Syria and Myanmar Allegedly Using Spying Tech from US Company

Repressive regimes in Syria and Myanmar are increasingly using technology from the West to monitor and surveil activists.

Ron Deibert, the director of Citizen Lab tells host Marco Werman about the role played by the California-based company Blue Coat Systems.

Read the Transcript
The text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

Marco Werman: In Syria, the government crackdown on protestors continues unabated. The Syrian government has ignored its own pledge to stop the violence and begin a dialogue with the opposition. The United Nation estimates that some 3,500 Syrians have been killed since the protests began eight months ago. Some Syrian antigovernment activists like their counterparts in other countries are trying to use the web to organize, and like other regimes, Syria has fought back by monitoring and censoring online activity. The Syrian government is apparently doing so with technology made in the USA. That’s according to a report released this week by Citizen Lab, a research center at the University of Toronto. It found that web filtering and network monitoring gear from California-based Blue Coat Systems has turned up in Syria. Ron Deibert directs the Citizen Lab. He says there are two reasons to question Blue Coat’s involvement in Syria.

Ron Deibert: One is the fact that Syria is presently under economic sanctions from the United States, so if Blue Coat actually sold these systems to Syrian internet service providers it would be against the law in the United States. And then of course, as a broader ethical question if these technologies are being used to identify, monitor web traffic that is being used by dissidents in a context of extreme violence.

Werman: Blue Coat Systems declined our offer to come on the program and offer their point of view, but in their online statement, which we’ll link to on our site, theworld.org, they say their devices were transferred illegally to Syria and that would’ve been via a third party. What’s your thought on this? Is the original seller responsible when its product ends up in the hands of repressive regimes even by a third party?

Deibert: It depends on what the third party reseller arrangement is and what type of due diligence Blue Coat is doing. And I think it’s important here to you know, do a bit of deep dive into how the technology works. So Blue Coat filtering devices, as far as I understand them, in order for them to be able to censor web content they need to upload a list of you know, billions of websites that are maintained by Blue Coat and categorized according to their preset systems. So they really cannot function properly without checking home so to speak to computers that are controlled by Blue Coat in California presumably. That means there’s an open question as to whether they were able to know definitively that even if their products had made it to Syria, they were actually working. Now, with the reseller if what they’re saying is actually true, it shows a lack of due diligence in terms of controlling how their resellers use their products. And I think these technologies are sold through a variety of resellers and it’s not often closely monitored. To me that’s something that needs tightening up.

Werman: Could a Blue Coat Systems and other firms manufacture some sort of kill switch to stop their devices remotely from working in the wrong hands?

Deibert: Absolutely. All it takes is for them to be able to monitor the devices that are in operation and connecting to their own servers. And you know, considering the very nature of the technology they supply this would seem to be a trivial task for them.

Werman: So what do you think is the way out, Ron? I mean what can be done to stop repressive regimes from getting their hands on this sort of technology?

Deibert: Well, you know, in many ways it’s such a complex issue because you know, some people are in favor of greater legislation. And certainly there is as I said, sanction regime in the United States that prevents the sale of this technology to places like Syria. That’s one step. But the problem is we’re dealing with a global marketplace. If American companies are legislated out of these markets, a Chinese company would step in. We’ve even seen Canadian companies stepping in where Americans have backed out. So legislation is one component, but it’s not the final solution for all of this. And I think we really need to understand the roots of why countries like Syria are engaging in this sort of control, and why this marketplace has emerged in the first place.

Werman: Ron Deibert directs Citizen Lab. He’s also a political science professor at the University of Toronto. Thanks for speaking with us.

Deibert: My pleasure, thank you.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.