Comments on: Cyberwar Iran 2009: Part XV – The Iran-Siemens Affair

By: shirin

shirin — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 19:42:04 +0000

A murderer comes to your door and asks for a knife to kill some one. you sell him the knife. who is responsible. you just pathetically try to survive if all of us are illiterate, ignorance and have childish thoughts what do you think of US congress? Germans, it is not your first time you sold Chemical weapons to Iraq during Iran Iraq war. you are filthy greedy.

By: Fritz

Fritz — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 17:39:10 +0000

Siemens have always been proud of there excellent services of intercepting communications in a lawful way for dictators. Just ask the widows of French freedom fighters during WWII, that had there rendezvous with destiny with the help of high quality German signint equipment.

By: Ariel

Ariel — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 17:23:13 +0000

Robyn,

Thank you for your question.

Yes, it is true. Not only the quantity, but also the direction of most data and the type of data.
The only way I can think of to bypass this is via regular computers. Short traffic bursts won’t work…

Ariel

By: robyn

robyn — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 16:26:36 +0000

One of the main twitterers reporting on events in Iran has been told government can moniter amount of phone usage to figure out if they are constantly using internet, and therefore come after them.
Is this true?
Are their any ways around, besides very short posts?

By: Diederik

Diederik — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 13:16:17 +0000

Dear Ariel,

We make a similar analysis at http://network-labs.org/2009/06/should-we-believe-nokiasiemensnetwork’s-denials/ but we also focus on how NSN presents itself as a highly ethical company and how it uses language to obfuscate the implications of its systems.
Best regards,
Diederik

By: SGB

SGB — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 08:22:37 +0000

Ariel, I apologize for inadvertently using the holocaust as an example.

The question is not so much who will abuse technology or how they will abuse it. I think we should just assume the worst and then ask the more important question — “what recourse does the abused individual have?”

In a true democracy, citizens have constitutional protections and access to a strong legal system for defending themselves. In repressive countries like Iran, you have very little recourse if the government has already decided that you are a criminal or a traitor. Frequently, people just “disappear”. No trial, no jury, no nothing.

Nokia-Siemens must have known that in Iran, the potential for abuse was extremely high and legal protections for individuals were superficial at best. In my opinion, they weighed the pros and cons and decided that this deal was too good to pass up. And if they hadn’t sold the technology to the mullahs, someone else would have.

By: Ariel

Ariel — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 03:09:53 +0000

Very good point, Shekhar. This is one of the reasons I high-lighted the possibility of dual use. I wonder how many companies can be pointed at for selling dual-use items/technologies to Iran, Iraq, Syria, North Korea, China and other current-flavor-of-the-month axis-related term. The difficulty here is to predict what COULD be done with the technology or item.

As I am Jewish, the gas-chamber metaphor hits home very sharply. I simply do not have an answer . Is it reasonable to demand that Nokia-Siemens would have thought their tools could be used for such purposes? And if so, what makes Iran more (or less) likely to be defined as an “abuser”, whereas a more “western” country would seem more benign performing the same actions.

By: SGB

SGB — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 02:56:44 +0000

” The responsibility for any repressive use of the tools which are entirely normal for performance monitoring and typical law enforcement lies entirely on the shoulders of the Iranian government.”

Let’s say that you own a business that manufactures industrial furnaces. These furnaces are legitimately used to power factories or heat homes. They can also be used to build gas chambers to efficiently murder innocent men, women and children. Would you sell these furnaces to a regime that you strongly suspect will use them to build gas chambers? And if you did choose to sell them, would you be (at least partly) responsible for the death of those innocent people?

Denying the use of dual-use technology to repressive regimes is neither a novel nor a rare concept. It happens everyday. Unfortunately, in most cases, this has to be enforced via legislation, because corporations cannot be trusted to set aside profits and do the right thing.

By: gds

gds — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 17:33:33 +0000

These are in fact dual-use items. The US has uni-lateral controls on the export of such items, requiring an export license to ALL countries. Can be found in the US Commerce Control List, section:
5A980 – Devices primarily useful for the surreptitious interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications; and parts and accessories therefor.

By: Ariel

Ariel — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 13:37:58 +0000

Thank you for correcting me. I appreciate it!