Feeds

Activists slam Cyveillance May Day Bomber claims

And pour scorn on The Guardian

  • alert
  • submit to reddit

Beginner's guide to SSL certificates

A Guardian story published this week on Net intelligence outfit Cyveillance has sparked a furious response from the online Independent Media Centre. It claims the newspaper has been suckered.

The Guardian piece consists of an extensive interview with the managing director of Cyveillance, Andrew Muir. A range of facts, figures and accusations are thrown into the mix: 4.5 billion pages on the web; "brand misrepresentation" can cost anywhere from $100,000 to more than $100m a year; web traffic diversion ranges from $400,000 for an offline company with an obscure brand to $10.8m for a top e-commerce site. And so on.

However, the UK Independent Media Centre - which prides itself on offering an alternative take on the news - was unimpressed and accuses Cyveillance of "spying on, and lying about, the anti-capitalist movement".

It accuses the reporter of swallowing Cyveillance's lies and expresses concern that the mainstream media is reporting made-up stories of cyber-terrorism.

IndyMedia seems most concerned with one part of the article which states: "Last year, Cyveillance was able to inform a UK high street bank that one of its branches in the city of London was being targeted by May Day protesters, and tell it which window the activists were planning to throw a bomb through."

To boldly state such an unlikely event as fact is daft in the extreme. There has been no suggestion of a bomb threat at the May Day event or any previous anti-capitalist march, and Muir's claim that he told a bank not only about a bomb but also which exact window it would be put through stretches his credibility to breaking point.

Cyveillance is a US-based company which recently opened in the UK and promotes itself to large corporations as the perfect solution to misinformation and damaging comments made about the company over the Internet. Cyveillance trawls the Net and supplies reports of company-related information for a fee.

This is nothing new, but Cyveillance has gone for the most dramatic, some would say scaremongering, approach; namely that companies need it to save themselves from serious damage from online comments and hacking and offline direct action.

Now, where did those bombers go? ®

Related Links

IndyMedia story

Internet Security Threat Report 2014

More from The Register

next story
MI6 oversight report on Lee Rigby murder: US web giants offer 'safe haven for TERRORISM'
PM urged to 'prioritise issue' after Facebook hindsight find
I'll be back (and forward): Hollywood's time travel tribulations
Quick, call the Time Cops to sort out this paradox!
Assange™ slumps back on Ecuador's sofa after detention appeal binned
Swedish court rules there's 'great risk' WikiLeaker will dodge prosecution
NSA mass spying reform KILLED by US Senators
Democrats needed just TWO more votes to keep alive bill reining in some surveillance
prev story

Whitepapers

Designing and building an open ITOA architecture
Learn about a new IT data taxonomy defined by the four data sources of IT visibility: wire, machine, agent, and synthetic data sets.
5 critical considerations for enterprise cloud backup
Key considerations when evaluating cloud backup solutions to ensure adequate protection security and availability of enterprise data.
Getting started with customer-focused identity management
Learn why identity is a fundamental requirement to digital growth, and how without it there is no way to identify and engage customers in a meaningful way.
High Performance for All
While HPC is not new, it has traditionally been seen as a specialist area – is it now geared up to meet more mainstream requirements?
Protecting against web application threats using SSL
SSL encryption can protect server‐to‐server communications, client devices, cloud resources, and other endpoints in order to help prevent the risk of data loss and losing customer trust.