Case: Wired for Repression One of the major issues that the Middle-Eastern uprisings brought to the forefront was the use of surveillance technologies employed by the governments of these nations. Countries such as Tunisia, Egypt, Iran, Bahrain, Syria and other such oppressive regimes practice and continue to proliferate this technology. Most of the technologies employed can be categorized as the following: • Mobile Tracking: this includes inception and storing of texts and calls, and can be viewed later on the basis of recipient, sender and content. • Internet Traffic: Which includes keyword based extraction of emails, access facebook accounts, change data and leave behind pornographic images. • Product Location: Geographic location identifier of a product (such as a laptop or a phone) with accuracy up to 15 seconds.

1. WIRED FOR REPRESSION
Submitted as part of the course on Ethics and Technology to Prof. Kenneth Foster
Young India Fellowship 2011-12
AmbeshTiwari
Mahesh Jakhotia
RishabhKaul
SandhyaIyer
ShashankShekharRai

2. Case: Wired for Repression
One of the major issues that the Middle-Eastern uprisings brought to the forefront was the use
of surveillance technologies employed by the governments of these nations. Countries such
as Tunisia, Egypt, Iran, Bahrain, Syria and other such oppressive regimes practice and
continue to proliferate this technology.
Most of the technologies employed can be categorized as the following:
Mobile Tracking: this includes inception and storing of texts and calls, and can be
viewed later on the basis of recipient, sender and content.
Internet Traffic: Which includes keyword based extraction of emails, access facebook
accounts, change data and leave behind pornographic images.
Product Location: Geographic location identifier of a product (such as a laptop or a
phone) with accuracy up to 15 seconds.
According to reporter Ben Elgim, the surveillance industry, which primarily comprises of
American and European firms, has estimated revenues ranging between 3-5 Billion USD per
annum.1
An illustration of how this global network works:monitoring was carried out in Iran to
determine the geographical positions of protesters or activists to capture and interrogate.
Iranian law enforcement officers were provided equipment by Ericsson AB, UK based Creativity
Software Ltd and Dublin-based Adaptive Mobile Securities Ltd. 2
1
Goss, T (2011, December 11). The Technology Helping Repressive Regimes Spy.Fresh Air on WHYY.Transcript
th
ofPodcast retrieved on 30 January, 2011 from
http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=143639670
2
Elgin,B&Silver,Vet al (2011, October 31) Iranian Police Seizing Dissidents Get Aid Of Western Companies.
Bloomberg http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-31/iranian-police-seizing-dissidents-get-aid-of-western-
companies.html

3. Take another case: In Syria, the entire mobile network is connected to a probing device
purchased from a Paris-based firm called Qosmos SA; along with appendages
from Germany’s UtimacoSafeware AG (USA) that is routed to a monitoring computer system
made by Aria SpA.Syria purchased its surveillance system from an Italian wiretapping
company, Aria s.p.A. Aria to construct this system, bought an archival systemfrom a US
company,NetApp, for close to 4 million USD. This mode of content checkhas resulted in
over 5000 people being killed in Syria so far.3 Upon asking of NetApp’s involvement in such
a network, NetApp denied any knowledge of how Aria planned on using their archival
systems, even though Elgin says that there were correspondence between NetApp and Aria
which indicated to the contrary.4 Also, NetApp couldn’t sell their system directly to Syria
since US laws stop any export containing more than 10% US manufactured goods to Syria5
The global networks in the surveillance industry are large enough that the industry has its
own trade shows every year dubbed as the “Wiratapping Ball”.6 Not open to the media or the
general public, the 2011 Ball in Washington DC was attended by over 1,300 delegates and
federal officers of different countries to witness the new developed technologies and find
avenues for purchase. Agenda of some of these meetings are published online, as was the
case with one such Ball in Dubai, which featured a session on how governments can
penetrate computers and cellphones of would-be targets as well as panels concerning the
infiltration and data mining from social networks like Facebook and Twitter.
3
Elgin, B &Silver,V. (2011, November 4). Syria Crackdown Gets Italy Firm’s Aid With U.S.-Europe Spy
Gear. Bloomberg http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-03/syria-crackdown-gets-italy-firm-s-aid-with-u-
s-europe-spy-gear.html
4
Goss, T (2011, December 11). The Technology Helping Repressive Regimes Spy.Fresh Air on WHYY.Transcript
th
ofPodcast retrieved on 30 January, 2011 from
http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=143639670
5
Syria Accountability Act (2004)
6
Goss, T (2011, December 11). The Technology Helping Repressive Regimes Spy.Fresh Air on WHYY.Transcript
th
ofPodcast retrieved on 30 January, 2011 from
http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=143639670

4. Ethical Analysis of the Case:
Elin Palm and Sven Ove Hansson in their paper7 discuss various parameters that stakeholders
of any technology development need to be cognizant of. An ethical analysis through these
parameters revealed that in this case major ethical issues were ignored both by the
government and the firms developing and selling the technologies. In this paper we discuss
some of these ethical issues surrounding the mobile location tracking technology:
1. Dissemination and use of information: The case takes into account the countries
where gross misuse of the technology took place. The concern with the dissemination
of information is placed on two key aspects of dissemination – dissemination of
information about the deployment of the technology for surveillance and the
dissemination of information regarding the terms of the usage of the technology. In
this case the citizens were unaware of the deployment and subsequently unaware of
the use or misuse of the mobile tracking technology. Hence there was no way for the
targeted population to control the way these technologies disseminate highly sensitive
personal or professional information.
2. Control, Influence and Power: Through the use of such surveillance technologies the
government was able to exercise coercive control, influence and power. Palm and
Hansson talk of the ethical conflict that arises out the accessibility of the technology
and we believe that the costs of these technologies leave the citizen at the mercy of
the government.
3. Privacy: Every sort of surveillance is intertwined with concern regarding the privacy
of those under surveillance. We submit that under the given circumstances of
international terrorism and heightened concerns regarding the national security, the
7
Palm, E and Hansson, S.O (2006) The Case for Ethical Technology Assessment, Technological Forecasting &
Social Change 73 (pp.543-558)

5. tracking of mobile phones to locate the position of any given target may be important.
But an important call, from the point of ethics, is whether this technology should be
used to identify the targets or should it used to track previously identified targets. In
the above case the technology was used to identify the targets which meant the whole
population was under surveillance and the privacy of every citizen was put at risk.
We also tested the case on the counts of certain basic theories of ethics. The utilitarian
concepts suggest that the stakeholders should act in ways that result in the greatest good for
the greatest number of people. This brings in the question the final use of the technology and
how location tracking could become oppressive. While it has been seen in many cases that
such technology has helped prevent attacks, the ethics demand that it must be used sparingly.
Hence taking forward the privacy argument, we would like to argue that location tracking is
suitable only to track the previously identified targets.
On the other hand Tom L. Beauchamp and James F. Childress8 quote Kant to define the
categorical imperative as, “I ought never to act except in such a way that I can also will that
my maxim becomes a universal law.” Quite clearly, whatever transpired in some of the
countries through location tracking devices and technologies would not be acceptable in
democracies across the world. The question is what sort of a use of such technology would fit
the bill of a universal law. Disclosure of information to the citizens regarding the deployment
of such technology by the government would be a starting point.
Texas Instruments provides for a basic ethics test9 and one of the questions that the test asks
is if the act is legal. The simplistic nature of the question should take nothing away from the
fact that its relevance is lost especially when there are no strict legal provisions and
regulations guiding the act. While the law governing the international trade practices might
8
Beauchamp, T.L. and Childress, J.F. (2009)Principles of Biomedical Ethics (pp. 345, Para 1), Oxford UP
9
http://www.ti.com/corp/docs/company/citizen/ethics/quicktest.shtml; visited on 01/31/2012 at 03:45 hrs IST

6. seem comprehensive, in this case it proved to be insufficient. So while American companies
may be barred from trading with Syria, the Italian companies are not and the trade can very
conveniently take the extended route. As per the guidelines10of the United Nations for
business and human rights, a company must avoid selling products to the regimes which
would result in human rights violations. Hence, should it be the prerogative of the company
developing or selling the technology to ensure that no misuse of the technology takes place?
Or should the developer be only responsible for keeping up with the ethics of a researcher
thereby ensuring no unethical means are adopted while developing the technology? While
ethics may quite clearly hold the company responsible for overriding the latter question, the
former raises an interesting issue of the limited liability of the company and how far can this
liability be extended. We explore the question further in this paper.
The Ethical Question Considered:
When a technology company sells a product to a buyer, do they cease to be accountable for
the usage of that product?
We tackle this question from various angles, which are all segregated by various sub
headings.
Legal Test
Legally once a technology is sold to a buyer, the product no longer belongs to the company
and is not the property of the buyer and he is the sole responsible entity.
Non Maleficence:
10
Ruggie,J (2011, March 21)Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the
United Nations “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework

7. Companies seldom manufacture products independent of other companies. A company that is
making a surveillance system will source individual components from various companies and
will finally assemble it. In most cases, even the assembly requires other organizations. In
such a situation, when companies are selling any product to a buyer (which could be another
company), they need to have a strict code, which enumerates what are the sort of activities it
deems permissible. We would imagine that if NetApp realized that a company (Aria spA in
this case) buying their archival systems were using it to create products that were causing a
serious human rights infringement (as defined by NetApp’s code), they would black list the
company and cease all business with them. This is to ensure that NetApp protects its image as
a provider of technology which fosters human well-being rather than directly hamper it. This
point appeals to the concept of non-maleficence, which we believe is an important
characteristic for any technology organization.
The professional ethics test:
Also, high-technology companies, in general adhere to their professional code of conduct. In
the case of the surveillance industry, the IEEE standards would be applicable to most of the
companies that are directly or indirectly involved in the technology aspect of this industry.
According to the IEEE code of conduct, members of IEEE are expected:
to accept responsibility in making decisions consistent with the safety, health, and
welfare of the public, and to disclose promptly factors that might endanger the public or
the environment;11
and
to avoid real or perceived conflicts of interest whenever possible, and to disclose them to
affected parties when they do exist;12
11
Professional Activities(2011, November 21). Part A - IEEE Policies. Section 7.8

8. Based on these codes, technology companies when confronted with a situation where their
products or services are used to achieve means which “endanger the public or the
environment”, dispassionate professional members of the IEEE would expect these
companies to cease such business relations. While not explicitly stated, we as a team believe
that these guidelines apply to the indirect consequences of the firm’s products as well. The
reason we do so is because the products enables the user to cause the consequences.
Values
As a group, we believe that the core tenets of the values are: Integrity, Excellence, Autonomy
and Beneficence.
Integrity would expect companies to be upfront about their intentions and in-case they do end
up violating any of their code of ethics (either the companies or the IEEE’s), we would
expect the company making these technologies to come clean about their activities.
Excellence demands not only the excellence of the product but also of the character of the
organization. In accordance with that, we would expect the organization to come up with
strict criteria for what they consider ethical practices (in addition to legal practices, which are
anyways the bare minimum ethical standardsthat each company should maintain). Adding,
we would consider that ethical organizations, while might not be accountable for the victims
of the consequences of the usage of their technology, in the case some catastrophe were to
take place (even by some other organization that were using its equipment), we would expect
it to apply the beneficence principle and help out by providing assistance in a way which is
deemed fit.
12
Professional Activities (2011, November 21). Part A - IEEE Policies. Section 7.8

9. If you do it, will you feel bad?
Personally, if we were collectively running an enterprise, keeping notions of profitability
aside, we would feel indeed feel bad if we noticed that our products were used for harming
the society. This would be the case not only from a humanistic perspective, but also from the
perspective of the promoters of the corporation. We say this because, we understand that
when issues of public harm come into the picture, media and the public are quick to associate
the related entities with the event. In this case, we would like to make our stand clear. The
stand should be that “yes, we sold our components to a user who didn’t know how to use our
product in the most productive way and that we’re deeply sorry for not carrying out a more
rigorous due diligence”
How will it look in the newspaper?
We presume that it will create a divided opinion. We feel that there would be a section of the
society which would agree with the stand. However, we expect a larger society to use a moral
argument saying that the company should keep a track of how its technology is being used
and in this way, is in some way accountable for how the buyer is using the technology.
Kant’s Categorical Imperative: Act in such a way that the action taken under the
circumstances could be a universal law, or rule of behavior.
Applying the categorical imperative to this situation will lead to a world where every
company is shunning away accountability. The way this happens is that, the company making
a particular technology despite being aware of the various uses of its technology still sells its
products to a buyer and decides that no matter what the buyer does with this technology, the
company will in no way interfere. This would lead to a world where one can get rid of
responsibility by merely “selling” it off.

10. Using all these criteria, we feel that the answer to the ethical question posed by us is that,
while it is tough for the company to be accountable for every usage of its technology by the
buyer, the company should always keep in mind the various uses of its technology and keep
an eye for who uses it in what manner, either by a rigorous due diligence, or by having a
monitoring/feedback system. While it might be tough for the company to formally be
accountable, it must strive to be responsible, by maintaining the highest standards of ethical
conduct. This means that, it must be portray integrity and transparency in the cases, where it
realizes that its technology has been used inappropriately. It must also offer full cooperation
to the legal system if and when its technology causes any sort of public/environment harm.