

Google execs: fight Mexico drug cartels with technology - SkyMarshal
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/google-executives-say-technology-can-be-harnessed-to-fight-drug-cartels-in-mexico/2012/07/17/gJQACbXhrW_print.html

======
uvdiv
It's utterly incongruous reading Schmidt advocating personal privacy,
anonymity, security of communication -- the same guy who's repeatedly on
public record opposing these things. Like this:

 _"I think judgment matters. If you have something that you don't want anyone
to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place. If you really
need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines -- including
Google -- do retain this information for some time and it's important, for
example, that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act and
it is possible that all that information could be made available to the
authorities."_

[http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/12/my_reaction_to...](http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/12/my_reaction_to.html)

And also this:

 _"Privacy is incredibly important," Schmidt stated. "Privacy is not the same
thing as anonymity. It's very important that Google and everyone else respects
people's privacy. People have a right to privacy; it's natural; it's normal.
It's the right way to do things. But if you are trying to commit a terrible,
evil crime, it's not obvious that you should be able to do so with complete
anonymity. There are no systems in our society which allow you to do that.
Judges insist on unmasking who the perpetrator was. So absolute anonymity
could lead to some very difficult decisions for our governments and our
society as a whole."_

And this:

 _"The only way to manage this is true transparency and no anonymity," Schmidt
said. "In a world of asynchronous threats, it is too dangerous for there not
to be some way to identify you. We need a [verified] name service for people.
Governments will demand it."_

[http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/google-ceo-
schmid...](http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/google-ceo-schmidt-no-
anonymity-future-web)

(edit) Apparently this is a popular enough subject that _Huffington Post_ has
a collection of these:

"Google CEO Eric Schmidt's Most Controversial Quotes About Privacy"

[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/04/google-ceo-eric-
sch...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/04/google-ceo-eric-schmidt-
privacy_n_776924.html#s170420)

------
zalew
> anonymity is provided to everyone, although such a system would know a
> unique ID

Wait what? That's a failure from the start. User of such system should be 100%
anonymous, untrackable, and not give a damn about personal rewards. With all
the corruption leverage the cartels have, all their creativity (tunnels,
submarines), and quality of business operations
([https://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/17/magazine/how-a-mexican-
dr...](https://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/17/magazine/how-a-mexican-drug-cartel-
makes-its-billions.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all)) I imagine surveilling local
network traffic looking for unique ids and connecting the dots through data
mining would be kind of a task of intermediate difficulty for them. To work at
all, it would probably have to be run over Tor, but setting up Tor properly to
avoid leaving fingerprints is a task for advanced internet users, while in
this situation being less tech-savvy could be deadly.

Second, this system also could be used for deception. If an innocent citizen
can report events and locations, why wouldn't the cartel use it to fool
authorities?

Third, it looks like an offer to throw even more money into the 'war on drugs'
sinkhole, only disguised as 'fighting with technology', 'technological
workaround to the fear', and other BS propaganda.

~~~
elviejo
Yeap the way to provide reliabilty is if several anonymous sources report the
same problem.

Also this system if the report is by smartphone it could provide GPS to know
the location of an incident.

but complete anonimity is crucial. And also the peoplo _must believe_ they are
anonymous. some people that dare to report a crime do it from a public phone,
they know what happens that do it from their cellphone.

------
pessimizer
This is idiotic. As always, you can narrow down who got you busted by figuring
first out what authorities knew, then who could have known that information to
tell the authorities.

Then you can kill them all, or kill them one at a time until they figure out
who told and turn them over. You can do it in public and write an essay near
their headless bodies in big black block capitals about how google won't
protect you.

Cartels spent a time targeting bloggers and even forum commenters for a while,
with gory results. This was simply for making insulting, not informational
comments. I think I can remember one guy being killed for a comment because
his sister mentioned to a friend that he had been to the site, then the cartel
was able to figure out which commenter he was by looking through the comments
and making connections.

Fight drug crime by not having stupid drug laws, and/or by following the
money. We're not interested in following the money, because in the US, white
collar crime is treated as if it were schoolboys breaking the Honor Code
rather than mass murder. Angelo Mozilo is not only still free, but still
richer than anybody you know will ever be.

edit: "Consider an all-too-familiar situation in Juarez: A man cooperates with
law enforcement — or is believed to have cooperated — and his wife is
subsequently targeted. Many people are aware of such occurrences but do not
report it, thinking: Why take the risk when the chance of meaningful change is
so low? Some version of this plays out every day in Mexico."

Everybody is aware of these occurrences, because they are intentionally
publicized with placards leaned on piles of corpses, notes kept from blowing
away by severed heads, banners stretched across highways with hanged men and
women beneath them, and youtube videos. What's the use of killing snitches if
nobody knows?

~~~
elliottcarlson
My thoughts exactly. Even if they can't pinpoint someone directly, there are
enough people in the cartel, or surrounding cities that are "disposable" and
could be used to send a message - and that fear is what they are already using
to control everyone around them. Even if they don't punish the correct whistle
blower, that person isn't going to come out and announce that they got it
wrong.

------
zcid
Legalize the drugs. Then there is no money to fund the cartels.

~~~
cmdkeen
Maybe, just maybe for cannabis. But meth and cocaine (including crack)? I
don't think you appreciate the damage those drugs cause.

The US policy on drugs is insane, but so is legalisation in a country which
can't even manage to generate a proper social stigma against drink driving.

~~~
Nursie
1\. They don't need to do as much damage if the legal consequences associated
with them are lessened, and people feel able to access help and care for their
problems.

2\. The money currently spent (fruitlessly) trying to suppress these things
could fund one heck of a rehab program.

3\. Known dosages and purities, as well as safer methods of taking the
substances, could help minimise harm.

I agree that blanket legalisation is probably nuts, by the way, but I don't
think it's as black and white as "meth bad, must stay illegal".

~~~
intended
From what I remember reading recently - the results of the Portugal drug
legalization program was a reduction of convictions/prosecutions for drug
possesion and use.

All those people ended up going into rehab and therapy systems. So it wasn't a
slam dunk result, the problem got routed to another system, albeit one more
humane to handle the load.

~~~
icebraining
No, it wasn't just a reduction in convictions.

Drug usage in young people has dropped, and so has the number of HIV/AIDS
cases among drug users.

Also, even people who weren't caught by the police are voluntarily submitting
themselves into rehab in much greater numbers.

~~~
intended
Great to hear, if you have a link - please share, I'd love to read up more.

Definitely curious as to how drug use has gone down, and I am assuming the
incidence rate of aids/HIV has gome down.

The last point seems to suggest that a stigma has been removed from getting
help, so that great news too.

~~~
icebraining
I usually know about this from newspapers (I'm Portuguese), but apparently
there's a whitepaper by Glenn Greewald on the subject.

The paper has an obvious political slant, but the data is solid, and our
national Institute of Drugs links to it.

[http://www.idt.pt/PT/Documents/MontraIDT/2009/greenwald_whit...](http://www.idt.pt/PT/Documents/MontraIDT/2009/greenwald_whitepaper.zip)

There are other documents in the Institute's website. Most are in Portuguese,
but there's some stuff in English. Check the dates on the reports, 'though,
some are very outdated.

<http://www.idt.pt/EN/Paginas/HomePage.aspx>

------
mrilhan
... Wikileaks, anyone? I think the model Mr. Schmidt is advocating has been
tried, and destroyed in front of our eyes by multiple collaborating
governments (sweden, america, england) and corporations (paypal, visa, et
al.), in the last 24 months. Perhaps Google would have a better shot at
defending itself.

The article seems more written out of shock, the absurdity of his travel
experience, rather than an actual long-term plan to disrupt the cartels by
injecting (pun? maybe) technology into the problem. The onus at this point is
on the governments, which have bigger pockets and more methods of organizing
large groups of people, compared to the individual citizens involved who are
as Mr. Schmidt himself puts it, 'overwhelmed by crime'. We can't simply treat
this specific problem as if it appeared yesterday, it has a history and
evolution of its own. Certain methods have been tried, there have been many
scandals, people revealed to be 'on the take', thousands of innocent
bystanders have been slaughtered. This isn't day #1, and that affects public
reaction.

Something else to keep in mind is that this isn't Occupy Wall Street either,
you're not just going to get slapped with a loitering ticket and walk it off,
there's a very real x% chance that your wife or kids could be targeted (that
means 'killed and (maybe) raped'), which isn't a risk you can expect anyone to
stand up against out of their own will and the promise of anonymous packets
tracked by a unique ID suggested by a guy who got off of a private jet.

------
codex
TL;DR: If the public could give anonymous tips, the drug cartels would be
weakened.

If you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Is it really hard to give
anonymous tips? I doubt it. I think the fundamental problem with informants is
that only so many people have insider information on criminal activity, and
there's a good chance the cartels will find their moles, even if the tips are
truly anonymous.

------
raphman
So the government should build an infrastructure that allows anyone to
anonymously report another person to the authorities and earn rewards for
this?

What could possibly go wrong if you encourage all citizens to spy on their
neighbors?

What if a drug cartel subverts or duplicates this system and uses it for their
own interests?

------
edoloughlin
Anyone else find this incredibly hand-wavy? What happens when the cartels
infiltrate ISPs and start randomly butchering people using this new protocol?

~~~
elviejo
_everything_ is infiltrated: banks, goverment agencies, police... complete
anonimity is esential.

------
checoivan
They're assuming high level people don't know who, or where the cartel people
are.

Stand outside of the ferrari dealership and jewelry stores in MX, I'll bet
they'll find plenty of what they're supposed to.

------
tpr1m
This solution is no different than sending more guns. Instead, respect the
inalienable right to consciousness modification.

------
gojomo
_"The trick is that anonymity is provided to everyone, although such a system
would know a unique ID for every user to maintain records and provide
rewards."_

That would be quite a trick!

In a corrupt environment, if someone can be found to reward, cartels can also
find them to punish.

~~~
michaelt
You could submit your tip along with your bitcoin address, then if the tip
comes up right they send the reward to that address.

Of course, if they failed to deliver the reward or it got redirected along the
way, you couldn't exactly complain publicly. And you'd still have the problem
that your neighbors would notice if you brought (say) a new car. And you might
get murdered just for having a bitcoin client installed. But other than that,
it could work!

------
carsongross
Sane people: fight Mexico drug cartels by decriminalizing at the federal
level, like during the first 140 years of our countries existence.

------
rprasad
Ah yes, the magical power of technology to solve all of the world's problems.
I forgot technology had that power.

Well, let's all get to it guys!

/s

