies: facebook

Daily Deal: The 2022 Adobe Creative Cloud Training Bundle

from the good-deals-on-cool-stuff dept

The 2022 Adobe Creative Cloud Training Bundle has 7 courses to help you learn all about Adobe's creative software suite. You'll learn how to design apps in Adobe XD, how to master Photoshop, how to use animation in After Effects, how to design projects in Illustrator, and more. It's on sale for $30.

Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

Filed Under: daily deal

Google, Amazon, And Microsoft Are Using Third Party Companies To Sell Surveillance Tech To ICE, CBP

from the same-as-it-ever-was dept

A few years ago, tech companies stood up to the US government, issuing statements objecting to immigration policies instituted by the Trump Administration and, in some cases, threatening to pull contracts with ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) and the CBP (Customs and Border Protection).

It wasn't much of a stand, however. And whatever statements were issued by companies like Google, Microsoft, and Amazon were mainly prompted by hundreds of employees who wished to work for companies that didn't aid and abet in civil liberties violations, and ongoing mistreatment of immigrants and their families.

Whatever statements came out of the front end of these companies haven't been matched by the backend. According to a new report by Caroline Haskins for Business Insider, Google, Microsoft, and Amazon are still selling plenty of tech and software to ICE and CBP. They're just getting better at hiding it. (Alt link)

Amazon, Google, and Microsoft have repeatedly used a common tactic to sidestep public scrutiny and work with US immigration agencies, despite employee backlash and some company policies against doing such work.

This tactic, in which the companies use third parties or act as subcontractors to sell their technology, has helped these tech giants quietly secure dozens of cloud contracts with Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection, Insider has found.

The products provided range from innocuous bundling of office software to analytics and APIs that are integral parts of surveillance systems. The use of third party resellers keeps these companies' names from appearing in federal contracts, as well as allows them to sidestep internal protests and internal policies. Google, for instance, assured irate employees it would not assist the federal government with border surveillance. But use of third party contractors allows it to bypass the promises it made.

So much for taking a stand:

From 2015 to 2021, Amazon used third parties to sell its cloud services at least 16 times to ICE and CBP. Google used third parties to sell various cloud and professional tools at least 28 times to these agencies. Microsoft used third parties to sell its cloud services and software more than 200 times to immigration agencies from 2002 to 2021, in addition to selling to ICE and CBP directly more than 100 times.

Having briefly implied the status quo of selling to ICE and CBP was unacceptable, these companies quietly maintained the status quo by selling products via companies with far less-recognizable names like Panamerica Computers, Inc., Four Points Technology, LLC, and Systems Engineering Solutions.

And, while this reselling may not have been happening directly under these companies' noses, it's unlikely they were completely unaware the middlemen were securing contracts with these agencies to do the sorts of things company officials claimed they would no longer do. At best, there was an indifferent blindness. Contracts were signed with these companies and paper trails should have alerted them that their third-party partners were delivering tech to federal agencies. Employees spoken to by Haskins confirmed it's all but impossible to remain unaware of what third party partners are doing with tech and software because of this.

These companies haven't denied their indirect involvement in CBP and ICE border surveillance activities. But they also haven't denied any knowledge of this use of their products. "No comment" across the board.

The surveillance business is still booming, and ICE wants more of it. It has $300 million to spend on a new system it calls RAVEn (Repository for Analytics in a Virtualized Environment) -- one that will allow it to mine hundreds of thousands of documents for data in order to find people who aren't authorized to work in the United States. All three companies are likely to get a piece of that $300 million, at least indirectly.

People who attended the April industry-day event told Insider that companies like Amazon, Google, and Microsoft would probably use intermediaries rather than bid on the contracts directly.

Google "typically will not pursue as a prime on non-cloud opportunities because of the potential conflicts of interest with ALL the other companies they work with," a person who attended the industry day told Insider. "Google will only sub and they will be non-exclusive."

"AWS, MSFT and Google typically sell through their reseller partners," another person who attended the industry day told Insider.

Showing solidarity with employees doesn't mean much if you're willing to let intermediaries do the dirty work for you. The end result is identical. The only difference is it keeps Amazon's, Google's, and Microsoft's names out of the news whenever a new form of pervasive surveillance starts making the wrong kind of headlines.

Filed Under: cbp, ice, shell companies, surveillance
Companies: amazon, google, microsoft