Global articles on espionage, spying, bugs, and other interesting topics.

What are the risks of using CI (competitive intelligence) for espionage?

A:

The line between competitive intelligence, or CI, and illegal corporate espionage is not always clear. This is especially true as technology increases the ability to gather and distribute information. There are also differences between domestic and international espionage laws. Whenever a company engages in an uncertain area of CI processing, it opens itself up to possible legal risk.

Intelligence Vs. Espionage

Corporate espionage, sometimes referred to as industrial espionage, is different than spying for political or national security reasons. The purpose of corporate espionage is to better understand the strengths and weaknesses of a specific business or industry. These are the same goals pursued by competitive intelligence strategies. The difference between CI and corporate espionage normally comes down to the means of acquiring information.

For example, it is legal to ask a competitive firm’s customers what they like or do not like about the competitor’s products. No illicit activity occurs to receive the information. On the other hand, blackmailing a competitor’s employee to garner information is illegal; blackmail is an illicit activity in the United States. The differentiation between licit and illicit is generally cited as the difference between espionage and intelligence gathering.

Risks of Corporate Espionage

Corporate espionage is relatively limited. Most forms of information gathering are legal, even if some are widely considered unethical. There are two broad means of committing corporate espionage: violating contracts or breaking other laws in the course of collecting information.

Nondisclosure agreements and gag orders are commonplace in corporate circles. Companies spend a considerable amount of time trying to protect trade secrets or other competitive advantages. Those with access to sensitive information can be required to sign away their right to reveal anything material.

Other acts normally considered illegal, such as fraud or bribery for example, can turn standard CI into espionage. Penalties for breaking these laws depend on their respective jurisdictional statutes. This is different than breaking a contract, where punishment might be detailed in the original agreement.

Israeli Military Indicts Soldier on Espionage Charges

The Israeli military says it has indicted a soldier on charges of sharing secret information that made its way into Syrian hands.

Thursday’s statement says the soldier relayed “classified information capable of harming state security” about the military’s activity along the frontier between Israel and Syria.

The soldier served in the armored corps and gave material to a “foreign agent” who then passed it on to Syrian officials.

Such cases are rare, and the military would not elaborate. Local media say the soldier is a member of Israel’s Druse minority.

Many Druse Arabs serve in Israel’s military. Members of the close-knit society have relatives on both sides of the Golan Heights.

Israel captured the strategic plateau overlooking northern Israel from Syria in the 1967 Mideast war.

Police bugging inquiry report says Deputy Commissioner Nick Kaldas deserves an apology

NSW Police Deputy Commissioner Nick Kaldas was heavily targeted in the bugging operation. Photo: Peter Rae

Deputy NSW police commissioner Nick Kaldas deserves an apology for being targeted with dozens of listening device warrants more than a decade ago, an upper house inquiry is expected to recommend.

The report of the parliamentary inquiry into a long-running bugging scandal that has rocked the upper echelons of the NSW police force will also find that a new inquiry should be held into how listening device warrants are obtained.

It will also be critical of successive police commissioners, including the current Commissioner Andrew Scipione, for the lack of action to resolve complaints over the decade-old scandal.

NSW Police Commissioner Andrew Scipione (centre), flanked by NSW Premier Mike Baird and Prime Minister Tony Abbott, has been criticised for failing to resolve the scandal. Photo: James Alcock

The inquiry examined the conduct and progress of Operation Prospect, an Ombudsman’s investigation into a police bugging operation, code-named Mascot, which ran between 1999 and 2001 and targeted allegedly corrupt police.

The scandal has rocked the top of the police force as another Deputy Commissioner, Catherine Burn, was team leader of Mascot – the operation targeting Mr Kaldas. Mr Scipione oversaw the operation for a time.

Mascot used a corrupt former policeman, code named M5, to target allegedly corrupt police with a listening device. But it emerged there was insufficient or no evidence of wrongdoing by many of the more than 100 police and civilians whose names appeared on warrants issued by the Supreme Court.

It emerged during the inquiry that Mr Kaldas was named in 80 warrants for listening devices issued to Mascot.

It is understood the inquiry’s report, due to be tabled in the NSW Parliament on Wednesday morning, will recommend that the state government issue a formal apology to Mr Kaldas over being targeted by the operation.

It will also recommend an apology be given to Channel Seven journalist Steve Barrett, who was named on 52 warrants.

The long-running tensions between Mr Kaldas and Ms Burn boiled over on the final day of the inquiry’s hearings, when Mr Kaldas accused Ms Burn of raising his name with an informant later used to bug him more than a decade ago.

Ms Burn had earlier detailed serious corruption allegations against Mr Kaldas that had led him to be targeted by a bugging operation of which she was a member, codenamed Mascot, during 1999-2001.

NSW Premier Mike Baird has indicated his preference is to wait for the outcome of a parallel inquiry by NSW Ombudsman Bruce Barbour into the bugging scandal, which is not due to report until June, before taking any action.

Leading figure in Chinese espionage at centre of anti-corruption investigation

Release of secret report into police bugging scandal blocked by Premier's department

“The government’s cover-up is continuing”: David Shoebridge. Photo: Simon Alekna

The release of a secret report into a police bugging scandal has been blocked by Premier Mike Baird’s department, leading to warnings the dispute may end up before the Supreme Court.

The Strike Force Emblems report examines allegations of illegal bugging by the NSW police’s Special Crime and Internal Affairs (SCIA) and the NSW Crime Commission between 1999 and 2001, but has never been made public.

Its contents are sensitive as the current Commissioner, Andrew Scipione, and a current deputy commissioner, Catherine Burn, worked at SCIA and one of the detectives being bugged was Nick Kaldas, now also a deputy commissioner.

Last month, the NSW upper house passed a resolution seeking release of the Emblems report to a parliamentary inquiry into Ombudsman Bruce Barbour’s two-year investigation of the bugging scandal.

Although the government opposed the motion, it passed with the support of Labor, the Greens and the Shooters and Fishers Party.

But the Premier’s department wrote to the Crown Solicitor asking if it was “arguable” that under parliamentary rules the report can be released only with the permission of NSW Governor David Hurley, as it concerns “the administration of justice”.

On Friday, the Crown Solicitor tabled legal advice agreeing with this view, because the report contains references to court proceedings and perjury. In response, the Premier’s department has declined to release it to the Parliament.

A motion requesting the Governor’s permission is not possible before the upper house inquiry because Parliament has risen until after the March 2015 election.

Greens MP David Shoebridge, a member of the parliamentary inquiry set to examine the Ombudsman’s inquiry into the Emblems report, said the decision showed “the government’s cover-up is continuing”.

“They appear to be willing to make any argument to prevent the release of what is obviously a highly damaging report,” he said.

Mr Shoebridge said he would refer the decision to the Parliament’s independent arbiter, Keith Mason, QC.

“But clearly there are substantial issues of legal principle here that may have to be determined by the Supreme Court,” he said.