Slashdot Mirror


'Echelon Study' Released by European Parliament

ckolar writes, "Duncan Campbell's report on Echelon has been delivered to the European Parliament's committee for Justice and Home Affairs and is available online. " This is the study that was commisioned by the EU - very interesting reading.

58 of 210 comments (clear)

  1. sprs by meighan · · Score: 2
    interesting. anyone have anymore information on the speech pattern recognition software thought to be used on phone lines?

    --

    --

    --
    It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.

    1. Re:sprs by karb · · Score: 2
      When the brits used to have that tower to listen to all the traffic between ireland and england, they didn't have workable speech recognition, but used what I thought was a pretty cool hack.

      Speech recognition is hard. However, taking a voice print is really really easy. So they (british intel or whoever) would automatically take a voice-print of every call, and tape the calls that matched voice-prints of criminals, or whoever they listened to (I'll give them the benefit of the doubt).

      --

      Jack Valenti and the MPAA are to technology as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone

  2. Got pulled off of AP Wire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    I saw this story briefly on the wire this morning, but it appears to have been pulled. Maybe the MIB phoned the AP and said "We would be so much happier if you would show a little more discretion in running stories of this nature..."

  3. Don't Complain Here by 348 · · Score: 5
    Whining and bitching about big brother will achieve nothing. I you are interested in having more of their mission etc. made public, curbed completely or audited, the way to make a little noise and get heard is to write your representative. On the Echelon Watch site, they have an e-mail, letter, and fax engine that all you do is add your name, address etc. and something like this will get mailed.

    As your constituent, I'm writing to ask for your support for a congressional inquiry into a threat to the privacy and civil liberties of all residents of the United States. I've read several credible reports that suggest that the global electronic communications surveillance system -- frequently known by the code name ECHELON -- presents an extreme threat to my privacy and that of other people around the world.

    If you want to free hand your correspondence, get your senator or representatives name, address etc, from their wed site, and send the letter. Complaining on forums such as Slashdot, Attrition or HNN will not accomplish anything in bringing this stuff into the light. Whining on Slashdot only increases your Karma.

    --

    More race stuff in one place,
    than any one place on the net.

    1. Re:Don't Complain Here by Kaa · · Score: 3

      Whining and bitching about big brother will achieve nothing.

      Truth. It's the path of least resistance, however.

      I you are interested in having more of their mission etc. made public, curbed completely or audited, the way to make a little noise and get heard is to write your representative.

      I think the key word here is "little". I estimate the chances of governments of the world giving up spying on their own citizens and everybody else to be precisely zero.

      The cypherpunks way is more to my liking. Encrypt. Encrypt all messages. Tell your friends to encrypt all messages. Laugh at the very expensive hardware collecting a lot of apparently random noise (but keep yourself up to date on the latest crypto techniques).

      Whining on Slashdot only increases your Karma.

      But isn't it the goal of existence? Better karma is the ultimate goal of life, isn't it? :-)

      Karma... must have karma... more... more... MORE!!!

      Kaa

      --

      Kaa
      Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
    2. Re:Don't Complain Here by noeld · · Score: 2
      Is it true that those who complain about ECHELON get on special government monitoring lists? ;)

      I remember when it was cool to have a sig file with NUKE, FUSION etc in it to make big brother read your mail. Now people want privacy. ;) Go figure :)

      Noel

      RootPrompt.org -- Nothing but Unix

    3. Re:Don't Complain Here by 348 · · Score: 2
      I think the key word here is "little". I estimate the chances of governments of the world giving up spying on their own citizens and everybody else to be precisely zero.
      I don't know. A year ago, they denied its very existence, seems like the walls are coming down somewhat. Spying is one thing, the subset being interception of traffic is quite a bit smaller, and easier to exploit. I think that with the "New Age" of e-business in whatever flavor brings big dollar corporations into the mix now. They will have a huge impact on Echelon. Business is building and supporting the net now and they want their say. Enough pressure in the right places will make a difference in how they operate.

      The cypherpunks way is more to my liking. Encrypt. Encrypt all messages. Tell your friends to encrypt all messages. Laugh at the very expensive hardware collecting a lot of apparently random noise (but keep yourself up to date on the latest crypto techniques).
      Depends on what battle your fighting. Encrypting everything will generate much noise, but at what expense, for what purpose. If you really have something to say/write whatever and didn't want to take the chance of anyone else possibly seeing/hearing it, would you really send it over the net, or over some unsecured copper pair? I wouldn't.

      --

      More race stuff in one place,
      than any one place on the net.

    4. Re:Don't Complain Here by Kaa · · Score: 2

      If you really have something to say/write whatever and didn't want to take the chance of anyone else possibly seeing/hearing it, would you really send it over the net, or over some unsecured copper pair? I wouldn't.

      I would. Two reasons.

      One: Q: "Where does a wise man hide a fish?" A: "In the ocean".

      Two: It seems highly unlikely that NSA or (insert your favorite bogeyman here) can break correctly-used publicly available encryption with reasonable key size (e.g. >=2048 bit for public key, or >=128 bits for symmetric).

      Kaa

      --

      Kaa
      Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
    5. Re:Don't Complain Here by G27+Radio · · Score: 4

      Complaining on forums such as Slashdot, Attrition or HNN will not accomplish anything in bringing this stuff into the light. Whining on Slashdot only increases your Karma.

      Not to disagree with your point about being proactive, but I've noticed a lot of people of people seem to disregard the importance of actually having the discussion. Most of the whining and bitching I read contains at least one element of interest, whether intended by the author or not.

      Also keep in mind that not everyone that reads HNN, attrition, slashdot, etc, is predisposed to getting involved or reading discussions like this.

      Even the things that could be considered "preaching to the choir" have some educational value for me. Reading other's thoughts on here reinforces ideas that I may have already had, but never thought to articulate or couldn't articulate as well as they did. Later on I can, and occasionally do, use these arguments effectively in day to day conversation. I'd dare say that I learn more from the bitching and preaching than I do from the original articles.

      Bitch on brothers!

      numb

  4. Slashdot effect. by fingal · · Score: 2
    Anybody else in Belgium? Anybody know why the network is so fscked up at the moment? Can't even traceroute to the europarl server at present. Its been like this for a bit now. Surely it can't be a slashdot effect on the level to take out complete pipes? (although I can't imagine that /.ers are the only people trying to download it).

    Does anybody know what format the report is in, what size it is and precisely what time the link went live? I'd like to read it, but I'd also like to get my connection back at some point...

    --

    The only Good System is a Sound System

  5. related links by ATKeiper · · Score: 5
    Some links relating to the technology related to Echelon can be found in a recent edition of Crypto-Gram.

    Also, there are several related links on the Personal Security page of the Center for the Study of Technology and Society.

    Finally, if you want the wire version of the story, click here.

    Yours,
    A. Keiper
    The Center for the Study of Technoloy and Society

    1. Re:related links by shub · · Score: 2
      --
      Brad Knowles
      http://daily.daemonnews.org/ -- if you're not
  6. I'll mirror it! by dattaway · · Score: 2

    Someone mail the text of the report and I'll mirror it or just post it here. Something. I can't stand the suspense! :O

  7. Mirror by brunes69 · · Score: 4


    The linked site appears to be slashdotted. I believe this is a valid mirrorof the report:

    ht tp://www.cyber-rights.org/interception/stoa/interc eption_capabilities_2000.htm

    1. Re:Mirror by Spoing · · Score: 3

      It's not a mirror of the same thing; from what little I was able to read from the original link, the two aren't even similar.

      --
      A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
    2. Re:Mirror by Cato · · Score: 2

      The report IS identical, it's just the front page that is different - clicking on the Report link from the front page presented at http://www.echelonwatch.org/ gives you the same report as at this URL.

  8. "Echelon Study" next to "Blame Canada" by ufojoe · · Score: 2

    Interesting how the "Echelon Study" article is posted next to a "Blame Canada" article. After all the operating principle of Echelon just ahppends to be "Blame Canada" (The UK blames Australia... and so on) Coincidence these articles ended up next to each other... I don't think so.

  9. Europe is pissed off by spaceorb · · Score: 5

    And it seems that France in particular has a taste for the fantastic. Microsoft is the NSA's largest customer, and IBM was forced into using DOS by the government?

    France allegedly has its own Echelon, and no doubt that the UK does also. So if they're doing it themselves, why are they so pissed at the US?

    1. Re:Europe is pissed off by Idrach · · Score: 2

      Yup, the French have their own version of Echelon but, due to lobbying by the Academie Francaise, it doesn't have an English language translator built in ...

      On a more serious note, we (the UK) don't need our own Echelon, we're part of yours (like Canada, Australia, and, when they're not complaining about US nuclear powered warships, the Kiwis.) It is called the "Five Power Agreement" and regularly gets an mention in Mr Campbell's articles.

      Just like the NSA aren't supposed to spy on US citizens, our Intelligence services aren't supposed to spy on us without either a warrant or ministerial permission (with our equivalent of a Congressional committee overseeing the whole thing.) Interestingly, they manage to get around this in a number of ways, but nowhere near as well as when we all had analogue mobile phones and it could just be plucked out of the ether.

      Please don't either confuse the national governments of European nations with the EU (much as certain people would like them to be the same organisation) or (and this is a much more fundamental error) underestimate the hypocrisy of the modern politician.

    2. Re:Europe is pissed off by kinkie · · Score: 2

      Europe is rightfully pissed off, I might add (yes, I am european, as you might guess).
      The point you seem to be missing is that the echelon is outside Europe's control, and this pisses me off greatly (well, it just adds to the fact that being spied upon pisses me off a great deal too).
      Let's put this thing in another perspective: while you probably occasionally check your back lawn to keep it clean and tidy, wouldn't you be pissed if your neighbor pointed some hidden surveillance camera to your lawn without telling you, without asking for your permission, without being accountable, and possibly selling videos of your lifemate sunbathing nude to his friends in the neighborhood? Because this is exactly what echelon does.

      --
      /kinkie
    3. Re:Europe is pissed off by Weezul · · Score: 3

      Technically, the reason most European governments are pissed is because the U.S. uses Echelon to steal contracts from French buisnesses. I just hope that they sell it to their common people as "those evil Americans are spying on our you" because then they will have a hard time defending their own programs when they come under attack. It may be to our advantage to take these programs down one at a time so that the people in charge do not think about protecting their own program when they attack someone else's.

      What we need to do is make it clear to European politicians that they can gain political power (in the internet community) by talking about how evil it is to go arround spying on people. This meme will survie and they will not think their own spy's are as importent at budget time or when scandals come up in the future. Discrediting one at a time is the way to disarm the spys.

      --
      The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
  10. Don't JUST complain here by drox · · Score: 3

    Whining and bitching about big brother will achieve nothing.

    If that's ALL you do, then that's true. You're preaching to the converted. But if you write (yes, with paper and stamps, because it's so much more effective than email that our benighted representatives seldom even hear about) to your representatives and THEN get onto a public forum like Slashdot and tell others what you did and why, it might get others to follow in your footsteps.

    But please be polite. These people have to slog through bureaucratic BS all day. You won't win any friends in high places by venting your spleen at them. Just explain logically why this is a Bad Thing.

    And while you're at it, write to your local newspaper. There you'll be preaching to many who are not yet converted. Spread the word!

  11. The problem with Echelon by jd · · Score: 5
    The biggest problem with Echelon is the people that it's monitoring.

    How so? Well, I've seen several posts suggesting writing to representitives. What good is that going to do? The NSA has refused to even say if the name even means anything to them, under Client - Lawyer privilage. Have you seen Congress push them into saying anything further? One try, and they seem satisfied they've done their part.

    Ok, what about this jamming? As I've said on a number of occasions, NOBODY does interception by keywords. Even IDS systems use pattern-recognition and context-sensitive detectors. Why would one of the largest, most advanced, most brilliant collection of programmers and mathematicians use a simple 'tcpdump | grep'? It makes no sense.

    Ok, so "conventional" jamming won't work, complaining gets nowhere, what CAN you do?

    I'm not going to say people are powerless, because they're not. However, they DO need to be unorthodox. You can't break encryption, if you don't know the algorithm, or possible set of algorithms. Even then, your probability of a false positive goes up considerably, the greater the number of keys and/or algorithms.

    There are a GREAT many encryption algorithms out there, some stronger than others but that's not really the point. If nobody can really tell which algorithm you're using, your effective keylength is equal to the key length of the -LONGEST- key possible, PLUS log2(number of algorithms).

    eg: PGP/GPG uses RSA to encrypt a secret key, but uses a simple secret cypher to encrypt the message itself, using that secret key. If someone modified PGP/GPG to allow you to pick (or have it randomly select) one of, oh, 16 algorithms for the secret encryption, then your effective keylength is equal to 128 + 4 = 132. That's a lot tougher to crack (it'll take 16 times as long) and might well prove too difficult for a real-time system, such as Echelon.

    Even so, I =can= tell you that Echelon is complex. My understanding is that it includes vast arrays of DSP chips embedded in the physical network, for pre-processing. The only hope is to make systems such as IPSec and PGP/GPG sufficiently advanced that one-size-fits-all solutions can't be used effectively.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    1. Re:The problem with Echelon by Slak · · Score: 2

      Slashdot reported http://slashdot.org/articles/99/ 11/14/058247.shtml that the NSA holds various patents for sifting through transcripts.

      As far as PGP/GPG go, you assume that the NSA has no shortcuts on cracking IDEA, Blowfish, etc. The solution space for algorithms is so small as to not effect the workload. Don't count on "Security through obscurity (of algorithm)". Need I remind you that "when you assume, you make and ass out of you and me" :)

      The problem with Echelon is the lack of oversight. How can the NSA claim client/attorney privileges? What is being done to verify that ECHELON breaks no laws?

      As the saying goes, the first step to dictatorship is secrecy.

      Cheers,
      Slak

    2. Re:The problem with Echelon by jd · · Score: 2
      Many algorithms have a limited number of possible bit lengths at which they're any good. Too long or too short, and they become easily broken.

      Increasing the number of algorithms has two benefits. First, you're -guaranteed- a safe increase in effective bit-length, WITHOUT weakening the algorithm(s). Second, you increase the liklihood of a false positive, on the part of the cracker. This makes it harder for a cracker to be sure they have the right message.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  12. effectiveness of echelon by mistral · · Score: 4

    how effective do slashdotters think echelon really is? and do you think they feed any data to U.S. commercial concerns? I've been thinking a bit about this recently; some simple calculations demonstrate that the amount of material they have to look through is simply phenomenal. The rumors say that the system has links to telephone lines, faxes, email systems, satellite links, and who knows what else. So, some extremely quick and dirty estimates:

    I live in Boston with three other people and their respective girlfriends; most of us have cell phones. Our house has two phone lines, DSL, and ten computers hooked up behind a firewall. My roommate has a Palm V with an omnisky. That's eight or nine voice streams and as many data streams. The data streams are going all the time, and are all multiplexed through our single DSL connection. Now, admittedly we're a little more wired than most. So we'll scale this down a bit. Assume the government only is interested in monitoring large cities and a few out of the way enclaves dotted around the map. Maybe the ten largest US cities and 150 known subversive groups. Including the greater metro area, each city has maybe 4 million people on average, implying about 1.6 million families per city, giving 16 million
    families total. We can guess that (plus or minus a few kooks) nearly every family has at least one phone line and 2 out of 5 have at least one cell phone. Probably 60% have an internet connection.
    This gives us 32 million data streams, to monitor in real time, and at odd hours. Now given the current state of speech-to-text software, and assuming the NSA is 15-20 years ahead of the state-of-the-art (a very dubious assumption, these days), we'll also figure that with their software they can decrypt 200 voice streams per second with a pentium III. That still implies that they need the equivalent computing power of 160,000 high-end workstations.

    Ok, this is not outside the realm of possibility. But it's right on the edge! Add in the complexity of understanding and dealing with different accents and different languages, static, spread spectrum cell phones, demultiplexing LANs, tapping who knows how many
    switches, debugging the monitoring software and releasing (secret!) updates into the field, dealing with code words and both simple and complex black box and white box encryption, and dealing with the noise of slashdotters putting in things like "kill the president" and "natalie portman is trafficking in hot grits disguised as cocaine to pay off communist subversives," and we see that if Echelon exists, it's probably close to useless. And a horrible waste of taxpayers'
    money. Though I guess developing such a omprehensive system could be valuable for use in targeted situations, like focusing on transmissions in a limited geographic area during high-tension conflicts.

    These estimates are very much back-of-the-envelope, but does anybody see anything fundamentally wrong with them?

    --
    neil

    1. Re:effectiveness of echelon by Bearpaw · · Score: 2
      These estimates are very much back-of-the-envelope, but does anybody see anything fundamentally wrong with them?

      I'm not sure I follow your reasoning, but I think I see a few issues.

      1) Few people so far have always-on data streams.

      2) Practically nobody has always-on voice streams.

      3) There's no need to do deep analysis on everything. Assuming that this system exists in some form, there's no doubt some sort of funneling effect. 99.9etc percent can be safely ignored after a quick keyword skim. The stuff taken off the top can be skimmed a little more slowly, as a first-pass context check. The cream of that can be skimmed still more carefully. And so on.

      4) Other forms of intelligence -- and results from the system itself -- can be used to focus the "attention" of the system more efficiently.

      5) I'm not sure using a "number of workstations" yardstick is meaningful for the kind of analysis they may be doing. (Specific-purpose hardware could give them a big edge.)

    2. Re:effectiveness of echelon by jd · · Score: 2
      One quick correction. According to information I've been given (reliability uncertain), the NSA uses massively parallel arrays of bleeding-edge DSP chips to do signal processing, not classic (but slow) CPUs.

      And one other point - the problem with noise would be correct, if they did keyword recognition, which is exactly why I'm convinced they don't. Rather, I believe they use sophisticated pattern recognition and context recognition.

      (A bunch of drunk students typing stupid, but blatently fake, trolls on Slashdot will produce radically different patterns than cold, unfeeling gangsters talking about some illegal activity. However skilled either group is, they'll never be able to exactly match the style and characteristics of the other. An advanced enough system should, therefore, be able to filter by style first, then context, and finally by pattern, and thereby eliminate the noise almost entirely. Yes, there'll be some, especially from Wargamers, but that'll almost certainly be all filterable by hand, and there'll be sufficiently little left to be practical to filter by hand.)

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    3. Re:effectiveness of echelon by adimarco · · Score: 4

      Specific-purpose hardware could give them a big edge.

      Funny you should say that.

      I was interviewing for a job the other day with a Genetic Engineering firm, and about half way through the series of interviews, their sysadmin gave me a tour of the server room.

      Amongst scary Enterprise Servers the likes of which I have only read about, they have a box with cool-looking (OSX-Aqua-esque in its sheer sleekness) blue lights which they apparently got from the NSA.

      This box basically consists of 7000 simple, massively parallel processors specifically designed to do 1 thing: pattern matching from huge amounts of data. This has obvious benefits for the Genetic Engineering firm (genomic info is all just strings), and perhaps even more obvious benefits to the NSA.

      Just thought it was interesting...

      Anthony

      --

      "I think any time you expose vulnerabilities it's a good thing." -Attorney General Janet Reno
  13. Echelon in the news by Majix · · Score: 2

    One of the main news items on Finnish TV tonight was about Echelon. In brief, Tony Blair told the EU commission today that Britain hasn't betrayed Europe by participating in the US spy network also known as Echelon. Interesting was also the mention of that Echelon probably started as early as 1940.

    Those who can understand Finnish can read a pretty good article summarizing the news here. Finland is one of the biggest supporters of privacy and protection of the individual in the EU.

  14. How to really jam Echelon by burris · · Score: 5
    If you control a Linux box that sits on the net, go right now and get FreeS/WAN and install it. This is a free, open-source implementation of the IP/SEC protocols. Funded by John Gilmore (of Sun, Cygnus, EFF, and DEEP-CRACK fame), this software gives you secure Virtual Private Network support in Linux.

    Set it up and create secure connections between your peers. Very soon it will support automatic keying using DNS-SEC (public keys kept in the DNS database).

    Echelon makes little difference if everyone is using end-to-end transport level strong encryption.

    Burris

    1. Re:How to really jam Echelon by Weezul · · Score: 2

      I would like to see a concerted effort to get encryption products like IPsec installed as protest. We should get venders to distribute Linux boxes with this stuff preinstalled and we should get them preload PGP onto windows boxes. The Irish should definitly do this to protest the UK's draconian cryptography laws, but really we all should be doing it. (I'd love to see some of those "patriotic" Irish buisness men who funded the IRA start funding PGP-phone sales in Irland too. It would be a lot cheeper and win a lot more political sympathy)

      --
      The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
    2. Re:How to really jam Echelon by pesc · · Score: 3
      Echelon makes little difference if everyone is using end-to-end transport level strong encryption

      Excuse me, but I think this is clueless.

      Sure, seeing the actual messages is interesting too, but there is lots of information to be gathered just by monitoring who is talking to who and when. Build graphs of that info, and you see the "communities" on the net and how they interact and relate to each other.

      This information is much easier to refine automatically (by computer) than actually understanding what you say in your messages, encrypted or not.

      So when they have identified some arms traders (for example), they just do some data mining in their databases, builds the communication graphs, and if you have ever dealt with these people (by phone or internet), you will be found! Then they can correlate your communication patterns with other data (flight travels, bank deposits, etc). They got you now. At this stage, they might want to select a few strategic communications that you have encrypted and send them to the code breaking computers, but I don't think it is critical for what they are doing. They could just as well use other means at this stage if needed.

      The purpose of Echelon is allowing them to do this on a global scale.

      --

      )9TSS
    3. Re:How to really jam Echelon by Ralph+Bearpark · · Score: 2
      see the "communities" on the net and how they interact and relate to each other.

      Hmm, so to really hide from Echelon you'd have to maintain a constant background noise of plausible looking traffic to a wide variety of (random?) other sites. The "real" traffic would be hidden in the smog.

      Of course, for privacy for the whole community it would be ideal if this random traffic was being generated from just about everywhere at the same time.

      I guess the DDoS code could be a useful basis for this. Does anyone know if stacheldraht is Open Source?

      Regards, Ralph.

  15. Big Freakin' Deal by karb · · Score: 3
    I hate to be inflammatory, but lets suppose that all the folks at the NSA do all day is invade our (U.S. citizen's) privacy, despite the fact that they say they don't, and intelligence agencies usually don't lie (the correct response to any question is to Say Nothing).

    Is someone actually reading our mail? With terrorists, hostile governments, nuclear weapons, chemical weapons and biological weapons, does the government really care about anything you say?

    If they are thoroughly reading your mail (suppose), are you suggesting that men in black suits come and oppress you? Because if not...

    You must be suggesting that this evidence will be used in a court case against you. However, since it was obtained illegally, and the way in which it was obtained is classified (there was a case like this a while back), there is no way it can be used against you in a court of law.

    As for the industrial espionage allegations, I could see someone doing that, but would suggest that it isn't commonplace. The government keeps a Very tight rein on its contractors, in terms of what they are allowed and not allowed to do, and it seems unlikely that it would make a *habit* of breaking similar rules itself, with the complicity of one of its contractors.

    Also, do you think that microsoft and the nsa could slip something like that under our noses? Under several hundred million of our noses?

    --

    Jack Valenti and the MPAA are to technology as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone

    1. Re:Big Freakin' Deal by Admiral+Burrito · · Score: 3

      Is someone actually reading our mail? With terrorists, hostile governments, nuclear weapons, chemical weapons and biological weapons, does the government really care about anything you say?

      No, but we should not be so naive as to think that they aren't interested in interfering with the politicians who do have an impact on our lives.

      Remember J. Edgar Hoover? He ran the FBI for half a century until he finally died. The general public thought of him and his "G-Men" as heros of law and order. After he died the truth came out- he was able to stay in power for so long by illegally using his surveillance capabilities to get dirt on his political enemies. He had blackmail material on the vast majority of the federal elected representatives and used that to influence policy.

      Ever wonder why a democratically elected and accountable government would use our hard-earned tax dollars for things that the voters would never approve of (like Echelon)?

    2. Re:Big Freakin' Deal by karb · · Score: 2
      Because J. Edgar Hoover existed, or because the government stepped beyond its bounds (perhaps -- I don't pay much attention) at ruby ridge and waco, and killed thousands of native americans up to and including the last century, etc. does not logically infer that these things will continue to happen, nor that they are exceptions rather than the rule of government operation.

      As for the whole "democratically elected and accountable government..." This is crap. Would you want intelligence agencies run by popular vote? There is professional government, and political government. Compare your borough manager and your mayor. There's a place for both, but perhaps what I'm trying to say is that the people that best understand the intelligence game are *in* the intelligence game. Not politicians, voters, or even geeks. :)

      --

      Jack Valenti and the MPAA are to technology as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone

    3. Re:Big Freakin' Deal by G27+Radio · · Score: 3

      karb, you said:

      As for the industrial espionage allegations, I could see someone doing that, but would suggest that it isn't commonplace. The government keeps a Very tight rein on its contractors, in terms of what they are allowed and not allowed to do, and it seems unlikely that it would make a *habit* of breaking similar rules itself, with the complicity of one of its contractors.

      From the summary: (emphasis added)

      7. Key findings concerning the state of the art in Comint include :

      Comprehensive systems exist to access, intercept and process every important modern form of communications, with few exceptions (section 2, technical annexe);

      Contrary to reports in the press, effective "word spotting" search systems automatically to select telephone calls of intelligence interest are not yet available, despite 30 years of research. However, speaker recognition systems - in effect, "voiceprints" - have been developed and are deployed to recognise the speech of targeted individuals making international telephone calls;

      Recent diplomatic initiatives by the United States government seeking European agreement to the "key escrow" system of cryptography masked intelligence collection requirements, and formed part of a long-term program which has undermined and continues to undermine the communications privacy of non-US nationals, including European governments, companies and citizens;

      There is wide-ranging evidence indicating that major governments are routinely utilising communications intelligence to provide commercial advantage to companies and trade.


      Keep in mind the part about voice-printing when you read Admiral Burrito's response to your post. Also, keep these in mind: Who does the NSA report to? Where do their loyalties lie? Is it part of their charter (or whatever they call it) to make sure that the information they collect is used only for ethical purposes? Who's the watchdog that makes sure the NSA doesn't do anything it's not supposed to? Don't look at me--I don't know.

      numb

    4. Re:Big Freakin' Deal by karb · · Score: 2
      Here in the UK, environmental protestors who sabotage property during protest (e.g. anti-roads protestors sabotaging diggers) are about to be brought under the umbrella of the anti-terrorism laws originally invented to combat the IRA and other *real* terrorist organisations.

      Yeah, that stinks. In the states racketeering charges originally invented for the sake of fighting organized crime are being brought to bear against pro-life groups. (whether you love them or hate them, think of the affect this kind of thinking might have had on the civil rights movement).

      About encryption keys, I would suggest that they should be permitted to be handed over with a warrant, but pretty much not otherwise. UK probably says hand it over regardless (don't know if that'd go over in the states) ... and of course this brings up problems if the proof's in the pudding (the only incriminating evidence is encrypted). Oh well. Cops not being able to arrest a party they know is guilty isn't new, and I suppose it will exist forever :P . Silly innocence.

      --

      Jack Valenti and the MPAA are to technology as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone

    5. Re:Big Freakin' Deal by Steve+B · · Score: 2
      Because J. Edgar Hoover existed, or because the government stepped beyond its bounds (perhaps -- I don't pay much attention) at ruby ridge and waco, and killed thousands of native americans up to and including the last century, etc. does not logically [imply] that these things will continue to happen

      It is certainly possible that a thug will suddenly become a saint, or vice versa. However, it is much more likely that future behavior will follow past patterns unless some modifying force (in this case, supervision by elected officials and courts) is applied.
      /.

      --
      /. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
  16. After actually looking at the report, by nels_tomlinson · · Score: 3
    I think that the most interesting part is in the technical annexe. First, he tells us that it seems that they can't yet do much with speech, but they can pick out your voice to record. Second, he tells us that the NSA (and probably other country's agencys, as well) have managed to subvert most closed-source software. He mentions CryptoAG, a Swiss company, and Lotus Notes. What can we learn from this? Yes, open source does matter!

    I think this also points up the reason the government has fought PGP so fiercely. Even if they subvert the author, they can't do anything very obvious or easy, and you or I are quite likely to break anything they hide in the code, while rooting about in it.

    Perhaps the most important question now is: what do the new crypto rules imply, in light of this? If we can really just give the no-goods at NSA a heads-up and export freely, does this mean that they're giving up? Or could it be that they can do an end run around the crypto if they have to (as in Tempest, bounce a laser off your window, intimidate your neighbor, et cetera)? Perhaps the best answer is: don't do anything bad, and encrypt everything, just in case.

  17. EU isn't privacy friendly, either by rgmoore · · Score: 2

    One thing that deeply bothers me about this report is that it seems to focus primarily on purely economic problems associated with Echelon. The EU ministers seem to be worried that their businesses are going to lose market share because NSA is passing their plans on to their American competitors. This seems both dangerous and hypocritical to me. It's dangerous because they seem to be downplaying or ignoring the (IMO) much more significant damage to personal privacy that is inherent in the NSA's pawing through everyone's communications.

    It's hypocritical because EU countries have been as vigorous as anyone in using government intelligence to benefit their commercial sector. Interestingly, two of the specific examples of intelligence alleged to have come from Echelon were about EU companies offering bribes in pursuit of contracts. I don't want to compare the significance of offering bribes to that of reading people's mail, but it find it pretty hypocritical of the EU to bitch about others' reading of their mail turning up illegal and immoral behavior.

    --

    There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.

  18. Yawn, boring, encrypt your stuff by rcromwell2 · · Score: 4

    Come on, what's with this echelon stuff? Have none of you read The CodeBreakers or The Puzzle Palace? Don't you realize this has been going on since the telegraph?

    The wrong thing to do is to focus on "Echelon" Look, *ANYONE* can listen in on you, not just the NSA. Use a cell-phone? Use a cordless phone? Your neighbors will soon be able to buy or create scanners to decode digital transmissions. Use the internet? A hacker hacking into an ISP or wherever your mail is located can easily read it. How about cable modems? Opps, anyone can sniff your packets.

    If you don't want to install window blinds or curtains on your windows, don't cry when someone uses a telescope to watch you getting undressed.

    The only solution to the privacy problem is to use encryption. If your broadcast data in the clear over any medium, you are relying on security through obscurity.

    Has anyone noticed how EU centric these articles are? Who's Echelon? Anyone not in mainland Europe apparently. US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, UK, etc. (the GMO controversy also follows the same sort of dividing line, with the mainland Europeans being the most vocally opposed)

    Of course, France, that moral and highly cultured "you don't even know what culture is you Americans", would never engage in something as distasteful as industrial espionage? Would they?

    It's patently obvious that the world's spy agencies have been intercepting all the traffic they could, even since World War II and before. Echelon is nothing new, except a "ooh scary" code word.

  19. whoa there a second! by Savage+Henry+Matisse · · Score: 3
    I'm a little confused by some of the assertions made above:

    1) There seems to be an assumption that part of Echelon is the ability to compromise a 128-bit key in a negligible amount of time (i.e. instantly.) Now, I'm not super-duper-hardcore up to date on my Echelon readings, but I haven't seen any indication that anyone actually has the capability to brute force a 128 bit key in real-time. If I've just been living in a cave (not far from the truth) and simply failed to hear about this advance, someone please post a link/reference, or e-mail me (above address, minus the DELETME), or something-- I'd be really interested in such news.

    2)PGP/GPG uses RSA to encrypt a secret key, but uses a simple secret cypher to encrypt the message itself, using that secret key.

    Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but it sounds like you're saying that PGP/GPG use a proprietary algo for their symmetrical crypto. At least with PGP, this is not the case. PGP (I think) currently uses IDEA, and used to use DES. While the latter is somewhat shady, these are hardly secret, and aren't that simple, either.

    3) In the above set-up (with the PGP/GPG system which randomly selects the private-key algo to be used on a message-by-message basis) how do you securely communicate this to the recipient? Is the selected algo package with the key inside the public-key encrypted portion of the transmission, or do they just guess? (Not that having them just guess is such a bad idea-- it's sorta like those first versions of Public Key systems, the ones that used numeric puzzles for the keys. If the recipient just has the key, it'll take a more-or-less negligible amount of time for her to decrypt the message under each algo and see which version isn't gibberish.) Still, I'm not seeing the need for this, as per #1 I mean, if they can brute-force a 128-bit key in more-or-less no time, is making this time 16X longer gonna put that much of a knot in their britches? If 128-bit keys aren't secure, then this sort of arrangement is just a Band-Aid.

    Again, it's possible that I'm just totally mis-reading the above. Sorry if all of this is out-of-left-field.

    --
    Much Love,
    "S"HM
    *****
    (I refuse to spellcheck out of contempt for your belief system)
    1. Re:whoa there a second! by jd · · Score: 2
      1) 128-bit keys are hard to brute-force, but the NSA isn't objecting strenuously to the export of RSA, which implies they have solved the problem of finding the prime factors of large numbers. If that -is- the case, then RSA is useless, as the NSA can read any encrypted message effectively instantly.

      2) A secret cypher, also called a symmetric cypher, is simply one in which the encryption key and decryption key are the same. It's inherently weaker than a public key/private key pair, but it is much faster, which is why PGP uses it for the actual message itself.

      DES is trivial to break. The record for a hobbyist computer is 3 days, I believe. A transputer net could realistically reduce this total to under 3 minutes, without costing very much more. Dedicated, custom-built military-grade hardware, designed for this specific task, and cooled to obtain maximum performance, could probably crack DES within a matter of a few seconds, possibly less.

      IDEA isn't much better. There are a lot of weaknesses known for it.

      Actually, breaking a 128-bit key is probably irrelevent, as DES uses 56-bits. It's much quicker to ignore the 128-bit encryption, and derive the key by cracking the message. By doing so, you've reduced a slow, 128-bit cypher to a fast 56-bit one.

      By using multiple algorithms, though, you can't do that. You don't know how long the key is, therefore you don't know where the message is. This means you =HAVE= to break the header. You don't get the choice. No shortcuts, anymore.

      Sixteen times as long IS a significant amount, if you've a lot of encrypted traffic. It means that you can only crack 1/16th as many messages, within the same timespan, for a start. As this would have to be a real-time system, that means you've 1/16th the intelligence-gathering capacity.

      BUT, the problem is so much worse than that. Because the crackers can't use the shortcut, anymore, the problem isn't simply one of 128-bits to 132-bits, but 56-bits to 132-bits. THAT will take them 2^76 times as long, which would definitely saturate the system, no matter HOW powerful it was.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  20. Superbowl Flush and Echelon Flush by dattaway · · Score: 2

    Reminds me of the old radio gag of having everyone flush their toilets at the same time to protest high water prices.

    Speaking of flooding national systems, a friend of mine worked at a water treatment plant (sewage.) I joked to him about the "Superbowl Flush" effect that I heard about in the late 70's and asked if he could comment on it. The theory went something like when America would all get together on Superbowl Sunday to drink beer and watch the barbaric game of football up until halftime, at which time thier urinary bladders exceeded maximum capacity. The concern was that everyone and thier brother made a dash for the toilet, whizzed, and flushed at the same time, overloading the sewer systems and rivers across the country, possibly causing mass flooding, etc...

    He stated it was no joke and described the incoming rush of water was real.

    So, I guess we could all flush our crap at the same time and jam echelon in the same way. Whoooohooooo!

  21. Re:"false positive"? by jd · · Score: 2
    Yes. A "false positive" is any "valid" output, resulting from a decryption attempt, that is not the actual original message.

    As for the probability - this depends on the algorithm you're using. If you're using a straight XOR, nothing fancy, and a key of equal length to the message, then the message cannot be cracked by going through every possible key, because you will get every possible plain-text message of equal length.

    I don't know if there's any "formal analysis" of the liklihood of one encrypted message (algorithm unknown) "decrypting" to >1 "valid" plain-text, but it would seem reasonable that the longer the key-length and the greater the range of potential algorithms, the greater the liklihood of false positives.

    The main thing you'd have to watch for, though, is having two or more algorithms where a1(key1) generated the same output as a2(key2). Let's say you were using XOR, for example, as your encryption algorithm. Using XOR (256-key) as a second algorithm would be a big mistake, as you've gained no strength in doing so. (It's not made it any worse, either, but there may well be cases where it would.)

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  22. No clue... (was Re:whoa there a second!) by burris · · Score: 2
    1) 128-bit keys are hard to brute-force, but the NSA isn't objecting strenuously to the export of RSA, which implies they have solved the problem of finding the prime factors of large numbers. If that -is- the case, then RSA is useless, as the NSA can read any encrypted message effectively instantly.
    How do you know the NSA doesn't strenuously object to the export of RSA? Care to point to some NSA press releases? In any event, it's the Commerce department, specifically the Buereau of Export Administration (BXA) that controls export. They have relaxed controls because everyone is screaming at them and they know it's a lost cause anyway (genie is out of the bottle). There is no indication that the NSA has any extraordinary factoring capability or has built working quantum computers large enough to factor typical public keys.
    DES is trivial to break.
    DES is NOT trivial to break. 56-bit keys are trivial to break. There are no practical attacks to DES that are faster than complete trial and error. That's why triple-DES is currently the most trusted cipher around.
    IDEA isn't much better. There are a lot of weaknesses known for it.
    This is utter nonsense. Care to point to some references? The only really damning thing about IDEA is the patent issue. That's why it's not an AES contender.
    Actually, breaking a 128-bit key is probably irrelevent, as DES uses 56-bits.
    Not irrelevant, as DES has been proven to be a group. So 3-key EDE triple-DES has an effective keylength of 168-bits. All good encryption software supports triple-DES. Nobody seriously uses single-DES anymore.
    It's much quicker to ignore the 128-bit encryption, and derive the key by cracking the message. By doing so, you've reduced a slow, 128-bit cypher to a fast 56-bit one.
    More nonsense. You are also confusing symmetric block ciphers with asymmetric ciphers, which have totally different security properties and key length requirements.
    By using multiple algorithms, though, you can't do that. You don't know how long the key is, therefore you don't know where the message is. This means you =HAVE= to break the header. You don't get the choice. No shortcuts, anymore.
    Anyone who knows anything at all about crypto and security in general knows that "Security through obscurity is no security at all." All good cryptosystems are designed under the assumption that the attacker has complete details to the system and the only thing secret is the key. A properly designed system can withstand this assumption and has no need for obscurity. You don't really get 4 more bits under that assumption and 4 bits isn't worth much anyway.

    Dr. Burris T. Ewell

    1. Re:No clue... (was Re:whoa there a second!) by MindStalker · · Score: 2

      He accually did have an interesting point about the header bit, and that isn't obsurity. Basically say I have a huge list of possible encryption methods using secret keys, which are encryped in the header. Also in the header is the desription of which algoritym I'm using. Now assuming this header is rather small, one could encrypt the heading at a very high bit, say 4096. And the message in a much lower bit say 56, now if there was no knowledge of which encryption method was used it would cause them to brute it for each and every possible method.

    2. Re:No clue... (was Re:whoa there a second!) by jd · · Score: 2
      Yes, but if you don't know the algorithm, you don't know the key-length, either. So, if your header could be EQUALLY a symmetric algorithm with a 64-bit key OR an aymmetric algorithm with 1024 bit key, you'd have to try every possible combination of both.

      As for the number of algorithms, here is a short list of what's out there that -could- be used for something like this:

      Serpent, Rijndael, Square, IDEA, MARS, RC5, RC6, GOST, Skipjack, 3DES, Twofish, Blowfish, Safer+, TEA, DEAL and CAST.

      You can then insert -any- of these into an ellipitic curve algorithm, such as Pegwit. This essentially doubles the total range of algorithms you can use.

      This gives you a total range of 32 algorithms, which is sufficiently large to make brute-force decryption a much more complex process, with a much higher liklihood of getting apparently meaningful, but totally incorrect, output.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  23. The solution by Weezul · · Score: 2

    The problem is that the NSA & Ignorance has been pretty effective at preventing people from using crypto. We need a campaign to get the Linux distributions to come with this stuff preinstalled. Actually, we need a campaign to get PGP preinstalled on Windows boxes too. Debian dose some stuff to make it easyer, but we really need it to be a standard part of using a computer.

    Actually, the most effective thinkg would be to get propper use of public key cryptography to be tought in every CS101 class (i.e. first class a CS student takes). Perhaps going so far as to require all their assignments to be digitally signed and encrypted for the recipiant (with GPG) when turnned in via computer. A strong case can be made for this being an essential part of a computer education.

    I suppose you could also go to high schools and teach the kids how to keep their emails secret with PGP, but that takes a little more work then just convincing collage profesors to teach it.

    --
    The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
  24. Re:"false positive"? by sjames · · Score: 2

    Let's say you were using XOR, for example, as your encryption algorithm. Using XOR (256-key) as a second algorithm would be a big mistake, as you've gained no strength in doing so. (It's not made it any worse, either, but there may well be cases where it would.)

    Actually, that would make the crypto considerably worse!! Since 256-x where x

    It's still a pain to brute, and there are still more than one possable decryption, but the space is vastly reduced. A 1k message will only have 8^1024 possable plaintexts rather than 256^1024.

  25. Re:"false positive"? by sjames · · Score: 2

    OOOPS, that damned less than! Let's try that again!

    Using XOR (256-key) as a second algorithm would be a big mistake, as you've gained no strength in doing so. (It's not made it any worse, either, but there may well be cases where it would.)

    Actually, that would make the crypto considerably worse!! if key = x XOR (256-x), each char of plaintext is effectively XORed with 1 of eight possable bytes rather than 1 of 256. Furthermore, the 8 choices are all very neatly arranged so that it will start with 1s and end with 0s (in binary). To make matters worse, the distribution is screwed and heavily favors 11111110b so that the majority of characters have all but the last bit flipped.

  26. "I Listen : A Document of Digital" by Spacewurm by cpeterso · · Score: 2

    Check out I Listen : A Document of Digital Voyeurism by The Spacewurm. It's a book of transcribed cell phone conversatsions:

    Since 1993, electronic music artist The Spacewurm has used specially modified digital scanning equipment to secretly (and illegally) record the cellular and portable phone calls of everyday people all over the country. The stories, confessions, and intimate conversations of these unwitting participants are described in I LISTEN.

  27. Re:Sure it's nothing new, but thats not the issue: by rcromwell2 · · Score: 2

    The industrial espionage angle is a *RED HERRING* It's a neat little excuse for why the European economy is falling behind in the digital age. It will do nothing but promote nationalism or continentalism "see, now we finally know why Europe's economy is lagging. It isn't our over-regulated socialist consensus-decision-based markets, it's those damn Americans stealing our contracts through NSA listening posts."

    In the 80s, when America felt threatened by Japan, there was a similar sort of whining. Americans were complaining about Japanese interns in American companies copying designs and taking them back to Tokyo. Americans made much of the fact that all Japan did was go to Comdex, copy American inventions, and then mass produce them.

    Echelon is the new scapegoat to explain the poor French economy. But what is not mentioned is that French Intelligence has been doing this for years.

    You don't even need listening posts. Just H1-B VISAs.

    The Europeans are basically trying to find some illegitimate/unfair tactic behind the US economy's success. It couldn't possibly be that American venture capital markets are superior, or that American is brain-draining Europe by influencing all the smart/ambitious people comin here to work, or because the US just has a better climate to conduct business.

    Oh no... it must be because Microsoft/IBM/Yahoo/Amazon/Boeing/GE/whatever are actually being secretly helped by the NSA.

    My suggestion is if you care about your privacy, stop sending private information out in the clear.

    You should worry more about the masses of minature hidden $10 webcams exploding on the market, monitoring your every move, and being installed in public bathrooms, so perverts can put you on their web page.

    By comparison, your next door neighbor is going to do far more harm to you in the near future.

  28. Enjoy! by dattaway · · Score: 3

    I hate it when sites go down and disappear. Here is a mirror of one of the reports complete with pretty pictures.

  29. Re:Well, of course it's Eurocentric! by vik · · Score: 2

    Do you know the author? I've met the guy a few times. He's been involved with investigating government espionage activities for a long time, and consequently has been raided by the spooks on several occasions. Anyone remember Project Zircon?

    He, like many people, is concerned with what governments are getting away with. It's becoming far too much an 'us' and 'them' situation. 'They' are supposed to be working for 'us', not against us. But somewhere it has gone wrong. Many people can't see it getting better, and it seems to be one of those self-promoting systems that can only get worse.

    It's not euro-centric so much as someone on the outside looking in. More non-US-centric as it were.

    Vik :v)

  30. Voice keyword monitoring systems. by Animats · · Score: 2

    I note that the report indicates that keyword recognition for voice calls isn't yet available. This is incorrect. It's a standard feature of advanced prison phone systems. "The LazerVoice Keyword Recognition feature listens to all conversations and selects the call records that fit your customized keyword criteria creating faster and more cost efficient investigations." "Our top-selling product", says the manufacturer, Schlumberger. Order yours today.