> A little-known technology firm that has quietly grown into a surveillance powerhouse in Latin America. Over the past three decades, Grupo Seguritech has evolved from a small company selling home alarms into a sprawling network of firms that are deeply involved in projects across the region.
Virtually all the technology used by this Mexican company, Grupo Seguritech, is imported from other countries. As a university student, I completed a Master's thesis about export manufacturing industries in Mexico. Then as now, the vast majority of manufacturing exports were (and still are) produced by foreign capital. Today Mexican capital contributes relatively little to the total value of manufactured exports. This is an important consideration: even in Mexican firms like Grupo Seguritech that are operating in other countries, such firms are not really in control of this technology, they are only licensing it from abroad. Foreign capital owns and controls the tech, and foreign capital reaps a substantial share of the profits.
>Hey, at least in Mexico surveillance tech people might wake up to their family chopped to pieces.
One can hope, anyway.
I don't think this is a good thing. The crime is detrimental to innocent people, and although mass surveillance should not be the answer, it can only be fought through democratic processes.
I am curious what Mexico should do long term to reduce crime. The U.S. used to have a bigger problem with organized crime, but it has been subdued before mass surveillance was an option.
Crime in Mexico is down, and continues to trend that way. The homicide rate, for instance, is 22% down from 2024 to 2025.
Mexico is very much in it's New York mafioso days of the 80s. Still endemic, entrenched, and powerful, but losing ground and slowly legitimizing. The reason it's so slow is more to due with high rates of corruption in the government (local to federal) and justice system and the cultural effect it's had on the general populace.
I feel like a lot of this in any country is turning criminal activity into institutionalized predatory business practices. It turns loan shark slaves into economic serfs. Homicide goes down and suicide goes up.
Every time someone mentions crime someone inevitably comes along to mention how according to the completely legitimate crime rates reported by the authorities, crime is disappearing and nothing should be done.
There's significant debate about exactly why the crime rates are falling around the world. But not about whether it's happening.
Which particular expert you listen to might emphasize different things to focus on to enable the trend to continue.
Listening to the people who ignore the facts because they find scaring people with lies more effective for their putposes is almost certainly a worse idea.
If public perception was the only metric, and gaming it was an option, why would they have let the number get so high in the first place?
They look bad, their boss looks bad, the paperwork for each individual crime begets a massive, impossible to hide conspiracy, and even nations struggle to execute on multi-year plans - individuals aren't going to be better at controlling multiple lower levels to hit each step of their plan, year after year
- effectuate mass synthesis of illicit substances in commercial laboratories
- handle massive intercontinental logistics
- build semi-submersible boats
- hire and kidnap radio engineers to help with communications and electronic warfare
but gee, they just can't figure out how to buy a machine shop and hire or kidnap talent to make 100-year-old firearm designs - that's just too much for them?
How is this a counter argument? You are playing GOP vs. Dem games. All I am saying is that the USA is a major firearms manufacturer and exporter. That scandal just reinforced the point.
I think the point was: it might be a bit more expensive for them, but it wouldn't stop them from getting guns. Guns are important to their business, they would manufacture them themselves if they could not buy them.
Would it cost them more? yes. would it be the "number 1 priority" because it's so impactful? no, obviously not.
Maybe I'm overestimating the difficulty of making guns. But I'm aware of zero conflicts in which small arms were manufactured in situ. Even in e.g. Myanmar/Burma. The fact that even remote conflicts go through the trouble of importing arms suggests this might be more difficult than you suggest.
It's quite evident their point is that they don't want gun control and have pre-committed to whatever opinions are necessary to prevent it, including an opinion as absurd as "having to manufacture their own firearms would not be a significant impediment to their operations."
Mass synthesis of the drugs that cartels produce is trivial (that's why they produce them)
Putting drugs on trucks is trivial (that's why they do that)
Rudimentary semi-submersible vessels are impressive but you only need a few and they're not that hard to make (again, that's why they make em)
The telecom stuff they do is legitimately pretty impressive, but this too is just significant capex for long term benefit -- not so with self-made guns which are significant capex and you get out the other side a low volume of low-quality, non-dependable, often-breaking guns.
This is a popular idea amongst American liberals who rejoice at any possible means to eliminate/curb/add friction to lawful firearms ownership and manufacturing.
Where are they buying firearms in America at an "industrial scale?" An AR-15 receiver can be turned out in tens of minutes on a fast VMC - good luck stopping this.
What’s the relevance of who “this is a popular idea” to? It’s either a good idea or it’s not.
If it’s so easy, then why aren’t they doing that today and instead we just encounter thousands of guns bought in the US? Must be because that’s easier, correct?
I get the sense you’re a bit pre-committed to your position here though and perceive this as a bit of an identity question.
I don't think crime can always be fought through democratic processes. What if the whole country lives on heroin exports (Afghanistan)? Any "processes" are doomed to fail, as populace would vote to feed their families.
Wait are we discussing crime as in what a country defines as crime within its own borders, or crime as in “I’m a bigger nation than you and will make you comply with my rules”
"Provide a way" -- what if it's way too expensive, even for a huge country? And populace just doesn't want it (e. g. it goes against sacred texts). And there are no infrastructure nor institutions to build upon. It's close to impossible. And the populace would see us only as a provider of goods.
And morally, why should we provide some other country? Are we the world government? Shouldn't we stop messing with others and keep to our business, as long as they don't mess with us (bomb and export heroin). Why are we suddenly responsible for them?
PS: nevertheless, one country (USA) tried to build democracy in Afghanistan, but failed. And only got scoldings for that.
> And morally, why should we provide some other country?
Enlightened self interest. If we want less heroin in our country, it's in our interest to provide something better for people in other countries to do than grow than heroin poppies. There's a lot of stuff to grow, I'm pretty sure something can be found that doesn't violate the sacred texts.
Otoh, Synthentic opiods may be cheaper and easier than harvesting heroin poppy, so maybe the specific problem of heroin export is solved, but not in the intended way.
> "Provide a way" -- what if it's way too expensive, even for a huge country?
Afghanistan has a lot of natural resources.
> And morally, why should we provide some other country? Are we the world government? Shouldn't we stop messing with others and keep to our business, as long as they don't mess with us (bomb and export heroin). Why are we suddenly responsible for them?
Development aid is always a good thing. Soft power is incredibly powerful on the global stage - just look at UN votes. A lot of countries that firmly voted with the Western nations for decades now votes with Russia/China or abstains, corresponding with us scaling back foreign aid and other similar investments. And there's an economic side as well... China used to be a bunch of piss poor farmers, now they're among the world's strongest economies.
And well, either we are the ones who decide where the world is going, we are the top dogs - or we have to submit to China, Russia and the likes, and there is no way this is a good way forward.
> PS: nevertheless, one country (USA) tried to build democracy in Afghanistan, but failed. And only got scoldings for that.
That's because we (I'm German, we were in this mess as well) didn't actually do nation building. Yes, we got rid of the Taliban and we built schools for girls, but that's it. The "army" was to at least 50% only existing on paper, corruption and sexual abuse (bacha bazi, DO NOT google that one if you're not ready for vivid descriptions of child abuse) ran rampant across all of society.
We completely and utterly failed in auditing and oversight. And not just of the Afghani side, but our own as well, see Bagram.
> The U.S. used to have a bigger problem with organized crime, but it has been subdued before mass surveillance was an option.
I thought it was credit cards and electronic payments that subdued organized crime (or at least moved it into the realm of the white collar, lawyer-facilitated “legal” crimes through official channels), which greatly reduces the violence component.
Mexico has a weak Federal gov but more strong local states....
I did not use to be this way, before the revolution it was the opposite.
History wise, started changing in the 1930s as far as illegal drug trafficking groups wrestling local gov, state gov, and fed gov away from law and order missions.
>The crime is detrimental to innocent people, and although mass surveillance should not be the answer, it can only be fought through democratic processes.
Mass surveillance is detrimental to innocent people and to democratic processes.
Anyone deliberately facilitating that certainly deserves the worst fate imaginable. These are tools tailor-made to destroy democracies, we should treat people behind them like we treat ISIS.
The article references “public panic buttons” and how
> There is active participation by the citizenry, where they connect their private security devices to the command centers run by the state
You don’t really believe anybody using a “public panic button” or hooking up their own alarm system to law enforcement deserves the worst fate imaginable. That’s a little extreme.
What are we even trying to accomplish here? It sounds like individuals in parts of Mexico are trying to protect themselves.
There has to be some compromise between ideals and reality. If you reflexively tell people “you can’t help the cops for the sake of democracy,” they’re gonna throw out the democracy part and keep the cops part.
Maybe a short stint in jail in the case of misconduct, but the worst fate imaginable? Chopped up in a suitcase?
Yep once the system is set up, no matter how good its intentions, the government will get a group of bad people who then use said monitoring system to entrench their power.
> Anyone deliberately facilitating that certainly deserves the worst fate imaginable. These are tools tailor-made to destroy democracies, we should treat people behind them like we treat ISIS.
Just so you know, I and many people like me will automatically align with whoever opposes you due to this rhetoric. Whatever it takes to ensure you and those who agree with you never, ever get any foothold in the discourse, let alone power. You are writing extremist and very dangerous things. It’s vile rhetoric and in a just world would be flagged to oblivion.
And this is an excellent example of how "polite" fascists come to power. After all, the one with the more "civilized" rhetoric must be the one to support, regardless of why people are so strongly opposed to them.
> Yeah, I'm gonna go ahead and side with with people who aren't openly calling for horrible deaths of those that disagree with them.
And there it is - this is why fascists coach their language in a veneer of politeness. After all, they didn't say it out loud, so whatever they're doing must certainly be the right thing to support. Why is the other side so eagerly opposed to them? Well, that doesn't matter, because they weren't polite about it.
It's important to look at what organizations/corporations/groups are actually doing, not just what they're saying.
And that's fine, I'm willing to accept that the world is full of people who hate freedom.
I have no doubt that the positions you paint as more acceptable than mine are an existential threat.
>Whatever it takes to ensure you and those who agree with you never, ever get any foothold in the discourse, let alone power
Luckily the likes of you lost already. Trumps idiocy pretty much ensured that we'll get a real fight rather than a polite march into the dystopian surveillance nightmare you wish for.
There's no-one seriously trying to turn down the temperature, the fight is going to happen. I'm armed to the teeth (in the EU!) and ready to do my best to ensure that the good guys win.
Governments subcontract the private sector for everything from food processing to defense. I’ve heard that Mexico can’t afford to effectively patrol their boarders. It’s only natural for them to turn to a company like this.
> Mexico’s government was also the first purchaser of NSO Group’s Pegasus spyware
> Grupo Seguritech was founded in Mexico City in 1995 by father-son duo Shimon and Ariel Picker as a small company selling alarm systems for homes.
It's remarkable that even in a country where Jewish people make up no more than 0.05% of the population, they excel in this cybersecurity/surveillance arena. The talented ability of Jewish moms to always know the gossip of the community seems to pass down to their entrepreneurial kids!
Virtually all the technology used by this Mexican company, Grupo Seguritech, is imported from other countries. As a university student, I completed a Master's thesis about export manufacturing industries in Mexico. Then as now, the vast majority of manufacturing exports were (and still are) produced by foreign capital. Today Mexican capital contributes relatively little to the total value of manufactured exports. This is an important consideration: even in Mexican firms like Grupo Seguritech that are operating in other countries, such firms are not really in control of this technology, they are only licensing it from abroad. Foreign capital owns and controls the tech, and foreign capital reaps a substantial share of the profits.