IBM / Genetec Surveillance System Investigated Over Philippines Human Rights Abuses

IPVMU Certified

would this IBM product be considered a PSIM?

Reactions:

John Honovich

In reply to Undisclosed #1

IPVM

I wouldn't call this a PSIM but that depends on how one defines PSIM.

It's definitely an attempt at building a command and control solution, from IBM's own announcement:

A single operational platform which will enable coordination between Davao City agencies involved in responding to public safety incidences

PSIM, at least to me, is more focused on physical security alone (the PS in PSIM), and in particular, integrating various physical security subsystems. What IBM claims (or at least used to claim) to be doing is broader.

Reactions:

(1)

Undisclosed End User #2

IMHO,

I'm Not sure how this is some kind of wake up call. With video analytics getting better every day why wouldn't I be able to search for any video characteristic I want, be it skin tone, vehicle color, or gang sign. Maybe I want to search for a ginger dwarf because that's what the description of the perp. was

Unless the end user is under some kind of embargo/sanction, who gets to say whether or not their 'politics' allows a manufacturer to sell to them. What the end user ultimately does with the tools given is not on the manufacturer. The exact same tools can be used to solve an Amber Alert or find the Boston Bomber.

The same argument can be made for lots of things like fast food and guns.

VMSs dont kill people...you know the rest.

Reactions:

(8)

(2)

(1)

John Honovich

In reply to Undisclosed End User #2

IPVM

The same argument can be made for lots of things like fast food and guns.

VMSs dont kill people...you know the rest.

Guns are regulated, even in the US, even without considering the much more significant regulations in Europe and elsewhere.

With video analytics getting better every day why wouldn't I be able to search for any video characteristic I want, be it skin tone, vehicle color, or gang sign.

You will but with greater power and capabilities will become greater opportunities to abuse them, ergo why governments regulate lots of things that have can harm people.

What the end user ultimately does with the tools given is not on the manufacturer

That sensible, except when the manufacturer is also the contractor and sells and sets up the system directly like IBM did here and like Dahua and Hikvision do in China.

Reactions:

(2)

(1)

(2)

Undisclosed End User #2

In reply to John Honovich

Guns are regulated, even in the US, even without considering the much more significant regulations in Europe and elsewhere.

Yes they are, but we dont blame Remington for gun violence....well some try.

That sensible, except when the manufacturer is also the contractor and sells and sets up the system directly like IBM did here and like Dahua and Hikvision do in China.

Assuming IBM doesn't have a vigilante genocide business solution, what is being done here is a perversion of the same tools that everyone else has. If the MFR sets up the system directly that's somehow morally different than selling it to a contractor who does the same?

You will but with greater power and capabilities will become greater opportunities to abuse them, ergo why governments regulate lots of things that have can harm people.

In this case, the entity doing the harm is the government itself. Sadly, they still managed to do it under a democratic republic with legislative, judicial and executive branches. However it is a unitary state, not a federated one. Thanks Wikipedia

...good conversation!

Reactions:

(1)

(2)

Undisclosed #1

IPVMU Certified

is there an accepted “woke” set of criteria to apply to determine if a manufacturer is in an ethically dubious position in these human rights related matters? as far as I can tell it’s something like:

its wrong if a company is actively trying to sell its products/services to an entity/regime that it knows/suspects may use them in the suppression of human rights.

the only problem there is: would Ford supplying standard police vehicles to the same regime be wrong? if so, what about Goodyear supplying just the tires?

is it just wrong for any company to do any business with such an entity?

Reactions:

(9)

(2)

(1)

Undisclosed #3

In reply to Undisclosed #1

I personally don't like all these social justice warrior exposes. Its not a wake up call,its just someone looking for a tree to climb.

in an ideal world,we would all be selling to Denmark... The PH is a democracy with many problems, but still a democracy ( so is Mexico, so is India, so is Brazil) it is not ruled by a dictatorial junta or a one party state. The persons whose human rights were infringed were drug dealers, not an oppressed ethnic minority. Selling to the authorities, even if they are shite authorities is not a crime in my book.

The ones that need a wake call are The editors of the intercept, especially since they rely on speculation and innuendo, since as you wrote there is no proof that the vms was used for extrajudicial killings.

Reactions:

(3)

(5)

(1)

Undisclosed #4

"The persons whose human rights were infringed were drug dealers, not an oppressed ethnic minority. Selling to the authorities, even if they are shite authorities is not a crime in my book."

so you are ok with the use of technology in the violation of human rights (literally, death squads that were sanctioned by Rodrigo Duterte).- as long as your view of those that are having their rights violated 'deserve it'?

This is one of the weakest arguments I've ever seen displayed on IPVM.

Human rights violations should be judged on the violation of actual human rights - and not judged based on the occupation of those whose rights are violated.

To argue otherwise simply underscores your biased viewpoint against those that you deem unworthy of the same human rights you purport to defend.

Reactions:

(6)

(2)

Undisclosed #3

In reply to Undisclosed #4

To sell equipment to the municipal authorities of a democratic country is not flawed.

A flaw would be to bribe your way into a tender, there is a difference between the two.

To cry over the rights of the criminals and disregard how they harm innocent phillippinoes with drug dealing, violence, women and children trafficking is hypocritical.

To publish an article that accuses IBM and genetec of aiding human rights abuse, and at the same time admitting there is no evidence of this and that their technology at the time was probably not advanced enough to do so makes this one of weakest articles I saw on ipvm.

Reactions:

(2)

Undisclosed #1

IPVMU Certified

To publish an article that accuses IBM and genetec of aiding human rights abuse, and at the same time admitting there is no evidence of this and that their technology at the time was probably not advanced enough to do so makes this one of weakest articles I saw on ipvm.

what’s weak is your eyesight :)

where exactly in this article do you see IPVM “accuse IBM and genetec of aiding human rights abuse”?

First, IPVM reported on the Intercept’s claims, which in itself were newsworthy, considering it is a mainstream outlet commenting on our industry.

Then, IPVM sussed out the Genetec connection and elicited a response, which IPVM seemingly found credible.

Finally, IPVM also cast doubt on some of the accusations, and tried to raise awareness of this growing issue on our industry, in general.

Reactions:

(3)

(1)

Undisclosed End User #8

In reply to Undisclosed #1

"which in itself were newsworthy"

I've always touted IPVM as being the Consumer Reports of video surveillance technology. And I have to admit being totally wrong. Articles like this reveal IPVM to be the CNN of video surveillance - do whatever it takes, at any cost, to capture eyeballs and page hits.

Reactions:

(1)

Undisclosed #1

IPVMU Certified

IPVM... [will] do whatever it takes, at any cost, to capture eyeballs and page hits.

yes, and in particular, the cost of preparing this multi-paragraph, link-laden report with embedded full-color graphics is probably mind boggling. like I don’t even want to know.

Reactions:

John Honovich

IPVM

To sell equipment to the municipal authorities of a democratic country is not flawed.

So is selling equipment to the People's Republic of China flawed?

Reactions:

(2)

(1)

(2)

Undisclosed Integrator #7

IBM has some nasty history of providing technology to the Nazis during WWII......

Sometimes it's hard to find the obvious link or the golden proof but when you examine the government actions and the provider of technologies used by the government.... you find the link.....

Reactions:

(1)

Undisclosed Integrator #6

"The persons whose human rights were infringed were drug dealers". Was this proven in court, I don't think so. This is a bad road to go down, human rights are human rights, if you start making exceptions when do you stop?

Reactions:

(5)

(1)

Undisclosed Integrator #5

As integrators, we have to be aware of potential technology abuses. To maintain an ethical standard in our industry, we must challenge such questionable deployments of powerful technology. We are just a few news stories away from the public equating “video analytics” with “tool for racist oppression”. Although the truth is much more nuanced, people’s perception is their reality.

Reactions:

(5)

(1)

(3)

(1)

John Honovich

IPVM

We are just a few news stories away from the public equating “video analytics” with “tool for racist oppression”.

I agree though I believe many industry people will scoff at this.

We should recognize that it is a benefit to the industry that the public has long, and justifiably, held video surveillance as a strong net positive. And we should be pro-active about encouraging reasonable ethical usage standards and even regulation to mitigate the broad negative consequences of misuse.

Reactions:

(4)

(2)

Undisclosed Integrator #7

IBM also provided the Nazis during WWII with punching cards technologies to assist them with managing the records of the people who were murdered

Seems like they can't keep their hands clean for too long....

Reactions:

(1)

Undisclosed End User #8

I hope I am not the only one that wonders if this article aligns with the core mission of IPVM.

Yes, it is tragic if video surveillance technology is used to carry out human rights abuses in countries governed by dictatorships. But I fail to see how this type article is helpful to anyone wanting to keep up to date on video surveillance TECHNOLOGY.

I certainly didn't buy an IPVM subscription to support socio-political investigations. There are a vast number of websites providing their own lists of socially irresponsible companies.

Leave political reporting to the main stream media.

Reactions:

(3)

(2)

(1)

Undisclosed #4

"But I fail to see how this type article is helpful to anyone wanting to keep up to date on video surveillance TECHNOLOGY."

your assumption includes the perception that everyone who has an IPVM subscription does so for only the reasons that you do.

This assumption is incorrect.

A subscription to IPVM does not require you to click on links you aren't interested in.

Reactions:

(1)

John Honovich

IPVM

Leave political reporting to the main stream media.

We report on 'politics' as it relates to the video surveillance industry. For example, we never reported on the Mueller Report, because there was no connection to video surveillance. We do report on this and, e.g., Xinjiang to the extent that they do relate to video surveillance.

Reactions:

(2)

(1)

Jacob Hengel

•Jan 26, 2020

YourSix

I have never seen IPVM affiliate with any political party; only draw attention to human rights offenses. I support having these types of "political" posts as a part of my subscription.

Reactions:

Richard Buckmaster

I find it hypocritical that so many people have such strong feelings about this subject yet will express those feelings only if they can do so anonymously.

Reactions:

(1)

Undisclosed #4