Slashdot Log In
Bringing Echelon In From the Cold
Posted by
timothy
on Sat Jun 22, 2002 08:48 PM
from the they-admitted-to-the-nsa-after-all dept.
from the they-admitted-to-the-nsa-after-all dept.
An anonymous reader writes: "UPI columnist James C. Bennett says that governments are going to spy no matter what. So he suggests that it would be better to admit that Echelon exists, and formulate some reasonable guidelines on such spying, than to pretend that it doesn't and let governments go about their business without any scrutiny. Interesting suggestion. But who will watch those watchers? And who will watch them? "
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Bringing Echelon In From the Cold
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 279 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
I've got it! (Score:5, Funny)
Spying has always existed (Score:5, Insightful)
Independent of what the latest craze is and what name it's given, it's a sniffer and it will sniff stuff. All people gotta do is make sure that what it DOES sniff is garbage to everyone except for the final recipient (PGP for email anyone ? The same pub+private key encryption can apply to just about anything digital).
OK, but. . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
The philosophy of openness is nice, but somehow I don't think the "Intelligence Community" will buy it, without something fairly spectacular in return. . . . .
Re:OK, but. . . . (Score:4, Insightful)
How about continued funding?
The police will police the police (Score:1)
Spying on civilians is bad, but... (Score:3, Interesting)
However, I am forced to question why the public suddenly cries out for oversight of Echelon and other NSA/CIA/FBI counterterrorism operations. Where are the victims of rogue G-men? Why have I never seen a single credible complaint against these intelligence agencies for violation of privacy? In other words, what's the harm of allowing them to intercept the transmissions that they intercept, if at best they are keeping us safer and at worst they are doing nothing at all? Obviously this isn't a monetary argument, as nobody actually knows what the NSA's budget is. To paraphrase Lisa Simpson - if a tree can hear everything you say, but it doesn't tell anyone you know, does it make a sound? The good Lord can hear you having phone sex on those 976 lines you call, so why does it matter if some government agent you'll never even meet can hear you too?
Although I don't want to be monitored, I'll gladly give up the right to complete privacy to stop the chance of a single future terrorist attack. After all, if we have nothing to hide and are not stigmatized for what we say in private, what does it matter who's listening?
WTC Survivor
Re:Spying on civilians is bad, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
How sure are you that you won't be stigamtized for what you say in private? And not just now, or tomorrow, or next week, but EVER? I regret your loss o 9/11. I was there, and also was affected. But I'd rather it happen again, 100 times, than live in a society where law enforcement feels that it has the power and the right to routinely listen in on private conversation. The violation of someones privacy should be an important act, overseen by the checks and balances of our judicial system, not something casual.
The victims of rogue G-Men? Who knows? Anyone who's going to be actively victimized by the FBI will sound exactly like all the kooks with aluminum hats. But the potential for abuse is immense. And I'm not interested in putting powers like that in the hand of law enforcemnt without oversight. Heck, I'm not comfortable with the lack of oversight we have NOW, much less with granting even broader powers.
Re:Spying on civilians is bad, but... (Score:5, Informative)
abbie hoffman fbi files
adolph hitler fbi files
al capone fbi files
albert einstein fbi files
amelia earhart fbi/navy/state dept. files
bugsy siegel fbi files
cesar chavez/united farm workers fbi files
charlie chaplin fbi files
dwight d. eisenhower presidential papers
eleanor roosevelt fbi files
elvis presley fbi files
ernest hemingway fbi files
frank sinatra fbi files
franklin d. roosevelt presidential papers
gerald r. ford presidential papers
harry s. truman presidential papers
huey p. long fbi files
hugh hefner/playboy fbi files
j. edgar hoover fbi files
jackie robinson fbi files
john kennedy-jacqueline fbi/secret service/cia/nsa and other files
john lennon fbi files
john steinbeck fbi files
joseph mccarthy fbi files
joseph p. kennedy fbi files
josephine baker fbi files
leon trotsky fbi files
lucille ball/desi arnaz fbi files
lucky luciano fbi files
mafia monograph fbi files
malcolm x fbi files
marilyn monroe fbi files
martin luther king jr. fbi files
nelson rockefeller fbi files
oleg penkovsky - soviet double agent - cia files
pablo picasso fbi files
paul robeson fbi files
richard nathaniel wright fbi files
robert f. kennedy fbi files
ronald reagan presidential papers
spiro agnew fbi files
susan b. anthony historical documents
thurgood marshall fbi files
w.e.b. dubois fbi files
wallace d. fard/nation of islam fbi files
walt disney fbi files
walter winchell fbi files
watergate fbi files/nixon recordings and transcripts
wright brothers photography
I'm glad they were keeping tabs on people like W.E.B Dubois, Pablo Picasso, and Susan B Anthony. If we allow people to think for themselves and lead other people to think for themselves, the terrorists have already won.
But... (Score:3, Interesting)
The truth is out there (Score:1, Offtopic)
They're going to brainwash us all and turn us into goose-stepping communist robots!
GET OUT OF MY TEETH! [penny-arcade.com]
I'll probably be vilified for this, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
I digress; what I think really needs the watching and oversight is not what information is collected, but how that information is used by people with power. The scariest part about the whole post-September 11th security whackabout is how the US government has arrested and held hundreds without charge, essentially incommunicado (and I'm not talking about the Taliban and Al-Qaeda people in Cuba).
To me, the fact that my conversations may or may not be monitored is not particularly scary - after all, Echelon seems to have been around longer than me, and though I can't be certain, I'd say I and millions of others in the Western world have benefitted more from it than we have been harmed.
But being held without charge indefinitely by the government of a country that can't stop talking about how democratic it is? This sort of violation of basic human rights scares the crap out of me; the invasion of my privacy wrought by Echelon is peanuts in comparison.
Watching the Watchers (Score:1)
BUT if everyone know's what's being done, it moots the point of doing it at all. Catch-22; freedom for security. I won't give up the freedom.
I'm sure you all hate me for this. (Score:1, Flamebait)
Oh Boy, more Bureaucracy (Score:1)
What is needed is a system that does not involve bureaucratic overhead, something along the lines of a benevolent dictatorship. Along with a penalty so stiff (I will leave that to more twisted minds than mine
There will always be corruption in any power structure, the idea is to *efficiently* limit said corruption.
contradiction (Score:1)
The submitter of this story is on crack (Score:4, Insightful)
What on earth has this to do with Echelon? It is a problem that comes with any situation where someone needs to have someone watching over someone else, i.e most governmental activity.
Rather, the problem is of course that admitting the existence of Echelon is the same as legitimizing it, which for obvious reasons isn't the best idea in the world. It would probably be helpful for those European guys [usatoday.com] trying to figure out what the hell is going on though...
Why does it matter? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why does it matter? (Score:4, Interesting)
They have this tendency to think that because someone reads a particular author, teaches or studies a particular subject, belongs to some demographic group or simply has friends/neighbors/relatives to whom any of the above apply, he or she is actively plotting against the government.
This happens most often in dictatorial regimes, but democracies are not immune, and the US has its history (cold war? remember?).
And then there are the times when they can't figure out that something is a joke. Like the FBI investigating bonsaikitten.com. I wonder if Tom Clancy is under constant surveillance...
Facism (Score:2, Insightful)
HA HA (Score:2)
Governments will do whatever they please, but always excel at their hallmarks, inefficiency and stupidity.
Transparency (Score:1)
Isn't transparency the more required control than watchers of watchers or watchers? Isn't it more important that with Echelon II coming in from the cold should be transparent in its methods and accountability so that any scrutiny needn't be stonewalled or obfuscated? (BTW: that old B&W movie, 'The Spy Who Came in From the Cold', with R.Burton and Claire Bloom(?) was one of the best ever IMO)
somewhat on topic (Score:1)
What? Admit to Spying? (Score:2, Insightful)
The first rule of spying is that you get away with everything you possibly can, and the second rule of spying is that you get away with everything you possibly can. Admitting that you're spying is one thing, as everyone has spies, but saying how you're doing it, or even acknowledging that you're using certain methods, is a Bad Idea from the government's standpoint. They won't admit to unlawfully tapping people's phone lines, why the heck would they want to admit that they help run a global communications monitoring system?
Besides, the "leaky information" approach is much more effective at keeping people guessing. Any high tech security agency would use high tech methods (like packet sniffing) to increase it's knowledge base. The fact that Echelon exists should not be surprising or amazing. However, by not telling the masses about it, the population who know and care about the technology is left only to speculate, and the rumor mill probably works in the favor of the government on this issue. It's like guerrilla marketing.
You know who! (Score:1)
I dunno. Coast Guard?
Purpose (Score:1)
Unimpressive idea (Score:2, Interesting)
He says early on that the Japanese attack on Hawaii in 1941 was not all that secret--that the USA had some knowledge that it was about to occur, and fumbled the ball. This has never been demonstrated, but a lot of people believe it. There were some data which, in retrospect, looked consistent with an attack, and some mistakes were made (General Short made the biggest ones), but the truth is that no one knew what was going to happen and by the time a nonspecific warning was issued, it was too late to do anything much. The folks in Hawaii had no reason to believe it applied to them--in fact, they assumed they were safe by virtue of geography. We do know that the War Department figured the Philippines were the certain target (correct, but incomplete), that MacAruthur got the same warning Hawaii did, and that he ignored it. His incompetence was actually far greater than that of Admiral Kimmel, yet Kimmel was crucified and Mac became an icon. I digress.
A roughly parallel pattern emerges in the WTC attack. Looking back, we can see things that might have tipped us off that something nasty was up, but there is nothing clear and the target was not specified. (If it had been, someone in NSA would have said, "Well, duh, we knew that. What's new?") US intelligence services are awash in suggestive information; virtually all the time, it is impossible for them to predict based on this flood of hints, possibilities, suggestions, contradictory data and odd events.
There is one development a more public Echelon could not possibly address. The Bad Guys can flood the communications media with "smoke," bogus messages that will overwhelm the spooks and distract them. That becomes all the easier for the terrorists as the intelligence people come under political pressure not to ignore anything, to predict on the basis of incomplete information, and connect unrelated dots.
Finally, if Echelon has a new more public existence, its main functions will simply recede into the secretive background anyway. Net effect: either Zero, or possibly even detrimental.
IMHO Echelon may be doing a lot better job than we know. Recall the US general who was kidnapped in Italy by a bunch of self-styled Commies? A reporter said at one point that every single telephone in Italy was tapped. True or not, that feat was never referred to again. The general was recovered in one piece.
The author of this proposal to make Echelon into a more visible and therefore somehow more responsible organization is out to lunch.
Freedom of Information Act (Score:1)
However, things often remain classified for decades for no good reason, which basically removes any incentive to not do embarassing things from government officials who will be long gone by the time their misdeeds are public knowledge. We need to close that gap so that a politician could actually be hurt within his career/lifetime by conducting activities that are wrong. In thirty years, all of Echelon's dirty laundry will start coming out, and it'll be like all the stuff that came out about J. Edgar Hoover's FBI.
If there is anything I think would be a real solution, it would be to force the government to minimize the amount of information that is kept classified after its usefulness is over. Say, five years after a document is created, it automatically expires into unclassified information unless it is specifically requested to stay classified.
The price of governing a free people (free in theory) is a limited ability to keep secrets from those you are governing. We should hold the US government to an even higher standard of accountability than it is currently held.
OK, Parse This. (Score:1, Redundant)
Big Brother is watching you watching Big Brother watch you watch Big Brother watching you.
Transparent Society (Score:2)
Or so Brin's theory goes. The problem is that the privacy asymmetry parallels a power asymmetry. They can and do watch us because they have all the power. We don't get to watch them because we don't. All of this is dressed up in the rhetoric of national security to help stifle protest, but those are the plain facts.
I used to consider charges that the US was becoming a police state to be alarmist, perhaps absurd. Now I see the things happening which have always been missing before, and I know our time has come. The next few years (at the very least) are going to suck mightily.
Get 'Em Used to Surveillance (Score:1)
Note that one of the most basic civil rights is the Right to Be Left Alone {tm}. A pervasive Echelon-like monitoring of citizen activities will utterly destroy that right. At times like this, I get the distinct urge to write a cheque to Phil Zimmerman, since public cryptography is one line of defense; but it must be as pervasive as the spyware is.
Lowest common denominator (Score:2)
(Be careful about the "greater good" part, though. That deserves more attention, which I don't have at the moment.)
Cheers.
Too much oversight bad (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone here watch La Femme Nikita? Well, gee, lets see, there was Section, which was the anti-terrorist organization. Then there was Oversight, which was supposed to watch over Section and make sure everything was going alright. Then there was Center, which was supposed to make sure that everything was going ok in Oversight and Section. Then there was The Agency, which was supposed to make sure everything was going fine in Center, Oversight, and Section.
Do you see my point? We should not have a zillion layers over oversight -- watchers upon watchers upon watchers upon watchers, etc. Bad idea. That just means higher taxes, more beurocracy, less efficiency, and less accountability.
What you need is checks and balances, like the three government branches set up, as well as electability, and amendments.
In our government, the legislative, executive, and judicial branches all put checks and balances on each-other. Meanwhile, we the people, elect the legislative and executive branches, and in some cases, parts of the judicial branches (i.e., local judges).
Meanwhile, there is this little thing called The Constitution and The Amendments, which gaurentee that no branch goes way overboard; thus, protecting (sort of) our rights. Its not perfect, but its decent.
The same thing should be set up for government spying and information gathering.
The problem with our system isn't the system itself, but the implementation of the system, where there are layers upon layers of beurocratic bullshit, and where varioius government officials are bought off and paid for by organizations like the RIAA, MPAA, BSA, etc.
So what's needed is two things: (1) Eliminate the beurocratic bullshit; (2) Get serious on political contributions, bribes, blackmail, etc.
Only these two things, and our system would be much better? Well, for the most part, yes. It wouldn't deal with Christian Conservative idiots getting elected who think that the worst crime on earth is homosexuality and prostitution, and who think that the purple teletubby is gay, and who also believe that we should all be brainwashed in school to be Christians. But it would deal with alot of problems.
Of course, accomplishing those two things -- eliminating hte beurocratic bullshit and dealing with politicians being owned -- is a difficult goal. To eliminate beurocratic BS, you have to destroy useless organizations and eliminate useless positions -- something w/c is not favored by some of those in power b/c they'd be put out of a job. To stop politicians from being owned, you'd have to eliminate political campaign contributions -- something w/c politicians won't like as it won't help them get elected, and will actually allow people other than Democrats and Republican's to win.
Sell Tickets to watch Echelon (Score:2)
Who would pony up the dough to watch this great show?
- marketing titans (Chiat-Day, Coca Cola, etc.)
- insurance companies
- brokerages
- governments that distrust their own citizens (China, Australia, etc.)
- governments that distrust their neighbors (India, Pakistan, etc.)
- terrorist groups (Al Qaeda, Hamas, etc.)
Of course, this would probably decimate the market for cookie-wielding banner ads.An item from espionage history... (Score:1)
"Double Cross."
Look into your history books for this special term...
What prevents them to set up another one? (Score:4, Insightful)
The Watchers . . . (Score:1)
I dunno. The Coast Guard?
Not a good idea at all (Score:1, Insightful)
Imagine some of your friends admitting to having a secret alliance and talk about certain things without you, how would you feel?
Maybe it's like finding out your girlfriend has been hanging out with your friends and not telling you about it.
I think the problem is that we humans have caveman residue (for lack of a better term), a kind of primal competitive mindset.
Thinking that we are separate nations rather than a single species. Maybe the time is ripe for an international revolution of humanity, I can smell it in the works, we just have to evolve, think and wake up. not neccesarily in that order.
Imagine all the people, living in harmony. I don't think it's that silly if you think about it.
Old quote. (No mine) (Score:4, Funny)
Watching the watchers (Score:1)
Sounds like Slashdot! Who moderates the moderators? Meta-moderators! So they can have meta-watchers! Who moderates the meta-moderators? I don't know, but it seems like a good sig!
Now you've torn it (Score:1)
Uh oh, I sense some infinite recursion coming on! What are you trying to do, waste readers' valuable brain cycles? At least give us a base case!
Why the "Echelon" should not existing. (Score:1)
I am not the expert on foreign or the internal policies of the Americas as off yet. However I am "believing" the spying is not in the present what the public is needing. The "government" is not to go withouts the punishments for spying but the encouragement of the spying activates by others are not the ways to "convincing" government to respect privacy, which I believing to be important.
So my fellow "slashbots" my point are the followings: Why watching watchers when we can having no watchers at all? We electing the government. So we telling them what we wanting in the end
*HUGS*
Megumi.
You should read the laws & protections in plac (Score:5, Informative)
The relevant portion of the laws state:
A deference to U.S. persons' rights by closely regulating the conduct of electronic surveillance that either targets U.S. persons or may result in the acquisition of information to, from, or about U.S. persons. For example, in order to conduct electronic surveillance against a U.S. person located within the United States, FISA requires the intelligence agency to obtain a court order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. If the United States person is abroad, the Executive Order requires that the Attorney General approve such surveillance. In both instances, generally speaking there must be probable cause that the target is an agent of a foreign power. In addition, the information sought by the surveillance must be foreign intelligence that cannot be obtained by other less intrusive collection techniques. Furthermore, even if a U.S. person is not the target, all foreign intelligence electronic surveillance must be conducted in a manner that minimizes the acquisition, retention, and dissemination of information about unconsenting U.S. persons.
,br> I worked there over a decade ago as a cryptanalyst, and it was deadly serious business if you intercepted a US person, even by accident. Reports were written, and people were debriefed on the circumstance, but not the content. The content and any sources for the error were destroyed. Talking mag erasor then burn bag for the media.
IMHO you are being paranoid beyond reason simply because you are ignorant of what the truth is. I've been in the belly of the leviathan, and its nowhere as malevolent as you make it out to be. People like you work there, and they are all reminded of their primary oath, which is to uphold and defend the Constitution. And even if there were to be some rogues, all it takes is a few honest people to expose them - the agency was gutted from within during hte Nixon crisis by people who knew that we shoul not be operating against US persons that weree not legitimate intelligence targets. Beleive me, its not the cowboy agency that it was under Nixon, when a lot of the abuses took place. Its not even as good as it was under Reagan - they do not have the staff to handle analysis of all intercepts, so excluding things they cannot legally touch is not only the right thing to do, it also promotes better function of the entire process. And these very laws and situations were heavily emphasised to us during indoctrination. It was our duty to uphold these laws, and we took that duty damned seriously.
There may have been some erosion of ethical standards this during the Clinton years with the "loose" ethics flowing down from the CINC, but there are a lot of stiff necked old spooks that would never let this crpa happen to the agency again like it almost did in the agency after Nixon. And before you keep on eating the BS about Reagan being a "fascist", consider that the only reason you have the protections you do now is due to a series of orders he issued because he did not trust government to regulate itself well when it involvedthe fundamental (4th amendment in this instance) rights of Americans.
Read Jim Bamford's "Puzzle Palace" if you want a good idea of how close things came in the early 70's when there was really nobody except the NSA wathcing itself - and how the NSA corrected itself with the changes to law and executive orders that are the basis of the existence of the agency.
Make it transparent (Score:2)
Holyday trip? (Score:1)
holiday trip? (Score:1)
Why don't we (as in 'people who dislike this spying-on-us stuff') plan a nice holiday-trip to one of these echelon-locations nearby? I'd like to see their reaction when a couple of thousand people demand to see the installation that they paid for themselves, indirectly, and that "doesn't exist"...
Keyword invitation (Score:2)
Does it matter? (Score:1)
Who's watching it now?
It would be better to at least pretend like
someone is monitoring abuses.
Trace buster buster buster (Score:2)
Oh but it does exist. (Score:1)
Definition of a Moron (Score:2)
Moron: Somebody who believes that government reading your emails is about catching terrorists.
Terrorists know about Echelon and will use other methods e.g. personal courier - either that or get caught.
Moron: Somebody who says, "They can read my email - I have nothing to hide."
This information can be used retrospectively against you - wait until you get a just cause to fight. The UK government love to put down protesters - as can be seen when they tried to get the dirt on Paddington crash survivors group. This group was lead by the badly injured Pam Warren - whom I presume would have nothing to worry about, having her emails read.
News article: Labour admits second email seeking searches on rail group [ananova.com]
Labour has found another email from a government adviser seeking information searches on the Paddington rail campaigners.
The adviser to Stephen Byers, sent a second request for the searches - which have been seen as an attempt to 'dig dirt' on members of the public.
Dan Corry's email to the Labour headquarters at Millbank Tower expressed a wish to find out what was behind the group's criticisms of Stephen Byers.
In it, Mr Corry said: "Any other checking useful. They seem to have an anti-SB agenda and we want to find out what lies behind it."
The department said the second email had been unearthed in a "very thorough" trawl of the email traffic from Mr Byers's special advisers.
A spokesman said it failed to reach the Labour Party owing to "intermittent difficulties" with the system.
The disclosure last week of Mr Corry's original email asking for information about the political affiliations of the Paddington group, prompted bitter accusations that the Government was trying to smear the crash survivors for asking awkward questions.
It led to unreserved apologies from Mr Corry and from new Transport Secretary Alistair Darling.
Story filed: 02:35 Tuesday 11th June 2002
Beware corporate theft of your domain name. Please visit World Intellectual Piracy Organization [wipo.org.uk] - not associated with United Nations WIPO.org
Real Cold War Strategy (Score:1)
Echalon FUD Theory (Score:2)
Instead of actually monitoring all communications all the time, you leak stories that you can, and are, but refuse to divulge -any- details, and totally deny it's existance.
Then...
Don't build it, don't do it, and let everyone hunt for your technological Elvis.
Call it Echalon, sit back and laugh while your foes assume you know everything.
I'm not saying it's so, but it sure could be.
Like trying to . . (Score:1)
Like trying to legislate waterflow.
Columnist may not have checked all his sources (Score:1)
Re:Alternative History points to crap like Echelon (Score:4, Funny)
It is official; Shanghai Newspaper confirms: Western Civilization is dying!!!
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered Western Civilization community when Al-Jazeera TV confirmed that Western Civilization market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of the World Culture Market. Coming on the heels of a recent Beijing Times study that points to the implosion of Western Civilization, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along: Western Civilization is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by these last ditch attempts to maintain "control" over an increasingly restless populace.
You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict Western Civilization's future. The hand writing is on the Eastern-styled wall: Western Civilization faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for Western Civilization because Western Civilization is dying. Things are looking very bad for Western Civilization. As many of us are already aware, and this story further demonstrates, Western Civilization continues to lose the trust of its citizens. Red ink flows like a river of blood.
All major surveys show that Western Civilization has steadily declined in market share. Western Civilization is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If Western Civilization is to survive at all it will be among academic dilettante dabblers that survived the horrible asteroid strike. Western Civilization continues to expand, and will eventually implode into a forgotten footprint on History. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, Western Civilization is dead.
Fact: Western Civilization is dying
With apoligies to Trolls Everywhere
Re:Laws dont work in real life (Score:1)
Re:In The End (Score:1)
Re:#dcisos (Score:2)
CAN I GET OP STATUS 4 THIS ROOM PLZ
will be brought against you tomorrow. Whips have been delivered unto members of the ministry of homeland security! It shall be brutal and cloaked.
Re:Sad news (Score:1)
It is with no small amount of jubliation that I report to you that Miss Manners has in no way "kicked the bucket." For future reference, Miss Manners generally thinks it more considerate to use "gone to her reward," "met her maker," or the old chestnut "gone to a better place." Doing so will tell those around you that you are a caring human being with class.