Raytheon Video Claims Riot Software Can Track Users Via Social Networks
Posted by Pratap Chatterjee on February 13th, 2013
|Riot logo created by Raytheon. Image via the Guardian newspaper|
Raytheon, a U.S. military manufacturer, is selling a new software surveillance package named “Riot” that claims to predict where individuals are expected to go next using technology that mines data from social networks like Facebook, Foursquare and Twitter.
Based just outside of Boston, Massachusetts, Raytheon sells $25 billion worth of equipment a year to military clients like the Pentagon. Some of its most famous products include Sidewinder air-to-air missiles, Maverick air-to-ground missiles, Patriot surface-to-air missiles and Tomahawk submarine-launched cruise missiles.
Raytheon’s Rapid Information Overlay Technology (Riot) software extracts location data from photos and comments posted online by individuals, and then analyzes this information to create a variety of spider diagrams to show where the individuals like to go, what they like to do and whom they communicate with.
A video demonstration of the software was recently published online by the Guardian newspaper. In it, Brian Urch of Raytheon shows how Riot can be used to track “Nick” – a company employee – to predict that the best time and place to steal his computer or put spy software on it.
“Six a.m. appears to be the most frequently visited time at the gym,” says Urch in the video which is dated November 2010. “So if you ever did want to try to get a hold of Nick - or maybe get a hold of his laptop - you might want to visit the gym at 6:00 a.m. on Monday.”
"Riot is a big data analytics system design we are working on with industry, national labs and commercial partners to help turn massive amounts of data into useable information to help meet our nation's rapidly changing security needs,” Jared Adams, a spokesman for Raytheon's intelligence and information systems department, told the Guardian.
Adams says that nobody has bought the software – which is still under development - yet. However, company filings indicate that Riot is classified as an "Export Administration Regulations 99" item which allows it to be sold or exported to any client.
But it is certainly true that a number of U.S. government agencies have been eagerly pursuing surveillance software to exploit the vast quantities of data that individuals are posting online about themselves. In January 2012 the Federal Bureau of Investigation posted a request for an application that would allow it to “provide an automated search and scrape capability of social networks including Facebook and Twitter … and (i)mmediately translate foreign language tweets into English.”
Last month the U.S. Transportation Security Administration asked contractors to propose applications “to generate an assessment of the risk to the aviation transportation system that may be posed by a specific individual” using “specific sources of current, accurate, and complete non-governmental data.” The initial plan is to use it to screen volunteer flyers who will be offered the benefits of “expedited screening lanes … leave on their shoes, light outerwear and belts, as well as leave laptops and … compliant liquids in carry-on bags.”
Privacy activists say that the Riot package is troubling. "This sort of software allows the government to surveil everyone," Ginger McCall, the director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center's Open Government program, told NBC News. "It scoops up a bunch of information about totally innocent people. There seems to be no legitimate reason to get this."
“(T)he government has no business rooting around people's social network postings—even those that are voluntarily publicly posted—unless it has specific, individualized suspicion that a person is involved in wrongdoing,” writes Jay Stanley, a senior policy analyst at the Speech, Privacy and Technology Project of the American Civil Liberties Union. “Among the many problems with government “large-scale analytics” of social network information is the prospect that government agencies will blunderingly use these techniques to tag, target and watchlist people coughed up by programs such as Riot, or to target them for further invasions of privacy based on incorrect inferences.”
Indeed, it would also be possible for a tech-savvy malcontent to lead security officials on a wild goose chase, or even deliberately frame anyone they wanted.
Serengeti Under Threat from UAE Big Game Hunting Company
Posted by Pratap Chatterjee on August 20th, 2012
|Maasai warriors. Photo: David Berkowitz. Used under Creative Commons license |
Serengeti national park is under threat from Ortello Business Corporation (OBC) in a deal that could displace 48,000 indigenous Maasai and open it up for hunting of lions and leopards. An urgent action by Avaaz, an international campaigning group, has gathered close to a million signatures to protest the scheme.
The Serengeti region covers 12,000 square miles (30,000 square kilometers) from north Tanzania to south western Kenya. Over 2,000 lions roam the area among dozens of other species from the crowned eagles to elephants and rare black rhinos. It is most famous for an annual migration during which over a million wildebeest and about 200,000 zebras travel south from the northern hills to the southern plains in October and November and then move west and north between April and June.
The region is also called Maasailand, after the semi-nomadic indigenous community that lived there for centuries until the British colonialists started to grab their lands to build ranches. Today the colorfully dressed spear carrying tribe have become a global tourist attraction.
“(O)ur vision of virgin nature has encouraged the takeover of the land by a new breed of super-rich conservationists and tourism operators,” writes New Scientist journalist Fred Pearce in his new book, The Land Grabbers. “The Serengeti has become the world’s biggest zoo, in which the Maasai warriors are reduced to decorative walk-on parts.”
One of these operators is OBC, which is based in the United Arab Emirates, and markets big game safaris. The company prefers not to speak to the media but a Conde Nast Traveler reporter sketched a profile of the company and its recent conflicts with the local Maasai.
In the early 1990s the Tanzanian government “granted OBC the right to hunt in more than 50,000 acres of savanna and hills in Masailand, reportedly in exchange for millions of dollars in financial aid to the Tanzanian armed forces,” writes Joshua Hammer.
In July 2009, the Tanzanian army allegedly kicked dozens of Maasai out of the area for "trespassing" on OBC land. " They ordered us out of our bomas (thorn bush compounds), then they poured gasoline on them and set them on fire," a cattle herder told Hammer. "After the burning, we rebuilt, and they came and did it again."
A similar report was published by a Tanzanian fact-finding mission conducted in August 2009 by Feminist Activist Coalition (FEMACT) which reported that “there were ruthless eviction operations conducted in the Loliondo villages. Contrary to the District Commissioner’s claims, the investigation team came across testimonies and evidence of despicable despicable acts. The team came across women who had undergone miscarriages, rape, loss of children and other properties including food and shelter. Men who were chained beaten and humiliated in front of their families, those who had lost thousands of livestock among other properties and those who were imprisoned for no apparent reasons.”
In September 2009, James Anaya, the United Nations special rapporteur on the human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous peoples wrote to the Tanzanian government to ask for an explanation of the incidents.
The UN letter notes that the original contract between OBC and the government, required to company to make payments of three million Tanzanian shillings to each villager and provide employment, roads, schools and water to the community. But OBC “has not complied with the contractual terms related to compensation, provision of services, and employment,” writes Anaya.
A week ago Avaaz, a letter writing campaign group, heard from the Maasai that OBC had new plans to expand and asked for their help.
“The last time this same corporation pushed the Maasai off their land to make way for rich hunters, people were beaten by the police, their homes were burnt to a cinder and their livestock died of starvation,” wrote Avaaz’s Sam Baraat in an email sent out last week. “But when a press controversy followed, Tanzanian President Kikwete reversed course and returned the Maasai to their land. This time, there hasn’t been a big press controversy yet, but we can change that and force Kikwete to stop the deal if we join our voices now.”
"For us, our land is everything, but these Arab princes have no respect for the animals or our rights,” Mzee Orosikos, a Maasai elder, told the Observer newspaper. “Many of us would rather die than be forced to move again."
The government denies the allegations. "(N)o eviction exercise has been planned for the Serengeti district, which is one of the districts in Mara region” George Matiko, spokesman for the resources and tourism ministry, told the newspaper. “In the Serengeti there is no hunting bloc allocated to Middle Eastern kings and princes to hunt lions and leopards."
The campaigners says that the government reply has been carefully worded to avoid the bigger question. "(T)he Tanzanian government is playing cynical word games – the Maasai lands in question are commonly understood to be within the Serengeti ecosystem’” says Emma Ruby-Sachs, campaign director at Avaaz. “If the government does not believe there is any threat to the Maasai lands, it should be easy for it to commit to a policy of not forcibly evicting any of its people to make way for foreign interests."
TrapWire Leaks Shine Light on New Video Tracking Technologies
Posted by Pratap Chatterjee on August 14th, 2012
|Tag and Track footage from Ipsotek. Footage from company Youtube video.|
TrapWire, a company founded and run by former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) officers, that offers to track “suspicious” activities from surveillance video, has been spotlighted in a new Wikileaks release.
The system is described on the TrapWire’s website as "a unique, predictive software system designed to detect patterns of pre-attack surveillance and logistical planning.” The U.S. Department of Homeland Security paid TrapWire $832,000 to deploy Trapwire in Washington DC and Seattle in December 2011, according to federal spending data records.
The information on Trapwire’s contracts emerged from one of the five million internal emails from Stratfor, an Austin, Texas-based company that brands itself as a "global intelligence" provider, were recently obtained by Anonymous, the hacker collective, and were released in batches by WikiLeaks, the whistleblowing website, earlier this year.
The Trapwire technology was created at Abraxas corporation, which was founded by Richard "Hollis" Helms, a former CIA agent (but not the former head of the CIA under Nixon). Abraxas spun off Trapwire into another company which still has several senior employees who once worked at the agency. They include Dan Botsch, who worked at the CIA for 11 years as a Russian and Eastern European analyst, Michael Maness, a 20 year CIA veteran who worked in counterterrorism and security operations in the Middle-East, the Balkans and Europe, and Michael K. Chang, a 12 years CIA veteran on counterterrorism operations.
The company appears to have deleted the list of senior employees from its website when the Wikileaks release occurred. But the company still promotes their prior experience: “Our professionals have led successful intelligence operations against terrorist organizations and fought on battlefields across the globe.”
The software has been described as a real life version of a system portrayed in Minority Report, a Hollywood blockbuster. “Anyone who takes a photograph at high-risk locations is logged as a suspected terrorist on a vast network of secret spy cameras linked to the U.S. Government, according to leaked emails,” writes Rick Dewsbury at the Daily Mail, a tabloid newspaper in the UK.
Mainstream media have reacted more cautiously to the TrapWire leaks. The New York Times commented that the “reports appear to be wildly exaggerated” noting that the Homeland Security had ended trials on the technology last year “because it did not seem promising.” The company refused to comment.
While TrapWire is now keeping quiet about its software, a similar UK venture is doing the opposite. Tag and Track, a technology developed by Kingston University researchers, is now being marketed by Ipsotek.
“The notion that you can tag a person and let the system do the tracking is a dream come true for CCTV operators,” says Professor Sergio Velastin who is also co-founder of Ipsotek. “The system relies on the identification of a person through features, such as their appearance, which different cameras can then pick up on.”
Ipsotek has sold its products to the Australian parliament and to airports in Belfast and Edinburgh. In a Reuters video report, the company demonstrates how it can follow any individual that an operator identifies and tags when analyzing video footage. The Tag and Track software then creates a unique colored trail to show where that individual has traveled.
A similar technology called Footpath, which is manufactured by Path Intelligence in the UK, tracks individuals based on the strength of their cell phone signals. The system was piloted by Forest City, a shopping mall company in the U.S. in Promenade Temecula in Temecula, California, and Short Pump Town Center in Richmond, Virginia last year.
The pilot project was canceled after privacy advocates pointed out that it was most likely illegal and members of Congress started to raise questions.
How accurate are these new video surveillance technologies? “(I)t’s extremely difficult, and probably impossible, to distinguish the one-in-a-billion terrorist from innocent people doing ordinary things like taking pictures,” Jay Stanley at American Civil Liberties Union told the New York Times. And therein lies the greatest danger.
U.S. Federal Agencies Targeted Employees With Commercial Spy Software
Posted by Pratap Chatterjee on July 23rd, 2012
|Image courtesy: The Bureau of Investigative Journalism|
SpectorSoft spyware is the latest tool to be employed by some U.S. government officials to conduct surveillance on staff. Best known for its off-the-shelf products for parents to track children, the Vero Beach, Florida, digital manufacturer has been revealed to be selling “keylogger” software to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to track every digital move of certain employees.
Police officials have long been happy to endorse the 14 year old private company’s products: "Our Internet safety presentation for parents and children has several tools that are important for parents, and Internet monitoring software is one of the tools," Sergeant Paul Garcia of Albuquerque, New Mexico, was quoted as saying in company literature in 2009. "Along with our IT team, I tested several products, and our first choice is Spector."
Dr Jefrrey Shuren, the director of the Center for Devices and Radiological Health at the FDA, apparently concurs. According to a court filing by Steven Kohn, a lawyer at the National Whistleblower Center, Shuren personally sent federal investigators at the office of the inspector general “several screen shots and documents obtained through spying on the private email correspondence of Dr. Robert C. Smith, Dr. Ewa M. Czerska, Mr. Paul T. Hardy, and Mr. Julian J. Nicholas.” (all FDA scientists apart from Hardy who worked for the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps)
The technology used by the FDA was identified by Eric Lichtblau and Scott Shane at the New York Times as SpectorSoft products which “captured screen images from the government laptops of the five scientists as they were being used at work or at home. The software tracked their keystrokes, intercepted their personal e-mails, copied the documents on their personal thumb drives and even followed their messages line by line as they were being drafted.”
The surveillance began soon after the scientists sent a letter in January 2009 letter to John Podesta, then director of the transition team of the newly elected Obama administration, blowing the whistle on how senior FDA staff “ordered, intimidated, and coerced FDA experts to modify their scientific reviews, conclusions and recommendations in violation of the law.”
Journalists took an immediate interest in the concerns raised by the scientists. An article published on January 12, 2009, took issue with the SecondLook Digital Computer-Aided Detection System for Mammography manufactured by iCAD Inc. of New Hampshire. The reporter quoted an internal FDA review of the product that suggested it might miss cancers and risked “unnecessary biopsy or even surgery (by placing false positive marks) and unnecessary additional radiation.”
A second critical article appeared in the New York Times in March 2010 challenging FDA approval for coloscopy devices manufactured by General Electric of New York. “One CT colonoscopy device that they exposed made it onto the market, 600 to 800 times the radiation dosage of similar devices that are more effective,” says Kohn. (Researchers estimate that as many as 14,000 people may die every year of radiation-induced cancers as a result of excessive use of such scanning practices).
After the articles appeared GE officials and iCAD CEO Ken Ferry allegedly complained to the FDA the whistleblowers may have revealed trade secrets. In June 2010 Shuren took a personal interest in the matter by sending the results of the surveillance of the scientists to federal investigators. (To the credit of the investigators, they declined to act noting that government employees have the right to blow the whistle to Congress.)
The scientists are predictably outraged by the news of the surveillance. "Who would have thought that they would have the nerve to be monitoring my communications to Congress?" Robert Smith, one of scientists, told the Washington Post. "How dare they?" Members of Congress were also furious. The FDA "sound(s) more like the East German Stasi than a consumer protection agency in a free country” said Senator Chuck Grassley, a Republican from Iowa.
The agency denies it broke the law. "FDA did not monitor the employees’ use of non-government-owned computers at any time. Neither members of Congress nor their staffs were the focus of monitoring," the FDA told Democracy Now! “At no point in time did FDA attempt to impede or delay any communication between these individuals and Congress. Employees have appropriate routes to voice their concerns without disclosing confidential information to the public, and FDA has policies in place to ensure employees are aware of their rights and options.”
However, Quality Associates Inc. of Fulton, Maryland, another FDA contractor mistakenly posted the data retrieved by the SpectorSoft software on the Internet, where one of the scientists recently discovered the data and the extent of the surveillance operation. “(O)ne congressman, Van Hollen, was specifically put on it. Aides for Senate and House were put on it. Journalists were on it. Scientists and doctors were on it,” says Kohn.
“This is the insidious nature of electronic surveillance, because once they had the first whistleblower, Dr. Smith, target number one, they were able to learn who he was talking to and who was supportive of what he was trying to change. They were able to then identify all the other whistleblowers and then people who endorsed them. And then they created a list. And this list set forth additional targeted monitoring or surveillance.”
While one would hope that the FDA’s action was a rogue operation, it is definitely not the only agency in the market for covert surveillance spy software to track federal employees. A contract posted in June by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) seeks a product to “monitor user activities through keystroke monitoring/logging; chat monitoring/logging; email monitoring/logging; attachment monitoring/logging; website monitoring/logging; network activity monitoring/logging; files transferred monitoring/logging; document tracking monitoring/logging; screenshot capture; program activity monitoring/logging,” with a key requirement that the “end user must not have the ability to detect this technology.” (first revealed by NextGov)
The solicitation was simply posted for public information, the TSA will not accept unsolicited bids. One presumes that SpectorSoft would be keen to bid. The company is in no trouble since it did not break any laws in selling software to the FDA. On the other hand, Quality Associates, which has a $20 million document archival contract with the FDA as well as a $30 million contract with the National Institutes of Health, seems likely to be shunned for future government contracts.
Iowa Company Linked to Refugee Abuses In Tanzania
Posted by Pratap Chatterjee on July 10th, 2012
|Local fisherman in Rukwa province. Image courtesy Oakland Institute.|
AgriSol, an Iowa company, has been linked to plans to evict 160,000 Burundian refugees from Katumba and Mishamo in western Tanzania, according to “Lives on Hold,” a new report by the Oakland Institute.
Kilimo Kwanza which translates as “Agriculture First” is a recent Tanzanian government initiative to promote a “greener revolution” through agricultural modernization and commercialization via public-private partnerships. The program was launched in August 2009 by Tanzania's President Jakaya Kikwete.
Enter Agrisol Energy LLC's - an Iowa-based investment company that specializes in agribusiness. The company’s goal is to find “underdeveloped global locations that have attractive natural resources but lack best-in-class agricultural technology, farming techniques, equipment and management.” The company opened talks with the government to start large-scale crop cultivation, beef and poultry production, and biofuel production in three “abandoned refugee camps” - Lugufu in Kigoma province (25,000 hectares) and Katumba (80,317 hectares) and Mishamo (219,800 hectares), according to company business plans.
A 2011 investigation by the Oakland Institute, a California based NGO, revealed that the refugee camps were not abandoned but very much occupied by Burundian refugees who have lived in the area for 40 years.
Agrisol does not deny this. Henry Akona, AgriSol Tanzania's director of communications, says that the company officials were initially told that plans had been made to move the refugees from the settlements. "We were considering those areas a few years ago, but we have suspended any plans because the land is occupied," Akona told the Daily Iowan. "We should have done better homework."
Oakland Institute profiled Sembuli Masasa, the father of seven children, who had been farming in Katumba for 39 years who told researchers: “They are giving us $200, ask us to dismantle our own house and to move to a place we have never seen before.”
"Initially promised citizenship, the residents still await their papers, conditional on them vacating their homes and lands in order to make way for the foreign investor,” says Anuradha Mittal, executive director of the Oakland Institute. “The residents have been banned from cultivating crops including perennial crops such as cassava or building new homes and businesses, leaving them with no other option but to consider moving.”
The new report alleges human rights abuses of the refugees “which range from the burning down of houses and crops and violation of their freedom of speech to inequities in social services.”
Akona disputes charges that the company is responsible for the fate of the Burundians. “AgriSol has absolutely nothing to do with the refugees in Katumba and Mishamo,” he told the Daily Iowan.
The Oakland Institute report has created a storm in Iowa, notably for Bruce Rastetter, CEO of AgriSol Energy who worked with Iowa State University's College of Agriculture and Life Sciences in Ames, Iowa, to get support for the deal.
Faced with growing questions, the university pulled out in February 2012
Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement, a community group in Des Moines, Iowa, has filed an official conflict of interest complaint against Rastetter with the Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board, and are lobbying for Bruce Rastetter to be removed as Iowa Board of Regents President Pro Tem.
The Tanzania project is part of a new phenomenon that activists are calling “land grabbing.” GRAIN, a global agricultural think tank based in Barcelona, estimates that at least 50 million hectares of good agricultural land – enough to feed 5 million families in India – have been transferred from farmers to corporations in the last few years alone.
Economists say that governments have to be very careful about inviting corporations to manage vast swathes of land in poor countries. “If it’s done properly, and if African governments take care of their countries and their populations, this can be a big benefit,” says Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia University told Dan Rather reports. “If they in effect give away these valuable resources, then what happens is these scarce resources benefit some other part of the world. And Africa is left even worse off than it was before.”
Middle Eastern Investors “Grab” Sudan Farmland
Posted by Pratap Chatterjee on April 30th, 2012
|Salah, Sudanese farmer. Photo: Al Jazeera TV|
Dalla Al Baraka, a Saudi conglomerate with an estimated $5 billion in annual revenue, has acquired two million acres of farmland in eastern Sudan, to produce food for export to the Middle Eastern kingdom. While the investors are hoping to wean Saudi Arabia off imports from South America, such agreements have also caused concern among local Sudanese farmers.
Sporadic protests have occurred in Jazira state where much of best land is being bid on by foreign investors. "The farmers are complaining, because the price they are being offered for their land is not fair," Majdi Selim, a local lawyer and political activist told Agence France Press last year. Their concerns are part of a trend that is accelerating around the world according to multiple reports tracked by farmlandgrab.org, a website run by GRAIN, an international NGO.
Sudan, which was divided into two countries in 2011, is expecting a sharp downturn in its export income because most of its oil deposits became part of the new nation of South Sudan. This has served as an impetus for Khartoum to seek other forms of income. Ali Mahmood Abdel-Rasool, the finance and national economy minister, led a delegation to Saudi Arabia in March to seek foreign investment.
Sheikh Saleh Kamel, the founder of Dalla Al Baraka, told the Sudan Tribune that the two million hectares that he has obtained will be considered a “free trade” zone: that is to say his company would neither have to pay taxes nor follow Sudanese laws. He is not the only outside investor - Essa Abdullah Al Ghurair of Al Ghurair Foods in the United Arab Emirates has just leased 100,000 hectares of farmland in Sudan. And Mustafa Abdul Jalil, the chairman of Libya’s ruling National Transitional Council, says this government is also considering investment in Sudanese land.
Local farmers in Sudan are say they have not been consulted on the plans to lease off the country’s land. “The whole process is not clear to me because part of it is the sale of land, part is rent and part is lending,” Salah of the Al Jazira Land Owners Group told Mohamed Vall of Al Jazeera television in an interview about the subject this past January. “Agricultural land is the basic source of living for most people here, so if all the arable land is given to big companies, what are those people going to live on?” (the word “jazeera” means peninsula, and is a common business title)
Others think the new investors can help. “There is vast area of empty fertile (land) with plenty of water. This land has remained empty for hundreds, if not thousands of years and it will remain (that way) It needs mechanization, it needs capital,” Mamoun, Salah’s cousin, who is also a local farmer, told Al Jazeera TV.
Sudan is not the only country to be targeted for export agriculture. Indeed a new “gold rush” on farmland has begun in the Third World, say studies by GRAIN, a global think tank based in Barcelona, the International Land Coalition (ILC), based in Italy, and Oxfam in the UK. ILC and Oxfam have created a ‘Land Matrix’ of deals which suggest that 71 million hectares have been “grabbed” by international investors. Africa accounts for almost half at 34 million hectares, followed by Asia with some 29 million hectares and South America with about 6 million hectares.
These investments or “landgrabs” have fomented anger and even violence, on occasion. In neighboring Ethiopia, Saudi Star, a similar Saudi Arabian project in Gambella province, the extremely fertile southwestern region of the country, was attacked on April 28 evening. Ten people, most of whom were agricultural experts from Pakistan, were allegedly killed at the 10,000 hectare agricultural rice farm owned by the billionaire Al Amoudi.
Facebook Lobbies Washington to “Like” Spying on Users
Posted by Pratap Chatterjee on April 26th, 2012
|Image courtesy: The Bureau of Investigative Journalism|
Facebook, the social network behemoth that is about to become a multi-billion dollar company, has been lobbying for a proposed new U.S. law called the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) that would allow companies to share information with government agencies. Zaid Jilani at the Republic Report has been digging up details on the Washington lobbyists who are helping Facebook.
“Under CISPA, private companies may spy on user communications, whether stored or in transit, and freely pass personal information to the government as long as they claim a vague "cybersecurity" exception,” write Mark M. Jaycox and Lee Tien at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. “The bill also creates expansive legal immunity that makes companies and the government largely unaccountable to users. Companies ‘acting in good faith’ are also excused from all liability for engaging in potential countermeasures, even if they hurt innocent parties.”
This is not the first time that the U.S. Congress has tried to pass a dubious law on computer security in the name of stopping piracy. Last year, the Stop Online Piracy Act and the Protect IP Act – backed by Hollywood and opposed by Facebook, Google and Wikipedia – was defeated after a huge backlash. Opponents noted that the law – as drafted - would threaten freedom of speech and support Internet censorship.
Mike Rogers, a Republican from Michigan, and Dutch Ruppersberger, a Democrat from Maryland, are the sponsors of the new bill. Unusually for Washington, the two men work together well, according to the Washington Post. Rogers is a former Federal Bureau of Investigations agent who has been promoting the drone war, notes the Post, and the two men have the backing of people like Michael Hayden, former director of the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency. So it is small wonder that CISPA will help out the intelligence agencies by expanding their powers of surveillance.
Not surprisingly, activists like Avaaz are campaigning against CISPA and so is (surprisingly) the Obama White House, which has threatened to veto the bill if it makes it to the president’s desk.
But Facebook – which opposed the cyber-security bills last year – has decided to support CISPA. The proposed law “would make it easier for Facebook and other companies to receive critical threat data from the U.S. government,” Facebook’s Washington DC office posted on its blog. It would “impose no new obligations on us to share data with anyone –- and ensures that if we do share data about specific cyber threats, we are able to continue to safeguard our users’ private information, just as we do today.”
Well, many Facebook users would testify that the company actually does a very poor job of protecting user’s private information.
Zaid Jilani at the Republic Report points out that Facebook is actively paying a Washington lobby firm to lobby for CISPA. In his article titled “Dislike: Meet The Lobbyists Facebook Hired To Help The Government Spy On You” he reports on the people at Fierce, Isakowitz & Blalock that are working the halls of Congress to get the bill passed.
“What’s particularly interesting about all of these individuals is that every single one previously worked somewhere in the executive or legislative branches of the Federal government. They were paid by taxpayers to get the training and connections that now allow them to have high-paid lobbying jobs representing corporations,” writes Jilani.
After all, Facebook has a lot to gain from this such as the ability to “freely pass personal information to the government” and to be “excused from all liability even if they hurt innocent parties.”
On Friday, when Congress gets to vote, we will find out which members “like” Facebooks plans.
Exploiting Indonesia: Adidas for London Olympics 2012
Posted by Pratap Chatterjee on April 16th, 2012
|Photo: Martin Wurt/Oxfam Australia|
Adidas, the German sportswear company, is making Olympics uniforms for the UK team at sweatshops in Tangerang city, near the main international airport of Jakarta, Indonesia. Young female workers are paid 5,000 rupiah (54 cents) an hour for a 65 hour work week, according to revelations made in the Independent newspaper.
The new scandal comes on the heels of widespread protests against the Olympic stadium sponsorship by Dow Chemical, the new owner of Union Carbide Corporation, responsible for the 1984 Bhopal gas disaster which killed more than 15,000 people.
Britain’s new uniforms were designed by Stella McCartney, daughter of the former Beatles singer. The manufacturing contract was awarded to Adidas, a company with an annual revenue of $16 billion, which in turn outsourced production to a number of Indonesian contractors like Taiwanese-owned Shyang Yao Fung which manufactures women's sports shoes, PT Panarub Industry who make football boots, as well as PT Golden Castle and PT Tuntex which make clothing emblazoned with the Olympic logo.
Kathy Marks, the reporter who uncovered the story for the Independent, says she discovered that four of the nine contractors paid less than the minimum wage. (Adidas defended itself claiming that only one company did so!) Workers also complained about long working hours and bad working conditions.
"The management says that overtime is compulsory," a worker named Sobirin at Shyang Yao Fung told the newspaper. "And there are many times when workers are working without payment on overtime, or are not paid properly. Every day there's a worker who passes out because they're exhausted or unwell."
"It's hard to get permission even to go to the bathroom," said Yuliani, a 23-year-old seamstress told the Independent. "If you're forced to go, the pile of work becomes so high that you get shouted at by the production line leader. They call you a dog, brainless, uneducated. Sometimes we have to sacrifice our lunch break to reach the target."
The use of sweatshop labor to manufacture clothing is very commonplace. BehindTheLabel, an activist group, estimates that over 2 million people work in garment sweatshops producing clothes for U.S. retailers with about 80 percent of them working “under conditions that systematically violate local and international labor law.” http://www.behindthelabel.org/specialreports.php
Adidas has come under criticism before for its labor practices in south-east Asia. For example, 90,000 workers went on strike at the Pou Yuen Adidas suppler in Ho Chi Minh City last August against low wages and inhumane treatment, according to the Committee to Protect Vietnamese Workers. Campaign groups like Oxfam Australia have launched online protests to bring attention to the plight of workers. (see “Sneaky Business”)
The company also faces protests in the U.S. where students at the University of Michigan have called on the chancellor to cancel sponsorship contracts with the company for shutting down factories in Indonesia and El Salvador without paying workers backwages. Similar protests have taken place at the the University of California at Berkeley and at the University of Wisconsin in Madison.
Green Tribunal Weighs Multinational Projects in India
Posted by Pratap Chatterjee on April 9th, 2012
|Sukhdev Sahoo mourns the loss of his betel farm. Photo: Basant Sahoo|
Two controversial multinational projects in Orissa, an eastern Indian state, face high level decisions in the next few weeks: a bauxite mine in the Niyamgiri hills planned by Vedanta of the UK and an iron and steel refinery in Jagatsinghpur being developed by POSCO of South Korea.
CorpWatch has reported on both in the past: the bauxite mine threatens the sacred hills of the Dongria Kondh people while the iron and steel refinery threatens traditional betel nut farmers.
As we noted last year, these two battles “encapsulate the chasm between two competing visions of how the second most populous country in the world should develop within the modern world. Jawaharlal Nehru, the country's first prime minister referred to dams and factories as the "temples of modern India," and his successors have gone cap-in-hand to international agencies such as the World Bank to fund major development projects such as the Narmada Valley Dams.
“Rural communities – with the help of city-based activist groups – have struggled to stop the mega-projects. They argue that the displacement of traditional communities, as well as the major environmental impacts of these projects, outweigh the financial benefits. The Narmada dams, for example, while generating electricity and irrigating great areas, would destroy villages and traditional farmland, displacing millions of people.”
Vedanta went before the Indian Supreme Court today to appeal an August 2010 decision by the Indian environment ministry blocking the mine from going forward because of the impact on the indigenous community. The court adjourned without making a decision but justices K S Radhakrishnan and C K Prasad are expected to rule before the summer vacations. The court may refer the matter to the brand new National Green Tribunal which started hearing cases last year.
The Tribunal which was created in 2010 is “a specialized court with expert members having extraordinary powers to provide remedies to environmental problems.”
One of the Tribunal’s most significant decisions so far has been the suspension of POSCO’s permit last week. The ruling was made when Prafulla Samantray, an activist from Bhoinagar, brought suit over the fact that a comprehensive environmental impact assessment (EIA) report was not done for the 12 million tonne production project. Ritwick Dutta, the lawyer for the activists, told CNN-IBN TV: "Strangely enough the environmental impact assessment studies (were) done only for a 4 million tonne project.”
These two important cases will demonstrate whether or not the National Green Tribunal is up to the task of protecting local communities and the environment in India. Blocking either or both projects will not stop other multinational corporations from continuing to try to exploit the country, but it will surely give them pause in the knowledge that powers that be in New Delhi will listen to communities that organize and push back successfully against irresponsible development and human rights abuse.
As Dongria elder Dodhi Sikaka told Survival: “We are fighting for our own people, for our ancestral land, for Niyamgiri. Those who are fighting for their rights are beaten up and put behind bars. Now all we Dongrias are together in resisting this.”
For a recent and very vivid description of what the Dongria Kondh face, see Bianca Jagger’s latest. She notes: “According to the UN, companies have a responsibility to respect human rights wherever they do business. It is deplorable that local inhabitants should have to implore and appeal to the better nature of shareholders and company executives to protect their human rights, their homes and their livelihoods. Companies who violate this fundamental right should be held accountable in a court of law.”
Adds Jagger: “In the 21st century, we need to redefine the meaning of "development." It must be sustainable. Any development project must take into account the needs and aspirations of the local communities, and should benefit all sectors of society.”
Big Brother in Iran: With A Little Help From Chinese and European Companies
Posted by Pratap Chatterjee on March 27th, 2012
Special to CorpWatch
|Mad Graffiti Week Iran Poster. Photo: United4Iran. Used under Creative Commons license|
Big Brother is watching Iranians with a little help from Chinese and European companies. Reuters revealed last week that ZTE Corporation, a major Chinese telecommunications company, had sold Tehran surveillance technology that is “capable of monitoring landline, mobile and internet communications.” This comes in wake of revelations late last year by the Wall Street Journal that Creativity Software in the UK and Huawei in China had sold the Iranians location tracking equipment.
Steve Stecklow of Reuters reported on March 22 that Shenzhen-based ZTE sold Telecommunication Company of Iran (TCI) a $130.6 million package of networking equipment. TCI is the biggest telecommunication provider in Iran while ZTE sold equipment to more than 500 buyers in more than 160 countries for an annual revenue of $10.6 billion in 2010.
The ZTE equipment in question is called the ZXMT system which does "deep packet inspection” – that allows buyers to reconstruct individual web and email traffic and block users from accessing certain web sites.
Li Erjian, a ZTE spokesman in China, initially emailed Reuters to say that there was nothing unusual about the sale: "We sell standard equipment in Iran as we do globally,” he wrote. But Mahmoud Tadjallimehr, a former telecommunications project manager in Iran, told Reuters that the equipment was able "to locate users, intercept their voice, text messaging ... emails, chat conversations or web access."
And Privacy International says that ZTE has pursued business in Iran for a while. The London-based NGO obtained a copy of a May 2008, ZTE presentation to the Iran Telecommunication Research Center about the "ZTE Lawful Intercept Solution” among other products.
ZTE surveillance equipment was also found in Libya after the fall of Gaddafi’s regime.
ZTE pulled back from the project immediately after the Reuters report came out. The very next day, ZTE spokesman David Shu told Reuters: "We are going to curtail our business in Iran.” On March 27, the Chinese company sent out a statement that said: “"Due to local issues in Iran and its complicated relationship with the international community, ZTE has restricted its business practices in the country since 2011. ZTE no longer seeks new customers in Iran and limits business activities with existing customers."
ZTE is not the only company to sell such equipment to Iran. In 2009, Nokia Siemens Network was revealed to be supplying Iran with surveillance equipment. The company subsequently backed out of Iran because of protests and sanctions.
Last October, after the Journal revealed Creativity Software and Huawei's role in Iran, Bloomberg followed up with a report that Stockholm-based Ericsson AB and Dublin-based AdaptiveMobile Security Ltd. had sold Iran location tracking and text-message monitoring equipment.
Ericsson initially sold a mobile- positioning center for customer billing purposes to MTN Irancell Telecommunications Services Company, Iran’s second-largest mobile provider. Ericsson decided in October 2010 that it would stop selling products to Iran because of sanctions. AdaptiveMobile offered Iran equipment to “filter, block and store cell phone text messages” according to Bloomberg. The company claims the technology is to beat spam, viruses and “inappropriate content” not for repression, but has also decided to pull out of Iran because of sanctions. Huawei did the same.
The technology provided by Creativity Software allows buyers to get reports every 15 seconds about mobile phone users location. The company maintains, however, that it has not sold equipment for human rights abuse. “Any connection implied between technology supplied by CS and any alleged human rights abuses in Iran in 2009 are clearly erroneous,” the company announced in a statement issued last November. “Please also be aware that the use of the term “Surveillance equipment” in describing location based services technology is both pejorative and inappropriate, the statement added.
For more information on the boom in surveillance technology sales to governments around the world, please see: “State of Surveillance”
U.S. Supreme Court: Can Multinationals Be Sued for Crimes?
Posted by Pratap Chatterjee on March 1st, 2012
|Project Underground poster on Shell|
Barinem Kiobel was executed on November 10, 1995 by the military dictatorship of General Sani Abacha of Nigeria. Almost 16 years later, the U.S. Supreme Court is poised to decide whether Shell, the Anglo-Dutch oil multinational, can be held responsible for his death.
The lawsuit has been brought under the Alien Tort Claims Act of 1789 which allows lawsuits against individuals in U.S. courts for violations of international law – but what the court will decide is if this law applies to corporations. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the plaintiff – his widow Esther – it could represent a watershed in holding corporations accountable for crimes around the world. (See EarthRights for more on Alien Torts)
The 42 year old was one of nine activists from Ogoni land in the Niger Delta who were sentenced to death by hanging. Ken Saro-Wiwa, another of the men who was executed that day, had already become an international cause celebre as a poet and an outspoken leader of the Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People (MOSOP) that was leading protests against the massive pollution of the region caused by its oil extraction. (See MOSOP website here)
In 2009, Shell agreed to pay out $15.5 million to settle a lawsuit brought by the Center for Constitutional Rights on behalf of Saro-Wiwa’s family against the company in which they were alleged to have conspired with the military to capture, torture and kill protestors. The company did not admit guilt: "While we were prepared to go to court to clear our name, we believe the right way forward is to focus on the future for Ogoni people," Malcolm Brinded, a Shell director, said at the time. The money was placed in a trust for the education of the Ogoni people. (See the Center for Constitutional Rights summary here)
“Businesses with mining and drilling operations abroad decimate local populations with the full consent of brutal regimes, and when the people affected assemble and protest, family members are abducted, people are murdered, profits are defended at all costs and no local justice or accountability is possible because of government complicity,” wrote Vincent Warren of the Center for Constitutional Rights in the New York Times. “The decision before the court now boils down to whether corporations — considered legal persons already in many cases — should be held to the same standards of accountability as actual people when they commit egregious crimes.”
Susan Farbstein and Tyler Giannini, the directors of the International Human Rights Clinic of the Harvard Law School agree: “In exchange for rights, corporations accept certain responsibilities, including liability for harms committed by their agents,” they wrote in the same newspaper.
What makes this argument compelling is another decision made by the Supreme Court on January 21, 2010, in Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, where the justices decided, by a vote of five to four, that, since corporations were legal persons, they were entitled to the protection of the first amendment, which guarantees freedom of speech. (The case was brought by Citizens United, a company that wanted to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton)
Chevron Gets Fixed
Posted by Antonia Juhasz on November 4th, 2009
Originally published on 3 November 2009.
On Sunday, Chevron became the first oil company to come under a Yes Men Audience Attack.
(See Video, Photos, and Yes Man Andy Bichlbaum's Blog of event)
Chevron was chosen because Chevron is different from other oil companies.
It is bigger than all but three (only ExxonMobil, BP and Shell are
larger). It is facing the largest potential corporate liability in
history ($27 billion) for causing the world's largest oil spill in the
Ecuadorian rainforest. It is the only major U.S. Corporation still
operating in Burma and, with its partner Total Oil Corp., is the single
largest financial contributor to the Burmese government. It is the
dominant private oil producer in both Angola and Kazakhstan, with
operations in both countries mired in human rights and environmental
abuses. It is the only major oil company to be tried in a U.S. court on
charges of mass human rights abuse, including summary execution and
torture (for its operations in Nigeria).
It is the only oil company to hire one of the Bush Administration's
"torture memo" lawyers (William J. Haynes). It is the largest and most
powerful corporation in California, where it is currently being sued
for conspiring to fix gasoline prices. It has led the fight to keep
California as the only major oil producing state that does not tax oil
when it is pumped from the ground, thereby denying the state an extra
$1.5 billion annually. It is the largest industrial polluter in the Bay
Area and is among the largest single corporate contributors to climate
change on the planet.
Chevron is also the focus of one of the world's most unique and well-organized corporate resistance campaigns.
That campaign got a jolt of energy when Yes Man Andy Bichlbaum came
to San Francisco on Halloween weekend for a special screening of The Yes Men Fix the World.
Global Exchange and I teamed up with Andy (the movie's co-writer,
director, and producer) and a host of the Bay Areas most creative
activists, to lead an entire movie audience out of the theater, into
the streets, and in protest of Chevron.
We spread the word early, far, and wide: The Yes Men are coming! The
Yes Men are coming! They will not only fix the world, they will fix
Larry Bogad, a Yes Man co-hort and professor of Guerilla Theater,
helped concoct a masterful street theater scenario. A crack team of
protest and street theater organizers was compiled, including David
Solnit of the Mobilization for Climate Justice and Rae Abileah of Code Pink. Rock The Bike signed on and the word kept spreading.
On Sunday, the Roxie Theater in San Francisco's Mission District was
filled beyond capacity with an audience that came ready to protest.
They laughed, clapped, booed, and cheered along with the film. When the
movie ended, Andy answered questions, I talked about Chevron, and Larry
laid out the protest scenario.
Three Chevron executives, protected from the early ravages of climate change in SurvivaBalls,
were dragged up the street by dozens of Chevron minions with nothing
but haz-mat suits to protect them. Those unable to afford any
protection (i.e. The Dead) followed close behind. Next came resistance:
the Chevron street sweepers, actively cleaning up Chevron's messes who
were followed by the protesters, ready to change the story.
We didn't have a permit, but we took a lane of traffic on 16th
street anyway. The police first tried to intervene, then they "joined
in," blocking traffic on our way to Market and Castro.
As we marched and the music blared, people literally came out of
their houses and off of the streets to join in. Passersby eagerly took
postcards detailing Chevron's corporate crimes.
Once we arrived at the gas station, I welcomed everyone and
explained that we were at an independent Chevron (as opposed to
corporate) station, whose owner (whom I'd been speaking with regularly)
had his own list of grievances with his corporate boss. The particular
station was not our target of protest, but rather, the Chevron
Larry and Andy than led the entire crowd in a series of Tableaux
Morts. The Chevron executives in their SurvivaBalls drained the
lifeblood from the masses. The people began to rebel, forcing the
SurvivaBalls into the "turtle" position to fend off the attacks.
Ultimately, the separate groups saw their common purpose in resisting
Chevron's abuses. The dead rose, the Chevron minions rebelled, and the
sweepers and protesters joined together. They all chased the Chevron
executives off into the distance, and then danced in the streets,
rejoicing in their shared victory!
The Chevron Program
I direct at Global Exchange seeks to unite Chevron affected communities
across the United States and around the world. By uniting these
communities, we build strength from each other, and become a movement.
By expanding, strengthening, and highlighting this movement, we bring
in more allies and create a powerful advocacy base for real policy
change. Those changes will reign in Chevron, and by extension, the
entire oil industry. And, by raising the voices of those hardest hit by
the true cost of oil and exposing how we all ultimately pay the price,
we help move the world more rapidly away from oil as an energy resource
Berkeley, Oakland urge oil money transparency
Posted by Josh Richman on October 20th, 2009
Originally posted, October 14, 2009 on http://www.ibabuzz.com/politics/2009/10/14/berkeley-oakland-urge-oil-money-transparency/
Berkeley City Council last night approved a resolution urging the U.S. Senate to approve S.1700,
the “Energy Security Through Transparency Act” by U.S. Sen. Richard
Lugar, R-Ind., which would urge the Obama Administration to require
that companies disclose payments to foreign governments for oil, gas
and mineral rights. Oakland City Council passed a similar resolution last week.
“Good governance in extractive industries contribute to a better
domestic investment climate for U.S. businesses, increase the
reliability of commodity supplies, promote greater U.S. energy security
and thereby strengthen our national security,” says the summary on Lugar’s Web site.
San Francisco-based Justice in Nigeria Now hails the cities’ actions as a moral victory.
“I was tortured and imprisoned by the Nigerian military for my
peaceful protests against Shell Oil’s destruction of our land,” Suanu
Kingston Bere, a Nigerian activist who spoke at the Berkeley City
Council meeting, said in JINN’s news release. “I believe the City’s
support sends a strong message that communities in the U.S are
concerned about the human rights abuses and environmental damage
associated with oil extraction. I do not want to see my people continue
to go through what I went through.”
Berkeley’s resolution also calls on the State Department to support
third-party peace talks in the Delta to address environmental
destruction and lack of investment in the oil producing region. The
resolution was co-sponsored by Councilmembers Jesse Arreguin, Darryl Moore and Max Anderson and was introduced to the council through the Berkeley Peace and Justice Commission, which worked with JINN to draft it.
JINN says 50 years of oil exploitation in the Niger Delta has
produced over $700 billion in oil revenues shared between the Nigerian
government and oil giants like San Ramon-based Chevron as well as Exxon Mobil and Shell.
More than 40 percent of Nigeria’s oil is exported to the U.S. Yet
despite the corporate oil wealth, local residents’ quality of life has
deteriorated – their drinking polluted, their food fisheries poisoned,
their access to education, health care and even electricity limited.
“Oil companies in Nigeria have had long a relationship with the
notoriously corrupt and historically brutal Nigerian government where
rampant corruption, fraudulent elections and violent suppression of
peaceful protests are the norm in the Delta,” Nigerian writer and
activist Omoyele Sowore said in JINN’s news release. “The proposed ESTT
Act in the Senate is an important step toward holding oil companies
accountable for their collusion with the Nigerian government, which
protects their profits while killing and injuring innocent local people
and destroying the Delta’s fragile environment.”
Corporations and the Amazon
Posted by Philip Mattera on August 16th, 2009
Originally posted on August 13, 2009 at http://dirtdiggersdigest.org/archives/746
These days just about every large corporation would have us believe
that it is in the vanguard of the fight to reverse global warming.
Companies mount expensive ad campaigns to brag about raising their
energy efficiency and shrinking their carbon footprint.
Yet a bold article in the latest issue of business-friendly Bloomberg Markets
magazine documents how some large U.S.-based transnationals are
complicit in a process that does more to exacerbate the climate crisis
than anything else: the ongoing destruction of the Amazon rain forest.
While deforestation is usually blamed on local ranchers and loggers, Bloomberg
points the finger at companies such as Alcoa and Cargill, which the
magazine charges have used their power to get authorities in Brazil to
approve large projects that violate the spirit of the country’s
Alcoa is constructing a huge bauxite mine that will chew up more
than 25,000 acres of virgin jungle in an area, the magazine says, “is
supposed to be preserved unharmed forever for local residents.” Bloomberg
cites Brazilian prosecutors who have been waging a four-year legal
battle against an Alcoa subsidiary that is said to have circumvented
the country’s national policies by obtaining a state rather than a
federal permit for the project.
Bloomberg also focuses on the widely criticized grain port
that Cargill built on the Amazon River. Cargill claims to be
discouraging deforestation by the farmers supplying the soybeans that
pass through the port, but the Brazilian prosecutors interviewed by Bloomberg expressed skepticism that the effort was having much effect.
Apart from the big on-site projects, Bloomberg looks at
major corporations that it says purchase beef and leather from
Amazonian ranchers who engage in illegal deforestation. Citing
Brazilian export records, the magazine identifies Wal-Mart, McDonald’s,
Kraft Foods and Carrefour as purchasers of the beef and General Motors,
Ford and Mercedes-Benz as purchasers of leather.
The impact of the Amazon cattle ranchers was also the focus of a Greenpeace report published in June. That report put heat on major shoe companies that are using leather produced by those ranchers.
Nike and Timberland
responded to the study by pledging to end their use of leather hides
from deforested areas in the Amazon basin. Greenpeace is trying to get
other shoe companies to follow suit.
Think of the Amazon the next time a company such as Wal-Mart tells
us what wonderful things it is doing to address the climate crisis.
Posted by Denver Fair Food on July 31st, 2009
Originally posted on July 23 at http://denverfairfood.blogspot.com/2009/07/chipotle-grilled.html.
is getting burned by the very scheme it cooked up as what it thought
was a great public relations opportunity - sponsoring free screenings
of Food, Inc. - is becoming a PR fiasco.
Food, Inc. director
Robert Kenner and co-producer Eric Schlosser speak out and Chipotle has
to answer tough questions in Tom Philpott's must-read article on Grist.org
: Burrito chain’s Food, Inc. sponsorship generates off-screen drama over farm-worker issues."
explains that while many of Chipotle's efforts are great, he
nonetheless "cares more about human rights than any of those things."
He continues: "If Taco Bell, Subway, Burger King, and McDonald’s can
reach agreement with the CIW
, I don’t see why Chipotle can’t."
likewise, the article states, "made clear that he disagreed with the
company’s position on the CIW" even if he agrees with other things
Chipotle is doing. Kenner explains: "I was hopeful that by associating
itself with a film that promotes workers’ rights, [Chipotle] might be
inclined to sign with the Coalition . . . And now I’m not confident
in this unfolding fiasco is also noted: "Chipotle clearly resents such
critical statements at events designed to demonstrate its
sustainability cred. At one of its screenings in Denver, Chipotle
employees barred people
from the Campaign for Fair Food to speak after the
screening—overturning an arrangement that had been made with Food,
Inc’s public-education campaign. " After investigating the incident,
the article decides: "In other words, people wanting to discuss the CIW
issue aren’t to be given stage time at the Chipotle-sponsored Food,
of Chipotle's eagerness to shut up members of Denver Fair Food has
really made a splash on the internet, appearing on the websites of the Organic Cosumers Association
, the Coporate Ethics Network
, US Indymedia
, and others.
course Denver wasn't the only city where Chipotle got heat from Fair
Food activists while trying to bask in Food, Inc.'s glory. All over the
of the Coalition of Immokalee Workers took to the movies to deflate Chipotle's hot air about "food with integrity" with some sharp truths
about farm labor in Chipotle's supply chain. See the great photo report
from the nationwide "Battle of the Burrito" on the CIW website.
References to this PR fiasco are popping up in unforseen places such as thedailygreen
or even more surprising the mainstream investor blog The Motely Fool
. And the bed which Chipotle made for itself in which it now must lie can't be feeling any more comfortable.
The lesson for Chipotle to learn from its bungled Food, Inc. PR experiment? The ecorazzi
blog has these fitting words: "you can’t have your 1000+ calorie burrito and eat it too."
Shell's Settlement Doesn't Hide Unsettling Reality in Nigeria
Posted by Stephen Kretzmann on June 11th, 2009
Originally posted June 10, 2009, on The Huffington Post.
After thirteen years and
countless hours by lawyers, community members, and activists around the
world, Royal Dutch Shell finally settled the Wiwa v Shell case in a New York court for $15.5 million.
Plaintiffs in the case, which included Ken Saro-Wiwa Jr., and the
families of other Ogoni men hanged in November 1995, charged the
Royal Dutch/Shell company, its Nigerian subsidiary, and the former
chief of its Nigerian operation, Brian Anderson, with complicity in the
torture, killing, and other abuses of Ogoni leader Ken Saro-Wiwa and
other non-violent Nigerian activists in the mid-1990s in the Ogoni
region of the Niger Delta.
they settled the case as a "humanitarian gesture" to the Ogoni. Does
anyone really believe that after fighting for more than a decade to
keep this out of court, Shell suddenly woke up and felt great
compassion for the Ogoni? Please.
Shell settled because they were scared, and they knew the evidence
against them was overwhelming. They publicly say they had nothing to do
with the execution of Ken Saro-Wiwa and the other Ogoni, and yet there
were documents and video that they fought hard to keep out of the public eye.
Evidence that was to be introduced in the case included an internal Shell memo
where the head of Shell Nigeria offered to intervene on Saro-Wiwa's
behalf, if only Saro-Wiwa and others would stop claiming that Shell had
made payments to the military.
Then there was this memo, requesting payment to the Nigerian military for an incident in which at least one Ogoni man died.
Witness were set to testify that they saw Shell vehicles
transporting Nigerian soldiers, that they saw Shell employees
conferring with the military, that they saw money being exchanged
between Shell employees and military officers, and that they heard
military officers, including the brutal Major Okuntimo of the Rivers
State Internal Security Task Force, make admissions regarding the work
they were doing on behalf of Shell.
We have known some of Shell's involvement in this tragedy for a long
time. In early May of 1994, Ken Saro-Wiwa Sr. faxed me a memo authored
by Major Okuntimo which read "Shell operations still impossible unless ruthless military operations are undertaken for smooth economic activities to commence" and further called for "pressure on oil companies for prompt regular inputs."
I received that fax and immediately called Ken. He said "this is it.
They're going to kill us all. All for Shell." It was the last time I
talked with him. Several weeks later he was arrested on the trumped up
charges for which he was ultimately hanged.
In the last day, lots of people have asked me if $15.5 million is
enough to compensate for the hanging of nine men, the death of
thousands more, and for the destruction of an ecosystem. No of course
not. But was it on par with what a jury would have awarded in this
case? Yes, lawyers tell me, for sure.
More importantly, does the settlement bring relief to Ken Wiwa Jr.
and the families of the other men who were executed? If you read Ken's thoughtful and moving piece in the Guardian , the answer is clearly yes. That alone should be cause for celebration.
Ken Sr.'s famous last words from the gallows were "lord take my soul
but the struggle continues." In this moment, perhaps more than ever
before, we need to heed that call to action. The settlement in this
case brings satisfaction to the plaintiffs for an event that happened
14 years ago. It in no way, shape or form excuses or absolves Shell of
their ongoing destruction of the Niger Delta environment.
One of the central complaints of Niger Delta communities for forty
years has been gas flaring, which sends plumes of toxic pollutants into
the air and water of the Niger Delta. Gas flaring endangers human
health, harms local ecosystems, emits huge amounts of greenhouse gases,
wastes vast quantities of natural gas, and is against Nigerian law.
Shell does it nowhere else in the world in volumes that are even
remotely comparable to what they flare in the Delta.
But Shell is still flaring gas in Nigeria.
While there is no doubt that the settlement represented a
significant victory for the plaintiffs' in this one human rights case
against Shell, true justice will not be served as long as the people of
Nigeria continue to suffer the terrible impact of Shell's operations.
Shell estimates it would cost about $3 billion -- only 10% of just
their last year's profits -- to end Shell's gas flaring in Nigeria once
and for all.
But instead of putting their great "humanitarian concern" into
action, Shell points the finger at the Nigerian government and demands
that they pay to end this practice.
Send a message to Shell's CEO
Jeroen van der Veer, and let him know that if he really wants to prove
his great concern for the Ogoni people, he'll end gas flaring once and
The struggle continues.
What's not in Chevron's annual report
Posted by Cameron Scott on May 26th, 2009
Originally posted at http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/green/detail?entry_id=40674
When people with strong ideological perspectives are often outraged
by media coverage of their pet issues. When both sides are mad, you
know you're doing something right. But how often do you hear
corporations furious about they way they are covered in the business
section? The section seems to lend itself to favor-currying and
In the lead-up to Chevron's annual shareholders meeting tomorrow in San Ramon, the company landed a puff piece on KGO focusing on its efforts to decrease its water usage. No mention of the Amazon controversy, and no mention of outside pressure on Chevron, EBMUD's largest water user.
I'm disappointed to say that a Chronicle interview
with the company's top lawyer also softballs the issues, while giving
Chevron the opportunity to present its side of the story with no
opportunity for response from the company's many critics. [Update: Chron editors tell me there will be more coverage of Chevron later in the week.]
Well, Chevron's opponents, including San Francisco's Amazon Watch, have taken matters into their own hands, releasing an alternate annual report that presents the externalities
not listed in the company's balance sheet, which shows a record profit
of $24 billion, making the company the second most profitable in the
Did you know that Chevron's Richmond refinery was built in 1902 and emitted 100,000 pounds of toxic waste in 2007, consisting of no less than 38 toxic substances? The EPA ranks it as one of the worst refineries
in the nation. With 17,000 people living within 3 miles from the plant,
you'd think the San Ramon-based company would take local heat from more
than just a couple dozen activists.
Chevron has sought to brand itself an "energy" company, one eagerly pursuing alternatives to petroleum. Its aggressive "Will You Join Us?"
ad campaign asked regular folks to reduce their energy consumption,
suggesting that Chevron was doing the same. In actuality, the company
spent less than 3 percent of its whopping capital and
exploratory expenditures on alternative energy. And it has refused to
offer better reporting on its greenhouse gas emissions, despite strong
shareholder support for it. (The aggressive, and misleading, ad
campaign seems to have ired the report's researchers as well: The
report is decorated by numerous parodies, and some have been
wheat-pasted around town.)
It's a very well researched report, written by the scholar Antonia Juhasz,
clearly divided into regional issues, and it's a much needed
counterbalance to the friendly coverage Chevron is otherwise getting.
(Juhasz was interviewed on Democracy Now this morning.)
For information on protesting the shareholder meeting early tomorrow morning, click here.
The IDB—50 Years, Zero Reflection
Posted by Laura Carlsen on April 3rd, 2009
Americas Policy Program, Center for International Policy
At the end of
March, the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) celebrated its 50th
anniversary in Medellin. The occasion presents an opportunity to revise
concepts and move toward a fairer development model. It is logical to
think that among the festivities, a process of evaluation and
self-critique would begin regarding the bank's actions and work in the
The circumstances demand it. The continent has been plunged into a
grave economic crisis, in part because of the string of structural
reforms, deregulation, foreign market dependence, and privatization
that the IDB has supported in the region. Limits on the use of
non-renewable fuels have become more and more obvious while climate
change threatens to affect the production of basic foods and increase
the frequency of natural disasters. Forced migration characterizes
modern life and growing inequality has become the most important
challenge faced by all the countries in the region.
| Medellin: site of the 50th anniversary of the IDB. Photo: www.skyscraperlife.com.
In spite of this gray outlook, it seemed that until now everything
suggested that the IDB would prescribe more of the same medicine. They
predicted an increase in loans to the region for the record figure of
US$18 billion for 2009 as a response to the crisis. This will generate
a new wave of debt in the recipient countries, while at the same time
the development model behind the loans faces a crisis of credibility
due to its dubious results. For the IDB, development is seen as a
process of ensuring the transnational mobility of capital, enabling
foreign investment, the transfer of goods, and access to natural
resources. In recent years, this model has been imposed on regions that
were previously closed off due to their geographical location or
because of little interest from big business. Now that the value of
natural resources is increasing and national economies have opted for
exports, mega-projects including transportation infrastructure and
hydroelectric power plants, among others, have become attractive again.
They generally target regions with a low population density, and, in
many cases, significant indigenous populations. While these communities
are often forgotten by their national governments and suffer high
levels of marginalization, at the same time their territories are rich
in both culture and biodiversity.
The IDB has been a major promoter of infrastructure mega-projects
designed to drive this vision. Two mega-project master plans have been
of particular interest to the IDB: The Plan Puebla-Panama (also known
as the Mesoamerican Integration and Development Project) and the
Initiative for the Integration of Regional Infrastructure in South
America (IIRSA). These plans include the construction of
super-highways, dams, electricity networks, and more. The projects
signal a drastic change in the use of land and resources. Local,
regional, and national markets—which generate more jobs and constitute
the majority of food distribution—are seen as a hindrance, and natural
resources—conserved by indigenous communities—are considered the spoils
of transnational business.
Among its objectives, the IDB aims to generate development in these
regions. However, a recent study revealed that the mega-projects
financed by the IDB in many cases end up displacing thousands of people
who are supposed to be the beneficiaries. The construction of dams is
the clearest example because it entails the involuntary displacement
through the flooding of vast areas which often include pre-existing
communities. One example is the La Parota hydroelectric dam in
Guerrero, Mexico which would displace around 25,000 people and has
currently been halted due to popular resistance. A group of 43
grassroots organizations met prior to the IDB meeting in Medellin. They
presented studies and testimonies on the impacts of these projects in
an effort to change the IDB's policies. Through the campaign known as
"The IDB: 50 years financing inequality," these groups argue that,
rather than alleviate the issue of poverty, mega-projects channel the
profits gained from natural resources into the hands of the private
sector and destroy the social fabric and community networks necessary
for indigenous survival.
The solution to poverty that the IDB fundamentally proposes would
seem to be: reduce poverty by expelling the poor. The two meetings—that
of the IDB authorities and that of the organizations which question its
practices—present an opportunity to revise the concept of development
and move toward a fairer development model.
Originally posted on April 1, http://americas.irc-online.org/am/6008.
Not Quite Beyond Petroleum
Posted by Philip Mattera on February 20th, 2009
For the past eight years, the oil giant formerly known as British
Petroleum has tried to convince the world that its initials stand for
“Beyond Petroleum.” An announcement just issued by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency may suggest that the real meaning of BP
is Brazen Polluter.
The EPA revealed
that BP Products North America will pay nearly $180 million to settle
charges that it has failed to comply with a 2001 consent decree under
which it was supposed to implement strict controls on benzene and
benzene-tainted waste generated by the company’s vast oil refining
complex in Texas City, Texas, located south of Houston. Since the
1920s, benzene has been known to cause cancer.
Among BP’s self-proclaimed corporate values
is to be “environmentally responsible with the aspiration of ‘no damage
to the environment’” and to ensure that “no one is subject to
unnecessary risk while working for the group.” Somehow, that message
did not seem to make its way to BP’s operation in Texas City, which has
a dismal performance record.
The benzene problem in Texas City was supposed to be addressed as part of the $650 million agreement
BP reached in January 2001 with the EPA and the Justice Department
covering eight refineries around the country. Yet environmental
officials in Texas later found that benzene emissions at the plant
remained high. BP refused to accept that finding and tried to stonewall
the state, which later imposed a fine of $225,000.
In March 2005 a huge explosion (photo) at the refinery killed 15
workers and injured more than 170. The blast blew a hole in a benzene
storage tank, contaminating the air so seriously that safety
investigators could not enter the site for a week after the incident.
BP was later cited for egregious safety violations and paid a record fine of $21.4 million. Subsequently, a blue-ribbon panel chaired by former secretary of state James Baker III found
that BP had failed to spend enough money on safety and failed to take
other steps that could have prevented the disaster in Texas City. Still
later, the company paid a $50 million fine as part of a plea agreement on related criminal charges.
In an apparent effort to repair its image, BP has tried to associate
itself with positive environmental initiatives. The company was, for
instance, one of the primary sponsors
of the big Good Jobs/Green Jobs conference held in Washington earlier
this month. Yet as long as BP operates dirty facilities such as the
Texas City refinery, the company’s sunburst logo, its purported
earth-friendly values and its claim of going beyond petroleum will be
nothing more than blatant greenwashing.
Originally posted at:
Dirt Diggers Digest is written by Philip Mattera, director of the Corporate Research Project, an affiliate of Good Jobs First.
Norway finds Canada's largest publicly-traded company, Barrick Gold, unethical
Posted by Sakura Saunders on February 2nd, 2009
Norway's Ministry of Finance announced Friday that it would exclude mining giant Barrick Gold and U.S. weapons producer Textron Inc from the country's pension fund for ethical reasons. This is an especially significant judgment for Canada, as Barrick Gold is currently Canada's largest publicly traded company.
While the Norwegian Council of Ethics full recommendation mentions conflicts involving Barrick in Chile, Tanzania, and the Philippines, the panel acknowledged that, "due to limited resources," it restricted its investigation of Barrick to the Porgera mine in Papua New Guinea. The Porgera mine has been a prime target for criticism for its use of riverine tailings disposal, a practice banned in almost every country in the world.
"It's unbelievably embarrassing," admitted Green Party deputy leader Adriane Carr. "It's got to be bad news for Canada when a foreign government says it's going to sell its shares in a Canadian company they figure is unethical."
This isn't the first time that Norway's Fund has divested from a gold mining company. In fact, looking at a list, the fund – with the notable exception of Walmart – divests exclusively from mining (primarily gold mining) corporations and corporations that produce nuclear weapons or cluster munitions... an interesting juxtaposition highlighting the comparable nature of mining to the production of weapons of mass destruction, especially in terms of long-term environmental consequences.
Compare that to Canada's treatment of gold mining companies. Just this last December, Peter Munk, the chairman and founder of Barrick Gold, received the Order of Canada, Canada's highest civilian honor. Additionally, within Toronto he is honored as a philanthropist, with the Peter Munk Cardiac Center and the Munk Centre for International Studies at the University of Toronto both adorning his name. Similarly, Ian Telfer, the chairman of Goldcorp, the world's second largest gold miner behind Barrick, has the Telfer School of Management at the University of Ottawa bearing his name.
These symbolic gestures, along with the fact that several Canadian Pension funds and even Vancouver-based "Ethical Funds" are still heavily invested in Barrick Gold, show that Canada has a long way to go in demanding that its companies honor human rights and halt its colonial-style, exploitative economic regime. In fact, by its own admittance, Canada's Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade stated that "Canada does not yet have laws to ensure that the activities of
Canadian mining companies in developing countries conform to human
rights standards, including the rights of workers and of indigenous
peoples." Since the date of that landmark confession, Canada has yet to adopt any intervening structures (like an ombudsperson) or develop any mandatory regulations for Canadian companies operating abroad.
Gold mining produces an average of 79 tons of waste for every ounce of gold extracted, 50 percent of it is carried out on native lands, and about 80 percent of it is used for jewelry, according to the "No Dirty Gold" campaign, a project of Oxfam and Earthworks. It is no wonder that in a portfolio with plenty of human rights abuses, the Norwegian Pension Fund decided to concentrate on gold miners, cluster munition manufacturers and nuclear weapon producers first. It is time that the rest of the world catch up.