06.07.15

Süddeutsche Zeitung Article About the EPO’s Investigation Unit and Control Risks Group

Posted in Europe, Patents at 3:51 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: ‘Storm in the Glasshouse’, an article from one week ago in the German media (covering Control Risks being given taxpayers’ money to protect mischievous management)

AN ARTICLE from Süddeutsche Zeitung was mentioned the other day because it covered the EPO‘s reliance on spies to intimidate staff and journalists (Control Risks involvement is confirmed by the EPO). We now have the collection of translations [PDF] from SUEPO’s Web site and here is the article in English:

31 May 2015, 19:06

Storm in the Glasshouse

The European Patent Office won’t settle down. New internal memos, directed against staff representatives, are causing a stir. The in-house investigation department is said to be understaffed, and word has it that crisis-management specialists are to be brought in from London to look into accusations of bullying.

By Katja Riedel

The law gazette Juve isn’t given to using excitable language, so if Juve compares the crisis at the European Patent Office (EPO) with storm front Niklas over Munich, then it’s obviously taking the situation seriously. There has indeed been a storm brewing for many months in the glass building on the bank of the Isar, and it looks as if a very brief break in the weather has already come to an end.

“Social dialogue” is what they called the round of peace talks ordered by the chief executive body, when the President of the Office, Benoît Battistelli, and representatives of the union Suepo, up to now not officially recognized, were supposed to start talking to each other. This dialogue, which was supposed to end not only with conflicts resolved but also with the union being formally recognized, now appears to have gone on the rocks again, after just the second meeting, held last Thursday. That, at least, is how the staff representatives see things. Smoke screening, a marketing ploy for the President – word has it that nothing else came of the talks, and nothing else is to be expected. On the other hand, the Office, at least according to its spokesman Rainer Osterwalder, is hoping that the path to discussions will not be closed again, having hardly been open. People had been hoping for a great deal from the talks.

The Administrative Council, on which representatives of the 38 Member States sit, had called for this dialogue, because the conflict between personnel and management has been damaging the function and image of the EPO for a long time. The Office is facing great changes, but for more than a year the staff representatives have been protesting loudly about Battistelli’s plans for reform. The reforms are supposed to enhance the efficiency of patent examinations, and that has in fact been achieved. The productivity of the patent examiners is said to have risen by 16 percent in the first three months of the year. The Member States are benefitting from this. Germany has apparently received 140 million Euros from the profits achieved by the EPO, according to the staff union. Protecting intellectual property is an attractive prospect for the individual states – and the more patents that are issued, the more lucrative it gets.

Anonymous accusations, defamations and threats piling up

For the staff, the reforms are bringing about a lot of changes, such as a new, performance-based career system; this involves checks and balances for the employees, and they are protesting about them. Anyone not turning up for work because of illness, for example, gets deductions from their salary. The staff are afraid that the pressure on the patent examiners may well lead to more patents, but that quality is going to suffer. This concern has recently been voiced not only by the people at the Office; patent attorneys are getting worried too.

The fact that the mood at the EPO has deteriorated so much can also be attributed to the internal activities of what is known as the Investigation Unit, a body which looks into accusations against members of staff, for example due to bullying. Any staff member can make these accusations against colleagues and superiors, which results in the taking of statements from witnesses, and only at the end do the accused get a chance to be heard. Over the past few months this unit has had a lot to do, with the anonymous accusations, defamations, and threats piling up.

One particular scandal has sprung up over a ban on entering the premises which Battistelli has imposed on a judge who is actually an independent operative. Battistelli suspected him of being the originator of these kinds of letters, and kicked him out – for reasons of securing evidence, according to the President. The judge can in fact only be suspended by the Administrative Council, as the highest executive body, and they only approved the action after it had been carried out. This was followed by a storm of indignation, but Battistelli has stuck to his guns. Now a new internal investigation is under way, which again is causing a stir, and promises to be anything but promising with regard to the peace discussions which were agreed on. This investigation is directed specifically against staff representatives. Which of them have been named is not yet known. Witnesses are already being heard in pursuit of accusations of bullying, and those accused have still not been approached. The unit is bringing in help for the new investigation. Because the in-house team is said to be understaffed, an outside company has been asked to assist, says EPO spokesman Osterwalder. The people concerned are said to be the London-based Control Risks Group, who carry out investigations on an international level, and who, in their own words, “help organizations with political and security risks in complex and hostile environments”. Real crisis specialists, in other words. It was not the President, but the department itself which chose this company, as EPO spokesman Osterwalder is keen to emphasise. Battistelli himself is apparently not informed of the contents of such investigations, and any staff member can make a report and set an investigation in motion. It is only when the facts have been determined that the President decides on disciplinary measures.

But that’s small solace for the union representatives who may have been accused, and who are still supposed to be negotiating with him about social peace.

Icy climate in the European Patent Office: Behind the bright façade, the path to discussions between staff and management is proving to be very rocky indeed.

There is a lot more coming about the Control Risks Group affair. We have more to show in days to come, so stay tuned. █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

06.06.15

How Microsoft Squashed Free/Open Source Software in Voting Systems in the United States

Posted in America, Free/Libre Software, Windows at 6:41 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Insecure-by-design systems a misfit in any democracy

Summary: Microsoft is interfering with efforts to put Free/Open Source software in voting machines, ensuring that these machines continue to have back doors (Windows)

THE presence of Microsoft lobbyists is global/universal. We recently wrote about how Microsoft had successfully squashed Free/Open Source software-leaning rules in India, just like in Chile last year. Microsoft lobbying was done also by proxy and in the UK we found out that Microsoft was blackmailing British politicians, as recently as weeks ago. Microsoft is just a bully like that. Given its influence in the United States government, we expect much of the same in the US, if not more and worse.

“Microsoft lobbying in this area is a scarcely explored topic.”Microsoft wages war on politics in all sorts of ways, sometimes through lobbyists, sometimes through ‘former’ staff, pseudo ‘charities’ like the Gates Foundation, and pressure groups like the Business Software Alliance.

Today we present information given to us courtesy of the California Association of Voting Officials. They complain about Microsoft lobbyists and they have expressed an interest in aligning for global issues, for they too realise that Microsoft cannot be ignored if society wants fair elections and ultimately pursues voting machinery that can be trusted.

Microsoft lobbying in this area is a scarcely explored topic. There is very little information about it out there, hence we hardly ever covered the topic. It is widely known, however, that voting machines in the US use Windows, which has back doors and therefore can never be trusted, with or without tampering by a human operator. Putting Windows in voting machines gives plenty of leeway for mischief, especially by those with simpler access to the back doors. Consider, for instance, how Korean spies (the KCIA) famously meddled in South Korea’s elections.

At the early stages of research for the article we were trying to see or at least understand the relation Microsoft lobbyists have to voting machines. We have hardly heard of that before. There is a lot to it other than today’s proposed solutions being “open source”, which is probably where Microsoft lobbyists come in. Somehow, despite public will to induce transparency, accountability, audits etc. on the process, decades later we are still so heavily dependent on a proprietary, secretive system (or set thereof). Politics being determined by such a system (secret formula) won’t inspire public confidence. It breeds abuse and corruption and leads to reminiscing of the events in Florida 15 years ago (when George Bush got ‘elected’).

“We put open source language into voting system legislation,” told us someone from the California Association of Voting Officials, “and the Microsoft lobbyists have it removed.

“This must be stopped as OS voting systems are a preferred security environment for vote tabulation… the alternative being Diebold/ Dominion / Microsoft etc.”

We asked for additional information so that we can present it in an article, specifying what they have done and who has done it. Here is what we got:

The head attorneys for President Obama’s election report ( which omitted open source voting system solutions even though the information was gifted to them ) work for firms that lobby and / or represent Microsoft / Bob Bauer of Perkins Coie and Ben Ginsburg of Pattons Boggs /Jones Day

http://electionlawblog.org/?p=50792

Nate Persily was tasked with presenting the President with all information.. but inexplicably failed to include any reference to open source in the report. When asked about this omission – and possible steps to remedy ( addendum etc ) Persily went silent.

No members of the Presidential Committee were responsive..

In California — which is the frontline of the battle for open source voting systems in the USA — the lobbyist for the California Association of Clerks and Elected Officials
Barry Brokaw- http://sacramentoadvocates.com/brokaw.html is also the lobbyist for Microsoft . –This may explain why the CACEO has been blocking efforts toward publicly owned General Public License voting system in California

US congressman Rush Holt’s bill 811 https://votingmatters.wordpress.com/from-rep-rush-holts-website-about-hr-811/ had open source included .. but it was mysteriously taken out – apparently at the direction of MS lobbyists and Verified Voting . Verified Voting is headed by David Dill – a Stanford Professor with Silicon Valley / Microsoft ties .. Verified Voting also employs Sarah Grootius Vilms from Patton Boggs as a lobbyist

A few days ago Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced she was filing a lawsuit in Ohio to challenge their voting laws .. but her legal team is again led by attorneys from Perkins Coie — and there was no mention of tabulation or software. We have again contacted them to request their attention to that part of proper election reform

Also a bit more of the story– There is a group called OSET ( Open Source Election Technology ) that is attempting to sell bogus software that is NOT open source as it purports to be.. per the Open Source Initiative standards,, They call it ‘ open Public license “– It is ” open -washing ” and very dangerous — They are trying to sell it to US jurisdictions

Mitch Kapor is the owner of OSET — He previously owned Lotus – KC Brandscomb was Mitch Kapor’s CEO at Lotus — and is married to IDEO’s Kelly IDEO recently received a 15 million dollar sole source contract from Los Angeles County , CA for a design that Alan Dechert and Open Voting Consortium gifted L.A. for free years back ( a ballot printing system.)

KC’s brother Harvie is now heading up efforts toward election reform in Colorado– Colorado is going toward a uniform system . and Harvie would appreciate OSET ” kinda sorta ” OS being used.. especially since Colorado is being heralded as the model by CA

http://archive.fortune.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1996/06/10/213266/index.htm

This is “all public info,” explained our source, but “attribution should be given to the California Association of Voting Officials — not for the information provided — but rather for our efforts toward open source voting solutions.”

We have meanwhile noticed new efforts to exclude Free/Open Source “In Many Situations” [1], based on Wikileaks’ disclosure of the TISA Agreement (in current form). Forbes has just explained that it is “clearly something that the many lobbyists from the likes of Microsoft will have wanted to see included.” [2]

“Legislative capture via government mandates would be great,” explained our source, “but that is the holy grail and not presently considered achievable in the USA, so this is no shock. Secret agreements are certainly bad though.”

If any of our readers are aware of Microsoft intervention in Free/Open Source voting legislation in any other country, please let us know. It is almost definitely done elsewhere, but finding evidence of it is the hard part. Mirosoft itself has been rigging votes, not just voting systems. █

Related/contextual items from the news:

1. TISA Agreement Might Outlaw Governments From Mandating Open Source Software In Many Situations

   Now, this is nowhere near complete — it is “bracketed text” which is still being negotiated, and Colombia already opposes the text. Also, some may argue that the second bullet point, which says it only applies to “mass market” software and not “critical infrastructure” software solves some of these issues. Finally, some might argue that this is reasonable if looked at from the standpoint of a commercial provider of proprietary software, who doesn’t want to have to cough up its source code to a government just to win a grant.

   But, if that language stays, it seems likely that any government that ratifies the agreement could not then do something like mandate governments use open source office products. And that should be a choice those governments can make, if they feel that open source software is worth promoting and provides better security, reliability and/or cost effectiveness when compared to proprietary software. That seems tremendously problematic, unless you’re Microsoft.

2. Leaked Draft Trade Agreement Could Threaten Open Source Deployment

   But another section also caught my eye, and indeed it seems that it could make things very difficult for governments that are prioritizing open source.

   The offending paragraph, proposed by Japan, reads: “No Party may require the transfer of, or access to, source code of software owned by a person of another Party, as a condition of providing services related to such software in its territory.”

   This is clarified with: “For purposes of this Article, software subject to paragraph 1 is limited to mass-market software, and does not include software used for critical infrastructure.”

   This certainly makes some sort of sense. It means countries can’t require companies based abroad to hand over their source code, and is clearly something that the many lobbyists from the likes of Microsoft will have wanted to see included.

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

EPO and Administrative Council Stall Criticism by Pretending to Negotiate With Staff Whilst Actually Attacking It

Posted in Europe, Patents at 5:54 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

The goal of censoring critics

Summary: Benoît Battistelli and his ilk are not actually interested in making changes, only in silencing their critics

AT THE increasingly disgraced EPO, not much publicly happened in the month of May (and much of the prior month) because staff representatives tried a more diplomatic approach, assuming (quite wrongly) that EPO management would accept and formally recognise staff participation in decision making, workers’ rights, etc. Things may be just about to explode again because the staff aren’t having/tolerating any of the management’s pretenses of concessions, especially not when the management preys on staff and European media. The EPO seems to have opted for delaying tactics (giving the impression of negotiation) while nasty, shady, and privatised (state-connected) spies stab staff in the back.

Many IP addresses are being blocked this week due to DDOS attacks on Techrights; we have reasons for assuming it’s related to EPO coverage (we have a lot more coming about EPO management), for reasons we explained before [1, 2, 3, 4].

According to SUEPO’s site: “The last tri-partite meeting (Administrative Council/Office/Unions) on Union recognition took place on 28 May. Neither the Office nor the Administrative Council (AC) have given any indication that they intend to involve SUEPO in any form of serious collective bargaining.

“The EPO also refuses to stop investigations against staff and union representatives launched during the talks on unions recognition.”

Here is the statement issued in PDF form:

Unions Recognition Talks

going nowhere as slowly as possible

The last tri-partite meeting (Administrative Council + Office + Unions) on Union recognition took place on 28 May.

As was foreseeable from the talks during the two preparatory meetings between the Unions and the Administration (Office), the EPO refuses:

- to stop investigations against staff and union representatives launched during the talks on unions recognition;
- to accept basic principles for (mandatory) dispute resolution in case of disagreement between management and unions, or non-compliance with agreements signed;
- to provide unions with the minimal resources needed;
- to revisit urgently recently introduced reforms (Careers & Performance management, Sick leave & invalidity);
- to apply best practices (in spite of statements to the contrary by Mr Kongstad in the kick-off meeting);

Meanwhile, neither the Office nor the Administrative Council (AC) have given any indication that they intend to involve SUEPO in any form of serious collective bargaining.

Neither Mr Battistelli nor Mr Kongstad (Council Chairman) is serious about recognizing Unions as social partners. Sweet talk and communication spins cannot hide the truth, which is: their alleged overture towards unions is nothing but a disingenuous fig leaf to buy time and favour with the AC delegations.

In these circumstances, time has come to reassert unambiguously the claims granted by the Dutch Court of Appeal in its ruling of 17 February 2015, and fight for proper means of enforcement which, if proven unavailable, will place all the member states under liability for violation of fundamental rights.

SUEPO Central

Why is the EPO’s management being given the benefit of the doubt, especially given its appalling track record? This management is not only disliked by staff (many of whom go on strike), but also patent practitioners, such as patent lawyers. As IP Kat put it yesterday: “European Inventor Award survey… Award is not viewed as a particularly useful or attractive event by a large proportion of people who spend their time and practise their skills in the social media’s IP space.” (context here)

IP Kat also wrote about patent reform in Europe, noting: “Following an update by Margot Fröhlinger (Principal Director, EPO) on the unitary patent and unified patent court, the EPLIT meeting turned to issues concerning the draft Rules on the European Patent Litigation Certificate, the unclear and potentially unfair rules on “grandfathering” of practitioners without litigation certificates in the representation of clients before the new courts, the assessment of court fees based on the estimated value of the litigation [to this Kat, such an assessment sounds like a perfect recipe for a headache], the recoverability of costs and the training of technically qualified judges.”

Nowadays, the media, politicians, many of the patent practitioners, patent examiners and obviously scientists are all upset at the EPO. Why would anyone still give Benoît Battistelli and his ilk another chance? It is a waste of time and it gives these thugs an opportunity to silently attack the opposition while everything looks calm. There is a very rogue element at the top and it needs to be eliminated; compromises don’t lead anywhere because Battistelli isn’t man of compromise (he threatened to resign over this very idea). █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

EPO Officially Confirms That It Specifically Hired Control Risks Group (CRG) to Spy on Journalists and Their Sources

Posted in Europe, Patents at 5:27 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Previous article from the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, regarding Benoît Battistelli and EPO suicides

Summary: The European Patent Office (EPO) acknowledges when asked by the German media that it has hired a military-connected privatised spying giant

WE NOW know that it was John Martin’s department which made the decision to relay taxpayers’ money to notorious London-based spies (attacking journalism). British embezzlement? This funneling of funds should prove controversial at the very least. The EPO is now bullying critics, including the media.

The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung wrote about the EPO before. It again mentioned the latest scandal the other day. Now we have the collection of translations [PDF]. Here it is in English:

Crisis management experts are snooping around the EPO

The European Patent Office has hired the private “global risk consultants” Control Risks to deal with allegations of mobbing. At the same time, it is the process of conducting talks with staff unions aimed at restoring “social peace”.

Munich, 1st June 2015. For a number of weeks now, opposing parties at the European Patent Office (EPO) in Munich have attempted to engage in a “social dialogue”.

On the one hand, there is the EPO President Benoît Battistelli, a Frenchman who is said to be characterised by an autocratic leadership style; on the other hand, there are the staff union officials who hope to finally achieve recognition within the European organization which has 38 member states and enjoys immunity due to its supranational character.

In April, Battistelli and the Administrative Council of the EPO met with staff members represented by the Staff Union (IGEPA/SUEPO). After initially breaking the ice, they agreed to continue talks in order to arrive at a consensus (as reported in the FAZ on 25 April).

But storm clouds appear to be gathering on the horizon again. Shortly after this historical meeting which ended on such a hopeful note, some strangers called at the Patent Office beside the Isar and started to take a closer look. These were representatives of a British company called Control Risks Group (CRG). Control Risks is a privately held company which describes itself as “a global risk consultancy”. It offers advice on economic risks and assists companies, organisations and governments with the analysis of political risks and security solutions and supports managements in the elimination of operational risks. CRG is supposed to help the Internal Audit department of the EPO with the investigation of allegations of mobbing.

The services of these British experts are also very much in demand in situations such as those encountered in Third World countries which involve dealing with problems that cannot be easily resolved using conventional means. Control Risks has even made a name for itself in Germany. It is said to be the company that allegedly spied on journalists on behalf of Deutsche Telekom in order to identify contact persons inside the company who were involved in leaking information to external parties.

“The selection of CRG by the competent department was made in the course of a procurement procedure,” said a spokesman for the EPO. The competent department was the Internal Audit and Oversight department of the EPO whose Director is Mr. John Martin.

It was confirmed that only this department and not the President was involved in the decision. As part of the reforms introduced by Battistelli who assumed office in 2010, an internal investigation unit which operates in a substantially independent manner to protect its staff was established [as part of the Internal Audit and Oversight department].

In 2014, the Internal Audit department dealt with 68 complaints, for example cases involving mobbing, bullying, employment law violations or other misconduct by staff out of a workforce of 4,300 employees.

Although the number of complaints declined by 23 percent compared to 2013, Mr. Martin justified the move [to hire external investigators] as follows: “Because the EPO Investigative Unit is rather small in terms of staffing, we need to be able to contract external companies to support our fact-finding enquiries.”

However, the fact that it was Control Risks which was selected has – to put it mildlycaused “indigestion” in some quarters inside the EPO. It is referred to as an “unfortunate choice”. And the targeting of staff representatives as the subject of investigations into mobbing allegations is hardly considered to be conducive to a good atmosphere for talks between the President and staff unions.

According to what can be heard from staff, the overall effect of these developments is undermine the efforts to establish a social dialogue. On the other hand, the EPO tries to emphasise that, strictly speaking, the investigations into staff complaints are not connected with the current process of dialogue. And it was keen to point out that the second round of talks with Battistelli, the Chairman of the Administrative Council, Jesper Kongstad and staff unions SUEPO (Munich) and FFPE-EPO (representing the branch at The Hague) had not suffered any unsustainable damage last Thursday. The topic of surveillance did indeed come up on the agenda according to reports but the sense of outrage remained within bounds unlike the demonstrations in recent years against the President’s reform plans which by EPO standards were perceived as radical.

The goal remains to lay the foundations by September for an agreement according to which the trade unions will not only be formally recognized as representatives of staff at the EPO. They also want to be involved in the reform processes such as those relating to a performance-based reporting system for employees and the oversight of sick leave and other absences which are conspicuously high at the EPO. As these reform measures have already been introduced, the staff representatives doubt whether Battistelli is really serious about achieving a social consensus. Against this background, the timetable which has been set seems ambitious – and the decision to hire experienced “crisis management assistance” counterproductive.

We have a lot more coming about Control Risks, including their role in spying on Techrights. █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

06.05.15

Links 5/6/2015: Linux on ATMs, TISA Agreement Leak

Posted in News Roundup at 11:26 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

06.04.15

The EPO Sinks Deeper in a Scandal After Paying Public Money for Military-Connected Control Risks to Stalk Journalists and Staff

Posted in Europe, Patents at 11:20 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: Benoît Battistelli is now attacking the media itself, arrogantly doing so at the expense of the European public

THE EPO‘s management is truly out of touch. It is acting like a bunch of mercenaries or an army-tied contractor right now, hiring thugs with army connections, all working for Control Risks (see the open letter to Control Risks for background). The EPO is, in some regards, even worse than FIFA. At least FIFA didn’t hire goons/thugs to attack messengers.

The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung recently wrote about the EPO in Germany and, according to SUEPO, “The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (printable version) reports on the information that the EPO has commissioned the company Control Risks to investigate elected representatives of the Staff Committee and/or Staff Union” (what about the journalists people may be reporting to?).

The Süddeutsche Zeitung, which has also been covering EPO matters for quite a while, wrote about Control Risks. To quote SUEPO, “The Süddeutsche Zeitung comments on the information that the EPO has commissioned the company Control Risks to investigate elected representatives of the Staff Committee and/or Staff Union”

Any translations of these articles would be very much appreciated, if readers could kindly provide them for us to publish in English (for future record).

SUEPO said that “IPKat comments on the information that the EPO has commissioned the company Control Risks to investigate elected representatives of the Staff Committee and/or Staff Union” and the following day it said: “The EPO has issued a communiqué confirming the use of external investigation firms.”

The thugs who run the EPO are mistakenly assuming that the only people capable of speaking to the media are associated with SUEPO. They just use this as an excuse to crack down on SUEPO when in fact people from all parts of the EPO, as well as outside the EPO, have grown tired of the abuse. In an aggressive effort to suppress information the EPO’s management will only motivate more people to speak out. Therein lies the Streisand Effect.

One day later it said: “SUEPO sent an open letter to the company Control Risks which we understand has been commissioned by the EPO to investigate staff members who are elected representatives of the Staff Committee and/or Staff Union.

“We have now received a reply from Nick Allan, Regional Director (Europe & Africa).”

Their policy is just denying their work completely, or not naming their clients altogether (even though it is so obvious, and the EPO’s internal statement already served to confirm the allegations). Here are the contents of the reply:

To:
SUEPO Central Executive Committee
central@suepo.org

To whom it may concern (as your letter was unsigned),

Thank you for your letter. In all cases, our clients’ confidentiality is one of our highest priorities. Therefore, we do not comment on any specific cases and on our potential involvement. If you have any questions pertaining to the EPO, please direct them specifically to the EPO.

In general, I note your concern and would like to reassure you that Control Risks always conducts a due diligence with regard to the work we take on. Our Code of Ethics ensures that our employees always act in an ethical, independent and objective manner.

Sincerely yours,

Nick Allan
Regional Director, Europe & Africa
Control Risks

“Our Code of Ethics” is just marketing, much like their Web site, which hardly even mentions anything about the clients they have (or have had) and what they have done. Based on some articles, this company grossly overcharges for its unethical services, so one can only imagine how much tax money (of Europeans) got sunk into this abuse. The European purse is being misused by Battistelli and his cronies.

Control Risks is a rather evil company. Since they often work for military, mercenaries, etc. it’s not too shocking that they use the cloak of secrecy. SUEPO shows that this ugly firm is actually spying on journalists, not just their sources. To quote a report/summary/overview from SUEPO:

More on Control Risks

SUEPO understands that the company Control Risks has been commissioned by the EPO to investigate staff members who are elected representatives of the Staff Committee and/or Staff Union. The following articles report on the activities of this company:

Spiegel Online, The Dark Side of Power: German Corporate Spying Scandal Widens

“the government agents were [...] interested in the role Control Risks may have played in the Deutsche Telekom wiretapping affair. The scandal has dominated the public debate in the worlds of business, politics and the media for more than two weeks.”

“It is already clear that Telekom also hired Control Risks, which in turn subcontracted some of its assignments to a company called Desa. Desa, which is run by two former informants for the East German secret police, the Stasi, has also completed assignments for other prominent clients.”

“Moreover, it is clear that Control Risks worked for other German corporations, like Lufthansa and Deutsche Post. And, more recently, it was revealed that the two security firms were not the only ones that investigated a journalist from the newspaper Financial Times Deutschland (FTD)”

Spiegel Online, Attack on Customer Data: Lufthansa Admits Spying on Journalist

“[...] news broke that the security firm Control Risks, working for Deutsche Telekom, spied on a journalist from the Financial Times Deutschland newspaper.”

The Guardian, Watching the detectives

“But probably the creepiest tale to come out of the investigation is that in 2000 Deutsche Telekom hired a British private security company called Control Risks to get to the bottom of who was behind leaks to Tasso Enzweiler, at the time the chief reporter for Financial Times Deutschland. Control Risks in turn hired Desa Investigation & Risk Protection – a Berlin detective agency set up by two former Stasi agents who worked for a department responsible, among other things, for spying on western journalists – which sent employees to follow Enzweiler around the clock for two weeks.”

Financial Times, From guard dogs and fences to business intelligence

“After making its name in hostage and crisis negotiation through the 1970s, London-based Control Risks has branched out to offer something close to a full risk management service for its clients. It has roughly 700 staff and annual revenues of about $250m and is one of the sector’s bigger players.

Security services in Iraq account for about a third of the company’s turnover, but revenues have been falling of late. Anticipating the decline, Control Risks has been seeking to expand its consultancy and investigation businesses.”

This is, at the very least, inducing the chilling effect, e.g. a bunch of spies (almost a thousand all around the world) stalking journalists in their daily lives. It scares both journalists and sources. It’s an ugly strategy of deterrence and retribution.

“SUEPO understands that the company Control Risks has been commissioned by the EPO to investigate staff members who are elected representatives of the Staff Committee and/or Staff Union,” says the SUEPO Web site.

“The following articles report on the activities of this company:

• Spiegel Online, The Dark Side of Power: German Corporate Spying Scandal Widens
• Spiegel Online, Attack on Customer Data: Lufthansa Admits Spying on Journalist
• The Guardian, Watching the detectives
• Financial Times, From guard dogs and fences to business intelligence

The more we read about this shady company (Control Risks), the more disgusted we become. They clearly have no “Code of Ethics”, just Code of Surveillance (or Harassment).

European taxpayers (that’s everyone in the European Union) should reach out to local politicians and explain to them how the EPO is wasting public money. The EPO is now rogue, corrupt, and borderline insane (like irrational/paranoid dictatorships). It is behaving as though it has become another branch of organised crime — a fitting analogy as some top staff have a résumé to show for it (not only Željko Topić). There’s no room for truce when the EPO’s management continues to attack. It should be clear who is offensive and who is defensive/reactionary here. Grievances among the staff are very much justified.

Techrights has a lot more coming about this subject. Battistelli is blackening his career each time he makes panicky moves in a desperate effort to gag critics. █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

Pretending That Windows is Secure and ‘Open’ Using the ‘Transparency Centre’ Farce

Posted in Free/Libre Software, Microsoft, Security at 10:42 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

“Two security researchers have developed a new technique that essentially bypasses all of the memory protection safeguards in the Windows Vista operating system…”

–Dennis Fisher, August 7th, 2008

Summary: Microsoft is trying to redefine what Free/Open Source software means and what it takes for security of software to be assured/audited

THE strategy of Microsoft as of late has been combating Free software by changing what it actually means and then pretending to be it. FOSS Force has a good new article about Microsoft’s completely bogus posturing, intended to battle Free software by pretending that Microsoft’s source code is accessible. We are soon going to show (maybe later today) how Microsoft battled Free/Open Source software in voting, essentially using truly misleading lobbying, entryism, and obfuscation ploys.

As FOSS Force put it, “The Transparency Center concept was meant to allay fears that might cause foreign governments to consider options other than Microsoft (read: Linux and FOSS), by granting them unprecedented access to source code.”

In our latest articles about SSH and Microsoft we countered the claim that Microsoft is ever pursing security. It’s not. Security is not the goal. Read the article from FOSS Force for further details. █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

With SSH Keys on Windows the World Will be a Vastly Less Secure Place

Posted in GNU/Linux, Microsoft, Security, Windows at 11:27 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

“Our products just aren’t engineered for security.”

–Brian Valentine, Microsoft executive

Summary: Another warning about the grave consequences of putting SSH endpoints on an operating system which is compromised by design

QUITE a few readers (and also pro-Microsoft bullies) have written to us regarding yesterday's article about OpenSSH and Microsoft, the first PRISM company which also uses broken (by design) ciphers to act as passive back doors. Microsoft is losing and is getting left behind, hence it tries to ‘embrace’ the competition. It’s not a good gesture but an effort to entice people into Windows prison, i.e. inherent insecurity. OpenSSH is supposed to be all about security, which Windows is inherently (by design) not compatible with. Does anyone really want to put public and private keys on a machine that is remotely accessible by spies? That’s suicidal for a government, corporation, legal firm, journalist, etc.

“We already know, thanks to leaks from Edward Snowden, that spies in the West are systematically harvesting passwords of systems administrators and then use these to hijack/infiltrate entire networks.”Microsoft promotion sites continue to praise Microsoft, whereas other sites cautiously welcome the move [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]. This has been mentioned in various news sites since we first covered it, some Linux-centric ones ones too [1, 2]. In Linux Questions, for example, comments included “welcome microsoft to the year 2000.” Or even: “It was nice having known about you, PuTTY.”

To set the record straight, if we correctly understand Microsoft’s plans (all they are at this stage is just speculative, as there is not even a timetable, let alone any code), there will be increased access by espionage-seeking, power-motivated spies to people’s SSH keys. This will decrease overall security. Windows will be the weakest link. We already know, thanks to leaks from Edward Snowden, that spies in the West are systematically harvesting passwords of systems administrators and then use these to hijack/infiltrate entire networks all around the world. All that Microsoft’s involvement can achieve in this case is an increase in compromised computer networks. Putting SSH keys on Windows is the technical equivalent of putting tanks on rhapsodies (rendering the tanks sinkable). █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend