> 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.
They would be if it wasn't easy to import them. It's not like modern mass production has made gun violence possible because up until then it was too hard to manufacture guns.
It's similar to services: you can your own email server, but it's much more efficient to use some vendor and let them do it for you. But if all vendors cut you off, it won't be impossible for you to host your down email, it'll just be less efficient.
I'm fascinated by your point on Myanmar/Burma since I'm quite sure you used that point since it's common knowledge that is the most commonly cited example of the use of in situ firearms by militia. Maybe you're inviting a debate on why you think the reports on in situ firearms reported there are false, or maybe you just randomly came upon that, but it doesn't seem a coincedence.
Myanmar/Burma the strategy was build-to-capture: make improvised, unreliable firearms that could be used to ambush security forces and take their firearms.
Evidence against the point above that it's trivial to replace professionally manufactured small arms.
There are examples of all the above. Kachine state "army" for instance was making Chinese and AKM clones. Others were making FGC-9 for purpose of taking other firearms. Some were using FGC-9 for driveby without any goal to take firearms. And others were using "professionally" manufactured arms to take other arms.
There was some model named FGC2000 which was used with short unrifled 9mm tubes, meaning the range was low and could only be used as parent described. Saw this on a YouTube video but can't find it now.
> Maybe I'm overestimating the difficulty of making guns
These are centuries-old objects. Manufacturing technology and materials science have advanced nearly 100 years since Ma Deuce first rolled off the line. Society didn't get dumber, and manufacturing has only gotten more accessible.
Just look at the current state of 3D printed firearms: they're completely useful and viable. CNC machining has never been cheaper or easier to do.
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.
> 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.
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!
84 comments
> 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.
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.
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.
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
US can afford to have militarized police with armoured cars. But the combination of drugs, poverty and weapons is very dangerous
> I am curious what Mexico should do long term to reduce crime.
I would imagine that the #1 priority might be to shut down the "Iron River."
The Iron River is the limitless supply of firearms from the USA to Mexican cartels. It is very well documented, and yet we rarely hear about it.
These cartels can:
- 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?
https://texasborderbusiness.com/thousands-of-trafficked-guns...
https://www.stl.news/atf-seizes-illegal-firearms-bound-mexic...
And yes the solution to things like organized crime is always just a continuous chipping away and adding friction where you can.
Not giving them massive amounts of cheap, high quality firearms seems like a meaningful goal.
Would it cost them more? yes. would it be the "number 1 priority" because it's so impactful? no, obviously not.
>
it wouldn't stop them from getting gunsMaybe 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 similar to services: you can your own email server, but it's much more efficient to use some vendor and let them do it for you. But if all vendors cut you off, it won't be impossible for you to host your down email, it'll just be less efficient.
Evidence against the point above that it's trivial to replace professionally manufactured small arms.
>
it's common knowledge that is the most commonly cited example of the use of in situ firearms by militiaI wasn’t aware of this. Do you have a good source where I might learn more?
> Maybe I'm overestimating the difficulty of making guns
These are centuries-old objects. Manufacturing technology and materials science have advanced nearly 100 years since Ma Deuce first rolled off the line. Society didn't get dumber, and manufacturing has only gotten more accessible.
Just look at the current state of 3D printed firearms: they're completely useful and viable. CNC machining has never been cheaper or easier to do.
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.
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.
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.
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/report/nfcta-volume-ii-par...
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/report/firearms-trace-data/fire...
https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-21-322
https://www.gao.gov/video/weapons-recovered-arms-trafficking...
> 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.
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.
https://seguritech.com/en
> 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!