BBC: AOL, Earthlink Are 'Cooperating' With FBI

braddock writes: "The BBC is now reporting that 'The FBI is scouring e-mail accounts for clues as to who might have been behind the terror attacks' and that AOL and Earthlink have confirmed that they are cooperating with investigators. Earthlink maintains 'We're co-operating, but we're not installing any surveillance equipment on our networks.' AOL and Earthlink together have approximatey 36 million accounts. Scary how fast privacy can be compromised when the bulk of a country's e-mail services are centralized." I wonder which ISPs really are installing Carnivore, if not the two largest in the country. Maybe this means it's already in place?

Comments

What is the point here?

[the eric conspiracy]

It sounds like the FBI is presenting ISPs with subpeonas, and the ISPs are not fighting them in court but are cooperating. Is this wrong in some way? If it were a case where someone had evidence that this was countervaling established precident or I'd be concerned. Buth there seems to be little evidence that there is any abuse at present.

Much more of a concern would be the call by Att. Gen. Ashcroft to rewrite wiretap laws.

Bin Laden's people "using cybercafes in Pakistan"

[JPMH]

Interesting piece in today's Sunday Telegraph on how Bin Laden is set up in Afghanistan, written by one of the BBC's most senior reporters, John Simpson, from the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The full article is at
http://portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml= /news/2001/09/16/wbin116.xml

Extract:

Forget those earnest statements from Taliban spokesmen that bin Laden is under house arrest in Kandahar or that his communications equipment has been confiscated. These things are said to deceive the simple-minded, and to distance the Taliban from his activities.
...

Bin Laden has one of the most sophisticated communications systems in the region. A communications vehicle is stationed at a distance from him, and his calls are routed through it. That way, if they are intercepted, he won't be hit by some smart weapon fired from a distance.

But he makes few calls anyway; instead, when he wants to speak to people in Pakistan, he sends his Afghan spokesman quietly across the border. No amount of international eavesdropping can detect that.

Other bin Laden agents make for the internet cafes that have sprung up in the Pakistani border town of Peshawar. They use the most common service providers, all of them American, and refer to each other and to bin Laden himself by their first names. In the welter of e-mail traffic their messages go unnoticed. If approval for the World Trade Centre operation came from bin Laden, then this is how it would have been done.

Re:For some reason..

[fmaxwell]

..I don't think Osama used America Online...

Maybe he did. That could explain why he hates America.

slighty OT- social -vs- military conflict -

[rootrot]

There are broader issues at risk here too...a writer friend of mine, Harvey Ardman, just sent the following and I thought it was worth sharing:

Who are the combatants in this war?

On the one side, you have the secular, multi-ethnic Western nations, dedicated to progress, as they define it, embracing technology and change, extolling prosperity and materialism, tolerating differences, promoting freedom of speech and freedom of choice, and bent on imposing their forms of commerce, government, philosophy and even religion on the rest of the world--all in a spirit of good will, of course.

On the other, you have fundamentalist religion, most particularly Islam fundamentalism but not limited to it. These people despise what the Western nations stand for and fear that their beliefs and their world cannot survive the secular tsunami. Let me say this again: they believe their spiritual survival is at stake.

When Osama Ben Laden saw American troops operating in Saudi Arabia, his homeland, during the Gulf War, he was not only furious, he was afraid--afraid for his culture, his religion, his social beliefs. He saw this degraded culture, this wave of infidels, from his point of view, threatening everything that he loved and believed in.

This, by the way, is why the Arabs continue to attack Israel, and to speak of it with loathing. It is a secular state in a fundamentalist world. It is a western bastion, even a Trojan horse. This is why the Arabs have NEVER attacked any Israeli religious targets. It is not the religion that bothers them. It is the lack of religion. It is the secular Israel that offends, not the Jewish one.

There is a key difference between the combatants. The secular westerners believe, in a vague and comfortable way, that their way of life is desirable and superior to the lives and values of the fundamentalists. They are intellectually and philosophically committed to their beliefs. The fundamentalists, on the other hand, believe in their cause with every molecule of their bodies. Ours is a reasoned, reasonable belief. Theirs is fanatic.

How can we prevail over this level of belief, especially since we cannot match it. How can we outlast such passion? Well, I don't believe that we can win the battle militarily, although we might be able to strip the terrorists of most of their power, at least for awhile.

What's needed here, I believe, is both a military and a social war. The military war must be fought against identifiable terrorists. The social war must be fought against poverty, inequality and famine--for these are the seeds of fundamentalism, this is the food of fanaticism.

It is not much of a sacrifice for us to fight that military war. We're good at that. We secretly enjoy it. To fight the social war, however, we must find new reserves within us. We must make genuine sacrifices, sacrifices to which we are unaccustomed. We must give not as we gave during World War II, but as we gave afterward. I'm talking about the Marshall Plan, which resurrected Europe from the ashes of war.

On the surface, the Marshall plan--billions in relief for Europe--was a generous act. But of course self interest was involved, in at least three ways. First, we were desperate to keep Western Europe out of Soviet control. Second, we had pressing economic reasons to make sure Europe became strong and prosperous again. The people of Europe were our best customers. Finally, the values of Western Europe were the same as ours. Supporting them strengthened us.

We have a self-interest in undertaking similar programs for the 3rd world. It is the only way we can keep these people from fanatic fundamentalism. It is the only way we can hope to once and for all defeat terrorism. We must reduce the difference between the haves and the have-nots. We must end abject poverty at the very least.

Here's what makes the socialwar so difficult: We will be sorely tempted--because we strongly believe in our values---to attempt to impose them on those we aid. We will demand they embrace democracy?. We will demand they allow freedom of speech and yes, religion? Will we insist that they become as secular as we are? And if we do, will we just be creating more Osama Ben Ladens?

I don't know the answers to these questions. I do know that the social war is much more complicated than the military one. And it is also more important, because no military victory is forever, in the long run of history. No conversion at the point of a gun is a genuine one. Vengeance always leads to revenge.

We need to change minds more than we need to kill terrorists. It will not be easy. I hope we have the stomach for it.

/rr