Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Your Rights Online

Bringing Echelon In From the Cold 279

Posted by timothy 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This discussion has been archived.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 More

Bringing Echelon In From the Cold

Comments Filter:

  • I've got it! (Score:5, Funny)

    by JanusFury ( 452699 ) <kevin...gadd@@@gmail...com> on Saturday June 22, 2002 @09:54PM (#3751051) Homepage Journal
    The watchers of those watching the watchers can be watched by the watchers themselves, thus guaranteeing that all the watchers, even the watchers OF the watchers, are watched. Then, just in case, we can have some watchers of the watchers of the watchers of the watchers, making sure everything goes smoothly.
    • What a coincidence... that's exactly how the system of checks and balances works!
    • The watchers of those watching the watchers can be watched by the watchers themselves, thus guaranteeing that all the watchers, even the watchers OF the watchers, are watched.

      This is, more or less, the subject of David Brin's book "The Transparent Society" [amazon.com].
    • You know, this type of cyclical reasoning is silly. The fact is, at some point, the people put a certain amount of trust in a smaller group in the hopes that they will keep modern society going. Even in a "pure" democracy, you will need people moderating and maintaining the process. People who scoff at the notion that our world leaders need to be trustworthy miss this vital point. Bennet makes a great point that just isn't about Echelon, it's about how society and government have to find balance. The government has been charged with keeping society going to enable higher levels of prosperity and order. This means law enforcement, trade, and yes, spying in order to ensure the safety of the nation. The citizens meanwhile, simply want to go about their daily lives with security and also privacy. That's what this whole thing is about. People that bitch, and there are quite a few on /., about how slow and illogical the process takes are naive about the complexity and difficulty of pulling it off, even if they're right in their hearts. So, I agree with Bennett.
    • The watchers of those watching the watchers can be watched by the watchers themselves, thus guaranteeing that all the watchers, even the watchers OF the watchers, are watched. Then, just in case, we can have some watchers of the watchers of the watchers of the watchers, making sure everything goes smoothly.

      Or alterativly you go for the David Brin solution. Where everyone can be a "watcher" and anyone can be watched.

  • Spying has always existed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 22, 2002 @09:55PM (#3751054)
    There has always been a "Big Brother" in every medium (tcp/ip, radio frequencies, etc..). There has always been a way for someone to listen on to communications that was not destined to them.

    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).
    • There has always been a "Big Brother" in every medium (tcp/ip, radio frequencies, etc..). There has always been a way for someone to listen on to communications that was not destined to them.

      Well, that has been true for along time, but I believe techonology has rendered that line of thinking obsolete. Now we have encryption. The public has many versions of encryption available to them, and, with time, I think we will have one that is literally impossible to break.


      On the other hand, we do have quantum based encyption, where by a person can tell if they are being tapped. That works well.


  • OK, but. . . . (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Salgak1 ( 20136 ) <salgak@s[ ]keasy.net ['pea' in gap]> on Saturday June 22, 2002 @09:55PM (#3751056) Homepage
    . . . all governments act out of their own national self-interest. So what's in it for NSA, et al, to uncloak their capabilities ???

    The philosophy of openness is nice, but somehow I don't think the "Intelligence Community" will buy it, without something fairly spectacular in return. . . . .

    • Of course we all know that open source global surveillance software will be better than the closed source version...
    • This isn't about openness. This is about setting rules to limit what institutions like echelon can do.

      The results of spying don't have to become public knowledge, but there should be limits to protect privacy.

      In much the same way, whistle-blowers are (should be?) encouraged, but people who give away secrets should not.

      Barto

    • Re:OK, but. . . . (Score:4, Insightful)

      by symbolic ( 11752 ) on Saturday June 22, 2002 @11:08PM (#3751244)

      How about continued funding?
    • Even if we opened them up, there's nothing to stop them from funding a new program or even a new agency in a black budget. Considering the current world climate, not many "elected representatives" are going to stand in the way of it either.

    • Re:OK, but. . . . (Score:3, Informative)

      by quintessent ( 197518 )
      Congress tried to get the NSA to disclose more, but failed.

      The following is from the EchelonWatch [aclu.org] web site. I think the text was written in 2000.

      Over the past few months, the United States House of Representatives has been investigating ECHELON and related activities. As part of these investigations, the House Select Committee on Intelligence requested documents from the National Security Agency (NSA) regarding its operating standards for intelligence systems like ECHELON that may intercept communications of Americans. In a surprising move, NSA officials refused to disclose these documents by invoking the attorney-client privilege.
  • If you created enough levels of policing you could have a lower level police the highest level. That would still have the problem of the highest level influencing people down the chain so as they are not policed. I don't think that could happen though.

  • Spying on civilians is bad, but... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by WTC Survivor ( 566347 ) on Saturday June 22, 2002 @09:56PM (#3751063) Homepage
    Let me begin by saying that I am no big fan of the USian intelligence services. Because of their sheer incompetence and gross neglect, I lost many dear friends on 9/11/2001, a day that will live in infamy. I also consider myself a privacy advocate, and resist the incursion of big government and big business into my personal life.

    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)

      by arkanes ( 521690 ) <<arkanes> <at> <gmail.com>> on Saturday June 22, 2002 @11:02PM (#3751230) Homepage
      Because you don't judge the potential impact of a law (or, in this case, a policy) by what it's doing - you judge it by what it CAN do. To do otherwise is to put the decision on the scope of the law into the hands of law enforcement, which is where they don't belong.

      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.

      • To do otherwise is to put the decision on the scope of the law into the hands of law enforcement, which is where they don't belong

        But, Echelon isn't a law enforcement tool, it is an intelligence tool. If the FBI wants to hear what you are saying, they still need to get a warrant to listen in. Once they have that warrant, they can go to the local phone company and have a tap placed on your line. People don't seem to understand what tools are used for what.

        • I include intelligence angencies under the broad umbrella of "law enforcment". My apologies if that wasn't clear.
          • My point is that you shouldn't include intelligence agencies under law enforcement, they serve very different purposes. The intelligence agencies really don't care if you commit a crime, law enforcement does care.

            For example, if you are getting a security clearance, an intelligence agency will investigate you. If on the application you state that you smoked pot, and when asked about it by the security officer clearing you, you clearly state that you smoked pot and are willing to tell anyone who asked, it will not be a problem for you to get a security clearance. They care about wether or not that information can be used to blackmail you.

            If a law enforcement agency asks you the same question and you respond they same way, they have to arrest you and press charges. They care whether or not you have broken a law.

    • Do some really basic historical research. Start with J. Edgar Hoover and I'm sure you'll find paths to follow from there. Just because you personally haven't heard of such abuses doesn't mean they have not happened.

      Please tell me you're only in the sixth grade and thus have no excuse for not knowing about this -- my opinion of U.S. public education is already very low.

      If you're in higher education still, take a couple of history classes. If you're out of school, you should be ashamed of your ignorance. I don't mean to flame you, but shit dude, get a fuckin' clue.

    • Re:Spying on civilians is bad, but... (Score:5, Informative)

      by GigsVT ( 208848 ) on Saturday June 22, 2002 @11:36PM (#3751298) Journal
      Oh, You mean this these? [paperlessarchives.com]

      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.

    • McCarthy. J. Edgar Hoover. COINTELPRO. The list goes on and on. And you ask why people are crying out for oversight?
    • While you claim to be a WTC survivor, you have not researched why/how the 9/11 attacks were allowed to happen at all.

      Your government - the almighty US of A - is responsible for allowing this to happen (almost to you, in fact). The Taliban and Osama bin Laden are creations of the CIA - funded and trained to resist the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviets. Once the USSR admitted that the invasion would never be a success and pulled out of Afghanistan, bin Laden and his cronies (being the strongest in a weakened country) became the ruling regime. While the US was aware of this, bin Laden & Co. were responsible for dozens of terrorist attacks and a generally unpleasant view of the US. But your government did nothing.

      Now you want this same government (with the same ideals/morals/culture) to spy on its own citizens - and you are willing to give your Constitutional rights to allow them to do so. Wake up - you are no safer today than you were on 9/8/01. Beleive it or not - the surveillance is already there - it was there before, but it was (and is) horribly misused and bogged down by an incredibly inefficient bureaucracy. I guarantee you that, today, you can still:

      -- Buy forged documents, including Social Security cards, passports, driver's licenses, etc

      -- Enter illegally into the USA, with little or no suspicion raised

      -- Purchase enough explosive/radioactive material and a delivery system to cause 9/11 look like a coincidental industrial accident

      Do not willingly give up your rights for security -- it is a false hope for security and an unfortunate reality for many Americans.
    • "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

      Benjamin Franklin
    • 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.

      That's sad. You will be giving up your privacy in vain as you won't suppress random acts of violence with such a simple solution. The media are telling us that US intelligence had the information but failed to act on it due to rivalry between the FBI and the CIA, but is it really "sheer incompetence and gross neglect"? How many hundreds of equally likely sounding red herrings were they chasing up at the time? Instead of undermining confidence in the intelligence services, why not publicise the garauntee to privacy (as another poster in this thread did so eloquently) and foster an image of an agency that people would willingly co-operate with, which I'm sure the Agencies would find of far more value.

      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?

      The civil liberty groups have already answered this pretty comprehensively, but I couldn't help thinking about Dutch society a century ago where (and please correct me if I've heard incorrectly) no-one dared put up curtains in their house to show the neighbours that nothing untowards was going on. That is a society I equally would not like to live in.

      Phillip.

  • But... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Loki_1929 ( 550940 ) on Saturday June 22, 2002 @09:57PM (#3751067) Journal
    What exactly can be done when the 'rules' of spying are not followed? Obviously, the game of intel/counter-intel is so secretive, that open trials for those breaking laws would be next to impossible. Military tribunals are probably unconstitutional for domestic spies. Better yet, how do you prosecute someone whose rule-breaking probably saved hundreds of lives? The overall question here is how does the intelligence community fit in with the ideals of any given country. Obviously, in the USA, this is embodied in our Constitution. So how does the intelligence community fit in with the Constitution, and how can it work effectively without crossing the line into illegal searches and other Constitutional violations?
  • This 'article' is nothing more than a plot by the illuminati to make up for their failed 'divx' project. Echelon is nothing more than another assault on our freedom!
    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)

    by S Nichol ( 230334 ) on Saturday June 22, 2002 @10:00PM (#3751075)
    It would seem to me that the Echelon system has worked well at its intended purpose since its inception, that is, collecting and sorting through reams upon reams of data. Since little is known about its actual operation, this statement may or may not be accurate. Hence, the "it would seem to me" part.

    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.
    • You admittedly don't know much of anything about the operation of Echelon. How, then, do you come to the opinion that it's worked well? That's like saying that black helicopters get great gas milage because they haven't crashed in Times Square yet.
    • It would seem to me that the Echelon system has worked well at its intended purpose since its inception, that is, collecting and sorting through reams upon reams of data.

      We have Eschelon, and we have 9/11. What's wrong with this picture?
    • 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

      Ummmm, how? You don't even offer a credible scenario for how Echelon could have saved anyone from anything, and yet you say millions have benefited. I agree that basic violations of human rights are probably more important than Echelon, but they go hand in hand.

  • Unless all citizens are involved in the oversight, then there is no way to say they won't just blackmail the moderators of what they are doing. J Edger Hoover seemed to have this covered when the most advanced thing being used was a typewriter. Imagine how easy it'll be with the massive supercomputers.
    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.
  • But GOOD! I'd much rather have the government spying on people and catching some people who are doing some warez shit than have someone who could of been caught blow up a bunch of people. If you're not doing things you shouldn't be, then you really don't have too much to worry about.
    • Dear Moderators,

      Thank you for labelling this edjit's post as flamebait - quite insightful of you.

      This person is willing to trade his freedom for security, and along with it, my freedom.... Apparently, he is uninformed and a trifle naive, but he is using his Constitutional right to express his opinion... interesting, isn't that one of the rights he is willing to give up for security's sake?
  • While this might seem a reasonable solution it will be doomed to failure for the same reason that the NSA couldn't use their info to forwarn. To much inertia due to oversized control structures. This is the same as the mythical man month, ie. if it takes one man one month to do the job then it should only take one day if thirty people are working, PHAH!

    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 ;-) for misuse that on the occasions when someone is dumb enough to misuse it and get caught they serve as an example.

    There will always be corruption in any power structure, the idea is to *efficiently* limit said corruption.
  • To attempt to "out" a secret organization is silly, simply because the organization then ceases to be secret. Espionage is a vital part of any modernized nation's defense and no nation will allow its spies to be watched (therefore, a wise prince will allow some of his spies to be watched, but not the important ones).

  • The submitter of this story is on crack (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Theodore Logan ( 139352 ) on Saturday June 22, 2002 @10:17PM (#3751122)
    But who will watch those watchers? And who will watch them?

    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)

    by akmed ( 33761 ) on Saturday June 22, 2002 @10:18PM (#3751127) Homepage
    Out of curiosity, why does it matter if "they" spy on you? Who's really going to care if you buy a copy of the South Park movie from Amazon? Or if you get some caffeinated soap from Think Geek? Or any of that. There's so much communication traffic in the world that for someone to pay a particular interest to you you'd have to be subscribing to the Child Porn for Mad Bombers Who Want to Poison Drinking Water with Alfalfa mailing list. Or some such nonsense. It's crazy to assume that anyone cares about what you write to someone in an email. Hell, you could send emails saying the president's a bastard and someone should off him. If you're starting to research into buying a Cesna and getting a pilot's license and begin looking for some C4 or the such then they should be looking into you. Otherwise who's going to care? The FBI/CIA/Uber secret agency you never heard of isn't gonna waste time looking at you. Time is money, after all. The US works because when things get too big and worrisome then people find out about it and things percolate through the news. If you worry about privacy then why not worry about the checker at your grocery store who sees you buy a certain deodorant or maybe some fungal cream. He or she now knows what you smell like and that you've got nasty feet. That's an invasion of privacy in essence and possibly more embarrasing than having some FBI guy who never met you and likely never will knowing that you subscribe to some porno sites (not that an agent would likely even see such a thing unless you had a lot of red flags against you to begin with in which case, once again, I personally feel secure knowing that they are looking into you). That's just my thoughts on it though
    • The fundamental problem is that you are not the one who decides which information triggers a "red flag." All of the examples you cite assume that the powers that be are basically benevolent and looking out for your best interests. History has shown this not to be the case the vast majority of the time, especially if you are politically active, a minority or (worse) both.

    • Re:Why does it matter? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by dirk ( 87083 )
      You assume that 1) the "powers that be" couldn't make a mistake and 2) the "powers that be" would ignore any legal activity. Both of these have been proven false many times. In today's world, the mistakes that were made would mean both Wen Ho Lee and Richard Jewel would still be locked up, when in reality they were both innocent. And the "powers that be" have a nasty habit of keeping tabs on and prosecuting/persecuting anyone who disagrees with them. It is a well known fact that the FBI kept close tabs on people like Martin Luther King and Einstein. Now we look and it is clear they weren't doing anything wrong, but they were both under constant surveillance (with the FBI trying to get Einstein deported). So why should I care if they watch me? Maybe because they make mistakes. Or maybe because I don't agree with everything they do, which makes me a potential target, even if I don't do anything wrong.
      • The cute girl at the checkout counter who totally digs on you might be making a mistake as well, thinking that you have stinky feet rather than knowing the truth... that you use the foot powder on your dog's feet to cure a medical condition. After you leave the store, you call your friend and tell him you think George Bush is an ass and shouldn't be president.

        Which situation is more likely to happen to you?... the girl at checkout counter doesn't agree to go out with you when you ask, or the FBI comes banging on your door because they misinterpreted your phone conversation to be about bombing the White House?

        Time for a reality check. Try as we may, no one here is Martin Luther King or Einstein. And even if one of you were... think about the size of the public eye that would be on you anyway as one of these people. You'd probably be in the tabloids just as often as the FBI would listen to your fricking phone. So the government likes to watch... so do we, and who the hell cares?
        • "So the government likes to watch... so do we, and who the hell cares?"

          Well, if it's _wanting_ to watch...who the hell cares. If it's actually just _watching_ (as in everything I say or do) and also having some _extra_ powers ("power that be") then it gets a little worst as someone else has already pointed out.
    • I think the point is: It's none of their business
    • Out of curiosity, why does it matter if "they" spy on you?

      Maybe you are an apathetic sheep, but there are a lot of politically active people out there that may not be exercising their rights in a way that is popular with the government. You know, people like the EFF and such. I'm sure you have heard of them.

      You need to fight for the rights of the people that are actively working to protect your rights, as a minimum. The government has abused their survelliance powers countless times in the past to monitor people who fight for political change. In recent times, just fighting to keep the status quo makes you a radical.

      So live in your little world, pray that nothing happens, and leave your future to chance. At least you won't feel defeated when all your rights are gone, you never fought for them in the first place.

    • Please explain to me why this wouldn't be a violation of the 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

    • Re:Why does it matter? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by seichert ( 8292 )
      Freedom of association and freedom from unlawful search and seizure ensure the peace in our society. At any time, a decent number of motivated people will be discontent with the current government. It is their right and responsibility to try to bring about change in the current government through non-violent means. Being able to organize and communicate in privacy is necessary for these individuals to bring about change.

      Throughout time, it has always been the case, that these individuals are in the minority. The majority will go along with whoever wins. Over the last 100 years the power of the US federal government has slowly but surely increased. Those committed to reversing this trend will face more and more invasions of their privacy by those in the federal government with something to lose.

    • Re:Why does it matter? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Bodrius ( 191265 ) on Sunday June 23, 2002 @01:38AM (#3751634) Homepage
      Because throughout history almost every government has proven itself utterly uncapable of figuring out what information is relevant or not to identifying you as a threat.

      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...
      • Because throughout history almost every government has proven itself utterly uncapable of figuring out what information is relevant or not to identifying you as a threat.

        Sometimes they can be so busy chasing bogus threats that they miss the real ones. Or they collect information without any way to do anything with it. The GDR had the most extensive surveillance systems in modern history, but it ceased to exist.

        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...

        Maybe they though the Boeing 767 improvised cruise missile was a joke.

    • Re:Why does it matter? (Score:2, Informative)

      by bogie ( 31020 )
      "Out of curiosity, why does it matter if "they" spy on you"

      Amendment IV

      The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable SEARCHES and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

      Unless the Bill of Rights does not matter, it is illegal for the government to monitor all of its citizens "just in case" they may be breaking the law.
      • The congressional intent on the 4th amendment was physical searching of your home and seizure of property therefrom. Beyond that it's up to the Supreme Court to decide if you get anything else. Congress writes the laws, if they're confusing then the Supreme Court decides what they mean. But it's the Supreme Court that decides, not the populace at large. So many people in the U.S. think that we're a democracy. We aren't. We're a democratically elected republic. Which means you either run for office yourself, or else you choose who gets to make the laws for you and they choose who gets to decide what those laws mean. Democracy brought Rome and many other republics to empires and empires screwed people over. Just remember that when considering things such as Amendment 17 (that made senators directly electable) and the occasional talk of doing away with the electoral college. Each such step is a step towards a dearth of rights, if history is to be believed (and it should be).
    • Would you like the gov to have microphones in you bath, your kitchen and you bedroom? Why should you care? After all, they are probably not interested in your buffzz, your boiled eggs or your "in bed" activities. Only if you talking about killing someone, etc. you should care.

      I wouldn't like it. And I don't like it when they tap my emails either (why should it be different?). I have nothing to hide yet I value my privacy. If it's needed for survival then go ahead ... but I STILL DONT LIKE IT.

    • Re:Why does it matter? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Shelled ( 81123 )
      It matters because the knowledge is power. A political opponent who downloads porn or cheats on their spouse is vulnerable to that information and it can be used against them to get bills passed, look the other way in commitee hearings, decide a court case in a particular manner, etc.

      Why stop at surveilance? Nothing in your argument suggests "they" shouldn't enter your house without warrant, investigate your financial dealings without cause, tail you all they please. Hell, as long as it's a qualified doctor why not random cavity searches? Some would even enjoy it and it's not too high a price in the War Against Terrorism.

      Please buy a history book and find out exactly what happened whenever governments had this much power. I suggest the KGB as a good starting point.

  • Facism (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Doom Ihl' Varia ( 315338 )
    Let's see, they release propagandic Army video games. They have 1-800 numbers for children to rat out their parents and any of their friends at school they think are "Weird and might kill people". Now mass implemented scanning of our TCP/IP communications. You know, Hitler would love what they've done with technology. But two buildings got destroyed and one damaged, that makes taking people's right away ok right? Right??? Wrong.
    • But two buildings got destroyed and one damaged, that makes taking people's right away ok right?

      Well, it might be a bit more complicated than that, as you left out the minor detail that 3000+ people died when those buildings were "destroyed" and "damaged".

      Granted, any living, breathing, compassionate human being (lawyers and politicians not included, obviously) should be able to see the immediate and imminent threat (read: John Ashcroft) that the aforementioned scenario poses to the civil liberties of US citizens... but that is likely to be left to the ACLU and Slashdot rants for now.
  • This would be as effective as the treaty which outlawed chemical weapons development, but allowed for the development of vaccines. Their development coincidentally requires the stocking the chemical weapons.
    Governments will do whatever they please, but always excel at their hallmarks, inefficiency and stupidity.

  • 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)

  • whenever possible, i like to include the phrase "fuel grade" in my phone conversations. i hear it really pisses "those guys" off...

  • 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.

  • But who will watch those watchers? And who will watch them?

    I dunno. Coast Guard?
  • While the FBI and associated spying agencies may have made some noteable mistakes in the recent past, people seem to forget that their primary goal is not to spy on innocent people who may be illegaly trading mp3s, for example - but to focus on the larger issues of great national importance. Limiting their ability to do so by providing "guidelines" (restrictions, and publication of their methods) allows those that truly need to be spied on to easily circumvent any scrutiny of their communications.

  • Unimpressive idea (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Farang ( 552254 )
    In this proposal (to make Echelon more public and transparent), there is one indication up front that the author is a bit goofy. The rest of his suggestions lack common sense.

    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.

    • Looking over the responses here, I would like to propose that you try reading James Bamford's book, Body of Secrets. It's about as close to the NSA as you'll get without being invited in.

      I personally think Lt. Gen. Michael Hayden has done a great job of letting the public be more aware of the NSA. This man has allowed cameras to go in and look around and so on. Ok, not at everything of course, but that's another matter.

      Should we allow the UKUSA agreement to be more public? I don't think we can any more than we already have without threatening resources. Do you want every terrorist organisation to know where all the listening posts are? The NSA does a beautiful job of Sigint, although unfortunately they don't have enough people for enough languages. If you have any language ability and you're a computer geek here good in mathematics, I recommend applying, since they are hiring right now.

      What's important to remember is that under agreements within UKUSA and internal orders, the NSA cannot keep track of clearly US citizens and permanent residents (and I believe that applies to other UKUSA countries). If you're in the US, they have to treat you as a U.S. citizen/permanent resident unless your communication clearly indicates otherwise or you're communicating with clearly known terrorists. Still, in the reports, they have to list you without name. Those who can prove that they need to know can find out, but it's not that easy. When abroad, the situation changes. They can record until they know that you're a U.S. citizen or permanent resident.

      Anyway, while we computer geeks pick on the NSA, I think we should really take a good look at overhauling the CIA. Ask any resident in Peshawar to point out the CIA guys. Requirements for clandestine spooks favour WASPs way too 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.

      So the US authorities at the time seriously didn't think that the Japanese knew where the US Pacific fleet was?
  • The Freedom of Information Act is a helpful tool here, but the trick is enforcement, i.e., making the information needed to have effective oversight available. The watchers should be any citizens who decide to watch (and a vigilant press, if such a thing exists anymore). There should be a fairly short life span on the classified status of this information. Once it is declassified, it can be obtained via the Freedom of Information Act.

    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)

    by istartedi ( 132515 )

    Big Brother is watching you watching Big Brother watch you watch Big Brother watching you.

  • This whole question is addressed by David Brin in his The Transparent Society [barnesandnoble.com]. His thesis is that personal privacy is doomed no matter what we do, so our only rational option is to insist that the loss be bidirectional; that is, that we have the right to watch the watchers and to share in the means and results of surveillance. Such "open source" surveillance would allow a large pool of ad-hoc monitors to detect and report abuses.

    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.

  • For what the general public wants, at some point, someone must answer to the public authority (ie. ye whom is accountable to you, me, Joe Q. Doe). Otherwise it is a closed loop of accountability where morality is decided by an authority other than the "greatest good".

    (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)

    by dh003i ( 203189 ) <dh003i@gmail. c o m> on Sunday June 23, 2002 @12:12AM (#3751384) Homepage Journal
    I'm a libertarian, and I strongly value the important of our freedom of speech rights. That, however, does not mean we should have fifteen layers of Oversight.

    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.
  • But who will watch those watchers? And who will watch them?
    Duh, you sell tickets to watch Echelon and use the proceeds to fund <insert hotly-debated congressional project here>.

    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.

  • What prevents them to set up another one? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by aralin ( 107264 ) on Sunday June 23, 2002 @12:56AM (#3751543)
    Ok, lets say you regulate Echelon after it will be disclosed. So what exactly prevents them from setting up another system that won't be regulated? Seems to me like a vain task :)

  • Old quote. (No mine) (Score:4, Funny)

    by muzzmac ( 554127 ) on Sunday June 23, 2002 @01:49AM (#3751655)
    If the Government has time to read all my e-mail can the summarise it and forward it back to me?
    • Your E-mail summary:

      Your penis is 3 inches to short, you should get a diploma, you should go on a diet, you can get a low cost morgage, you should spice up your sex lift with herbal viagra, your printer needs toner, you've just won a free Florida Carribean vacation, you have received 85 hot insider stock tips, everyone you know and and complete strangers all say "I love you!", and you just e-mailed everyone in your address book saying "I love you!".

      -

  • You should read the laws & protections in plac (Score:5, Informative)

    by EQ ( 28372 ) on Sunday June 23, 2002 @05:36AM (#3751930) Homepage Journal
    For instance, Exec. Order No. 12333, 3 C.F.R. 200 (1982), The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, 50 U.S.C., and the executive orders founding the NSA and the post-Nixon limits on what can be done with intercepts of "US Persons" no matter where they are talking.

    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.

  • Open up the results to everyone. If everyone has the capacity to watch everyone else, then the people doing the watching won't be able to abuse the privilege.
  • Echelon is an important device, a weapon as powerful as a nuclear or chemical bomb, which unless stopped by encryption could be a threat to the safety of the United Sates President, Congress and people. Happily it is keyword-list [google.co.uk] based. At this point, I'd like to welcome those good people from Maryland to Slashdot...very mighty defenders of freedom..let's give it up for the NSA woowoowoo! Actually, you gotta admit, they are the world's super-geeks. I love those guys.
  • With my Trace Buster Buster Buster Buster Buster Buster 9000 I will be safe from all, so ha.
  • In this context, here are two definitions for you.

    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
    • I have posted this basic text before - as nobody has been able to refuted it, I will repost.

      What do you think the USA Patriot Act is about?

      For those of low intelligence - it is all about Big Brother.

      Ask the Security Services in the UK and US to deny this:

      Internet surveillance, using carnivore or back doors in encryption, will not stop terrorists communicating by other means e.g. face to face, personal courier or steganography.

      Terrorists will have to do that, or they will get caught.

      Perhaps using mobile when absolutely essential, saying - Go with plan A (human bomb to target A), or plan B (target B) or abort.

      SURVEILANCE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO STOP TERRORISTS - IT IS SPIN AND PROPAGANDA.

      It is for several reasons, including: making you feel safer - that the government are doing something and the more malicious motive of privacy invasion.

      Government say about surveillance - "you've nothing to fear - if you are not breaking the law"

      This argument is made to pressure people into acquiescence - else appear guilty of hiding something.

      It does not address the real reason why they want this information - they want a surveillance society.

      They wish to invade your basic human right to privacy.

      This is like having somebody watching everything you do - all your thoughts, hopes and fears will be open to them.

      All your finances for them to scrutinize - heaven help you if you cannot account for every cent when they check on your taxes.

      Do not believe the lies of Government - even more money spent on these measures will not protect you from terrorists.

      Incidentally, the United States Department of Commerce lies - they know the solution to uniquelly identify all registered trademarks on the Internet. Please visit the World Intellectual Piracy Organization [wipo.org.uk] to see it.
      • Internet surveillance, using carnivore or back doors in encryption, will not stop terrorists communicating by other means e.g. face to face, personal courier or steganography.

        Thing is that things such as face to face meetings, personal courier, steganography (most likely not computer based though), codes (not cyphers) are quite likely amongst the terrorists' prefered methods anyway. Also unlike a large company or even a regular army terrorists can rapidly change how they communicate things.

        Perhaps using mobile when absolutely essential, saying - Go with plan A (human bomb to target A), or plan B (target B) or abort.

        They probably won't use languages like that though. Something more like if they are going to meet at place A, place B or not bother. How is anyone overhearing this phone call going to know that it's about terrorism? You'd find out that the people involved are terrorists by regular detective work, not through mass surveillance.
        • >Thing is that things such as face to face meetings, personal courier, steganography (most likely not computer based though), codes (not cyphers) are quite likely amongst the terrorists' prefered methods anyway.

          There are several forms of steganography that the terrorist could safely use.

          >They probably won't use languages like that though. Something more like if they are going to meet at place A, place B or not bother. How is anyone overhearing this phone call going to know that it's about terrorism?

          I was using that as example - it would more likely be "Hello Harry, I will meet you at the bar at the usual time."

          >You'd find out that the people involved are terrorists by regular detective work, not through mass surveillance.

          I agree with you.

          It really annoys me that our governments will con their people like this.

          We pay their wages - we deserve the Truth - not this spin and lies.
    • Terrorists know about Echelon and will use other methods e.g. personal courier - either that or get caught.

      Or, if they do use email, they will make it appear very innocent. Which isn't too difficult if they plan on attacking a tourist attraction.
  • Consider this you have limited capability, limited resources, and a limited budget.
    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.

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close