Slashdot Mirror


Echelon Architect Interviewed

ploog writes "Echelon has been surrounded by controversy since rumors of it first popped up on the net. The US Government has never admitted to it, although various other governments have. Now, a lead architect for Echelon and its "big brother," Echelon II, has been discovered and interviewed. This is fascinating stuff. He is able to give some details about how Echelon works, although he doesn't come divulge everything, for obvious reasons. Trying to deny Echelon just got that much harder. Link found via Megarad.com."

80 of 264 comments (clear)

  1. Yeah, right by --daz-- · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The US government is trying to deny it and hide its existance, and then someone "suddenly" finds the architect and he starts freely talking about it? I doubt it.

  2. Considering the Echelon project is surrounded... by Scoria · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... by secrecy, I wouldn't instantly arrive at the conclusion that any of this interview (with a somewhat elusive subject) is valid. :p

    --
    Do you like German cars?
  3. karma whore definition propagation by Jucius+Maximus · · Score: 2, Redundant

    [Save your mod points. I have enough Karma.]

    Answers to Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) about Echelon
    Updated February 7, 2002

    Q - What is Project ECHELON?

    ECHELON is the term popularly used for an automated global interception and relay system operated by the intelligence agencies in five nations: the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand (it is believed that ECHELON is the code name for the portion of the system that intercepts satellite-based communications). While the United States National Security Agency (NSA) takes the lead, ECHELON works in conjunction with other intelligence agencies, including the Australian Defence Signals Directorate (DSD). It is believed that ECHELON also works with Britain's Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) and the agencies of other allies of the United States, pursuant to various treaties. (1)

    These countries coordinate their activities pursuant to the UKUSA agreement, which dates back to 1947. The original ECHELON dates back to 1971. However, its capabilities and priorities have expanded greatly since its formation. According to reports, it is capable of intercepting and processing many types of transmissions, throughout the globe. In fact, it has been suggested that ECHELON may intercept as many as 3 billion communications everyday, including phone calls, e-mail messages, Internet downloads, satellite transmissions, and so on. (2) The ECHELON system gathers all of these transmissions indiscriminately, then distills the information that is most heavily desired through artificial intelligence programs. Some sources have claimed that ECHELON sifts through an estimated 90 percent of all traffic that flows through the Internet. (3)

    However, the exact capabilities and goals of ECHELON remain unclear. For example, it is unknown whether ECHELON actually targets domestic communications. Also, it is apparently very difficult for ECHELON to intercept certain types of transmissions, particularly fiber communications.

    Q - How does ECHELON work?

    ECHELON apparently collects data in several ways. Reports suggest it has massive ground based radio antennae to intercept satellite transmissions. In addition, some sites reputedly are tasked with tapping surface traffic. These antennae reportedly are in the United States, Italy, England, Turkey, New Zealand, Canada, Australia, and several other places. (4)

    Similarly, it is believed that ECHELON uses numerous satellites to catch "spillover" data from transmissions between cities. These satellites then beam the information down to processing centers on the ground. The main centers are in the United States (near Denver), England (Menwith Hill), Australia, and Germany. (5)

    According to various sources, ECHELON also routinely intercepts Internet transmissions. The organization allegedly has installed numerous "sniffer" devices. These "sniffers" collect information from data packets as they traverse the Internet via several key junctions. It also uses search software to scan for web sites that may be of interest. (6)

    Furthermore, it is believed that ECHELON has even used special underwater devices which tap into cables that carry phone calls across the seas. According to published reports, American divers were able to install surveillance devices on to the underwater cables. One of these taps was discovered in 1982, but other devices apparently continued to function undetected. (7)

    It is not known at this point whether ECHELON has been able to tap fiber optic phone cables.
    Finally, if the aforementioned methods fail to garner the desired information, there is another alternative. Apparently, the nations that are involved with ECHELON also train special agents to install a variety of special data collection devices. One of these devices is reputed to be an information processing kit that is the size of a suitcase. Another such item is a sophisticated radio receiver that is as small as a credit card. (8)

    After capturing this raw data, ECHELON sifts through them using DICTIONARY. DICTIONARY is actually a special system of computers which finds pertinent information by searching for key words, addresses, etc. These search programs help pare down the voluminous quantity of transmissions which pass through the ECHELON network every day. These programs also seem to enable users to focus on any specific subject upon which information is desired. (9)

    Q - If ECHELON is so powerful, why haven't I heard about it before?

    The United States government has gone to extreme lengths to keep ECHELON a secret. To this day, the U.S. government refuses to admit that ECHELON even exists. We know it exists because both the governments of Australia (through its Defence Signals Directorate) and New Zealand have admitted to this fact. (10) However, even with this revelation, US officials have refused to comment.

    This "wall of silence" is beginning to erode. The first report on ECHELON was published in 1988. (11) In addition, besides the revelations from Australia, the Scientific and Technical Options Assessment program office (STOA) of the European Parliament commissioned two reports which describe ECHELON's activities. These reports unearthed a startling amount of evidence, which suggests that Echelon's powers may have been underestimated. The first report, entitled "An Appraisal of Technologies of Political Control," suggested that ECHELON primarily targeted civilians.

    This report found that:

    "The ECHELON system forms part of the UKUSA system but unlike many of the electronic spy systems developed during the cold war, ECHELON is designed for primarily non-military targets: governments, organisations and businesses in virtually every country. The ECHELON system works by indiscriminately intercepting very large quantities of communications and then siphoning out what is valuable using artificial intelligence aids like Memex to find key words. Five nations share the results with the US as the senior partner under the UKUSA agreement of 1948, Britain, Canada, New Zealand and Australia are very much acting as subordinate information servicers.
    "Each of the five centres supply "dictionaries" to the other four of keywords, phrases, people and places to "tag" and the tagged intercept is forwarded straight to the requesting country. Whilst there is much information gathered about potential terrorists, there is a lot of economic intelligence, notably intensive monitoring of all the countries participating in the GATT negotiations. But Hager found that by far the main priorities of this system continued to be military and political intelligence applicable to their wider interests. Hager quotes from a "highly placed intelligence operatives" who spoke to the Observer in London. "We feel we can no longer remain silent regarding that which we regard to be gross malpractice and negligence within the establishment in which we operate." They gave as examples. GCHQ interception of three charities, including Amnesty International and Christian Aid. "At any time GCHQ is able to home in on their communications for a routine target request," the GCHQ source said. In the case of phone taps the procedure is known as Mantis. With telexes its called Mayfly. By keying in a code relating to third world aid, the source was able to demonstrate telex "fixes" on the three organisations. With no system of accountability, it is difficult to discover what criteria determine who is not a target." (12)
    A more recent report, known as Interception Capabilities 2000, describes ECHELON capabilities in even more elaborate detail. (13) The release of the report sparked accusations from the French government that the United States was using ECHELON to give American companies an advantage over rival firms. (14) In response, R. James Woolsey, the former head of the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), charged that the French government was using bribes to get lucrative deals around the world, and that US surveillance networks were used simply to level the playing field. (15) However, experts have pointed out that Woolsey missed several key points. For example, Woolsey neglected to mention alleged instances of economic espionage (cited in Intelligence Capabilities 2000) that did not involve bribery. Furthermore, many observers expressed alarm with Woolsey's apparent assertion that isolated incidents of bribery could justify the wholesale interception of the world's communications. (16)

    The European Parliament formed a temporary Committee of Enquiry to investigate ECHELON abuses. (17) In May 2001, members of this committee visited the United States in an attempt to discover more details about ECHELON. However, officials from both the NSA and the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) canceled meetings that they had previously scheduled with the European panel. The committee's chairman, Carlos Coelho, said that his group was "very disappointed" with the apparent rebuffs; in protest, the Parliamentary representatives returned home a day early. (18)

    Afterwards, the committee published a report stating that ECHELON does indeed exist and that individuals should strongly consider encrypting their emails and other Internet messages. (19) However, the panel was unable to confirm suspicions that ECHELON is used to conduct industrial espionage, due to a lack of evidence. (20) Ironically, the report also mentioned the idea that European government agents should be allowed greater powers to decrypt electronic communications, which was criticized by some observers (including several members of the committee) as giving further support to Europe's own ECHELON-type system. (21) The European Parliament approved the report, but despite the apparent need for further investigation, the committee was disbanded. (22) Nevertheless, the European Commission plans to draft a "roadmap" for data protection that will address many of the concerns aired by the EP panel. (23)

    Meanwhile, after years of denying the existence of ECHELON, the Dutch government issued a letter that stated: "Although the Dutch government does not have official confirmation of the existence of Echelon by the governments related to this system, it thinks it is plausible this network exists. The government believes not only the governments associated with Echelon are able to intercept communication systems, but that it is an activity of the investigative authorities and intelligence services of many countries with governments of different political signature." (24) These revelations worried Dutch legislators, who had convened a special hearing on the subject. During the hearing, several experts argued that there must be tougher oversight of government surveillance activities. There was also considerable criticism of Dutch government efforts to protect individual privacy, particularly the fact that no information had been made available relating to Dutch intelligence service's investigation of possible ECHELON abuses.(25)

    In addition, an Italian government official has begun to investigate Echelon's intelligence-gathering efforts, based on the belief that the organization may be spying on European citizens in violation of Italian or international law. (26)

    Events in the United States have also indicated that the "wall of silence" might not last much longer. Exercising their Constitutionally created oversight authority, members of the House Select Committee on Intelligence started asking questions about the legal basis for NSA's ECHELON activities. In particular, the Committee wanted to know if the communications of Americans were being intercepted and under what authority, since US law severely limits the ability of the intelligence agencies to engage in domestic surveillance. When asked about its legal authority, NSA invoked the attorney-client privilege and refused to disclose the legal standards by which ECHELON might have conducted its activities. (27)

    President Clinton then signed into law a funding bill which required the NSA to report on the legal basis for ECHELON and similar activities. (28) However, the subsequent report (entitled Legal Standards for the Intelligence Community in Conducting Electronic Surveillance) gave few details about Echelon's operations and legality. (29)

    However, during these proceedings, Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA), who has taken the lead in Congressional efforts to ferret out the truth about ECHELON, stated that he had arranged for the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee to hold its own oversight hearings.(30)

    Finally, the Electronic Privacy Information Center has sued the US Government, hoping to obtain documents which would describe the legal standards by which ECHELON operates.(31)

    Q - What is being done with the information that ECHELON collects?

    The original purpose of ECHELON was to protect national security. That purpose continues today. For example, we know that ECHELON is gathering information on North Korea. Sources from Australia's DSD have disclosed this much because Australian officials help operate the facilities there which scan through transmissions, looking for pertinent material. (32) Similarly, the Spanish government has apparently signed a deal with the United States to receive information collected using ECHELON. The consummation of this agreement was confirmed by Spanish Foreign Minister Josep Pique, who tried to justify this arrangement on security grounds. (33)

    However, national security is not Echelon's only concern. Reports have indicated that industrial espionage has become a part of Echelon's activities. While present information seems to suggest that only high-ranking government officials have direct control over Echelon's tasks, the information that is gained may be passed along at the discretion of these very same officials. As a result, much of this information has been given to American companies, in apparent attempts to give these companies an edge over their less knowledgeable counterparts. (34)

    In addition, there are concerns that Echelon's actions may be used to stifle political dissent. Many of these concerns were voiced in a report commissioned by the European Parliament. What is more, there are no known safeguards to prevent such abuses of power. (35)

    Q - Is there any evidence that ECHELON is doing anything improper or illegal with the spying resources at its disposal?

    ECHELON is a highly classified operation, which is conducted with little or no oversight by national parliaments or courts. Most of what is known comes from whistleblowers and classified documents. The simple truth is that there is no way to know precisely what ECHELON is being used for.

    But there is evidence, much of which is circumstantial, that ECHELON (along with its British counterpart) has been engaged in significant invasions of privacy. These alleged violations include secret surveillance of political organizations, such as Amnesty International. (36) It has also been reported that ECHELON has engaged in industrial espionage on various private companies such as Airbus Industries and Panavia, then has passed along the information to their American competitors. (37) It is unclear just how far Echelon's activities have harmed private individuals.

    However, the most sensational revelation was that Diana, Princess of Wales may have come under ECHELON surveillance before she died. As reported in the Washington Post, the NSA admitted that they possessed files on the Princess, partly composed of intercepted phone conversations. While one official from the NSA claimed that the Princess was never a direct target, this disclosure seems to indicates the intrusive, yet surreptitious manner by which ECHELON operates. (38)

    What is even more disquieting is that, if these allegations are proven to be true, the NSA and its compatriot organizations may have circumvented countless laws in numerous countries. Many nations have laws in place to prevent such invasions of privacy. However, there are suspicions that ECHELON has engaged in subterfuge to avoid these legal restrictions. For example, it is rumored that nations would not use their own agents to spy on their own citizens, but assign the task to agents from other countries. (39) In addition, as mentioned earlier, it is unclear just what legal standards ECHELON follows, if any actually exist. Thus, it is difficult to say what could prevent ECHELON from abusing its remarkable capabilities.

    Q - Is everyone else doing what ECHELON does?

    Maybe not everyone else, but there are plenty of other countries that engage in the type of intelligence gathering that ECHELON performs. These countries apparently include Russia, France, Israel, India, Pakistan and many others. (40) Indeed, the excesses of these ECHELON-like operations are rumored to be similar in form to their American equivalents, including digging up information for private companies to give them a commercial advantage.

    However, it is also known that ECHELON system is the largest of its kind. What is more, its considerable powers are enhanced through the efforts of America's allies, including the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Other countries don't have the resources to engage in the massive garnering of information that the United States is carrying out.

    Notes
    1. Development of Surveillance Technology and Risk of Abuse of Economic Information (An appraisal of technologies for political control), Part 4/4: The state of the art in Communications Intelligence (COMINT) of automated processing for intelligence purposes of intercepted broadband multi-language leased or common carrier systems, and its applicability to COMINT targeting and selection, including speech recognition, Ch. 1, para. 5, PE 168.184 / Part 4/4 (April 1999). See Duncan Campbell, Interception Capabilities 2000 (April 1999) (http://www.iptvreports.mcmail.com/stoa_cover.htm) .

    2. Kevin Poulsen, Echelon Revealed, ZDTV (June 9, 1999).

    3. Greg Lindsay, The Government Is Reading Your E-Mail, TIME DIGITAL DAILY (June 24, 1999).

    4. PE 168.184 / Part 4/4, supra note 1, Ch. 2, para. 32-34, 45-46.

    5. Id. Ch. 2, para. 42.

    6. Id. Ch. 2, para. 60.

    7. Id. Ch. 2, para. 50.

    8. Id. Ch. 2, para. 62-63.

    9. An Appraisal of Technologies for Political Control, at 20, PE 166.499 (January 6, 1998). See Steve Wright, An Appraisal of Technologies for Political Control (January 6, 1998) (http://cryptome.org/stoa-atpc.htm).

    10. Letter from Martin Brady, Director, Defence Signals Directorate, to Ross Coulhart, Reporter, Nine Network Australia 2 (Mar. 16, 1999) (on file with the author); see also Calls for inquiry into spy bases, ONE NEWS New Zealand (Dec. 28, 1999).

    11. Duncan Campbell, Somebody's listening, NEW STATESMAN, 12 August 1988, Cover, pages 10-12. See Duncan Campbell, ECHELON: NSA's Global Electronic Interception, (last visited October 12, 1999) (http://jya.com/echelon-dc.htm).

    12. PE 166.499, supra note 9, at 19-20.

    13. PE 168.184 / Part 4/4, supra note 1.

    14. David Ruppe, Snooping on Friends?, ABCNews.com (US) (Feb. 25, 2000) (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/dailynews/ec helon000224.html).

    15. R. James Woolsey, Why We Spy on Our Allies, WALL ST. J., March 17, 2000. See also CRYPTOME, Ex-CIA Head: Why We Spy on Our Allies (last visited April 11, 2000) (http://cryptome.org/echelon-cia2.htm).

    16. Letter from Duncan Campbell to the Wall Street Journal (March 20, 2000) (on file with the author). See also Kevin Poulsen, Echelon Reporter answers Ex-CIA Chief, SecurityFocus.com (March 23, 2000) (http://www.securityfocus.com/news/6).

    17. Duncan Campbell, Flaw in Human Rights Uncovered, HEISE TELEPOLIS, April 8, 2000. See also HEISE ONLINE, Flaw in Human Rights Uncovered (April 8, 2000) (http://www.heise.de/tp/english/inhalt/co/6724/1.h tml).

    18.Angus Roxburgh, EU investigators 'snubbed' in US, BBC News, May 11, 2001 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/europe/new sid_1325000/1325186.stm).

    19.Report on the existence of a global system for intercepting private and commercial communications (ECHELON interception system), PE 305.391 (July 11, 2001) (available in PDF or Word format at http://www2.europarl.eu.int).

    20. Id.; see also E-mail users warned over spy network, BBC News, May 29, 2001 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/europe/new sid_1357000/1357264.stm).

    21. Steve Kettman, Echelon Furor Ends in a Whimper, Wired News, July 3, 2001 (http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,44984,00.h tml).

    22. European Parliament resolution on the existence of a global system for the interception of private and commercial communications (ECHELON interception system) (2001/2098(INI)), A5-0264/2001, PE 305.391/DEF (Sept. 5, 2001) (available at http://www3.europarl.eu.int); Christiane Schulzki-Haddouti, Europa-Parlament verabsciedet Echelon-Bericht, Heise Telepolis, Sept. 5, 2001 (available at http://www.heise.de/tp/); Steve Kettman, Echelon Panel Calls It a Day, Wired News, June 21, 2001 (http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,44721,00.h tml).

    23. European Commission member Erkki Liikanen, Speech regarding European Parliament motion for a resolution on the Echelon interception system (Sept. 5, 2001) (transcript available at http://europa.eu.int).

    24. Jelle van Buuren, Dutch Government Says Echelon Exists, Heise Telepolis, Jan. 20, 2001 (available at http://www.heise.de/tp/).

    25. Jelle van Buuren, Hearing On Echelon In Dutch Parliament, Heise Telepolis, Jan. 23, 2001 (available at http://www.heise.de/tp/).

    26. Nicholas Rufford, Spy Station F83, SUNDAY TIMES (London), May 31, 1998. See Nicholas Rufford, Spy Station F83 (May 31, 1998) (http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/news/pages/sti/98/0 5/31/stifocnws01003.html?999).

    27. H. Rep. No. 106-130 (1999). See Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000, Additional Views of Chairman Porter J. Goss (http://www.echelonwatch.org/goss.htm).

    28. Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000, Pub. L. 106-120, Section 309, 113 Stat. 1605, 1613 (1999). See H.R. 1555 Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Enrolled Bill (Sent to President)) http://www.echelonwatch.org/hr1555c.htm).

    29. UNITED STATES NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY, LEGAL STANDARDS FOR THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY IN CONDUCTING ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE (2000) (http://www.fas.org/irp/nsa/standards.html).

    30. House Committee to Hold Privacy Hearings, (August 16, 1999) (http://www.house.gov/barr/p_081699.html).

    31. ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER, PRESS RELEASE: LAWSUIT SEEKS MEMOS ON SURVEILLANCE OF AMERICANS; EPIC LAUNCHES STUDY OF NSA INTERCEPTION ACTIVITIES (1999). See also Electronic Privacy Information Center, EPIC Sues for NSA Surveillance Memos (last visited December 17, 1999) (http://www.epic.org/open_gov/foia/nsa_suit_12_99. html).

    32. Ross Coulhart, Echelon System: FAQs and website links, (May 23, 1999).

    33. Isambard Wilkinson, US wins Spain's favour with offer to share spy network material, Sydney Morning Herald, June 18, 2001 (http://www.smh.com.au/news/0106/18/text/world11.h tml).

    34. PE 168.184 / Part 4/4, supra note 1, Ch. 5, para. 101-103.

    35. PE 166.499, supra note 9, at 20.

    36. Id.

    37. PE 168.184 / Part 4/4, supra note 1, Ch. 5, para. 101-102; Brian Dooks, EU vice-president to claim US site spies on European business, YORKSHIRE POST, Jan. 30, 2002 (available at http://yorkshirepost.co.uk).

    38. Vernon Loeb, NSA Admits to Spying on Princess Diana, WASHINGTON POST, December 12, 1998, at A13. See Vernon Loeb, NSA Admits to Spying on Princess Diana, WASHINGTON POST, A13 (December 12, 1998) (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/dai ly/dec98/diana12.htm).

    39. Ross Coulhart, Big Brother is listening, (May 23, 1999).

    40. PE 168.184 / Part 4/4, supra note 1, Ch. 1, para. 7.

    1. Re:karma whore definition propagation by _ph1ux_ · · Score: 2

      "UKUSA agreement"

      Since when has the japanese mob been involved in this?

  4. Article Text by meth0s · · Score: 2, Informative

    Since the server is already slowing down, here's the article.

    ECHELON'S ARCHITECT

    Echelon now has a big brother. Meet Bruce McIndoe, lead architect for Echelon II, the 'most productive intelligence program' in history

    By Bo Elkjaer and Kenan Seeberg

    Meet Bruce McIndoe. He has information that the Danish government and several others around the globe, continuously pretends isn't there. McIndoe knows that Echelon is real. Because he helped to build it. "Yes, that's right", McIndoe confirms to the Danish paper Ekstra Bladet today Bruce McIndoe dedicated more than ten years of his life to Echelon. He helped to finalize the original Echelon system starting in 1987. After that, he started to design Echelon II, an enlargement of the original system.

    Bruce McIndoe left the inner circle of the enormous espionage network in 1998, a network run by the National Security Agency, the world's most powerful intelligence agency, in cooperation with other Western intelligence services. Ekstra Bladet tracked down Bruce McIndoe to IJet Travel Intelligence, a private espionage agency where he is currently second in command.

    IJet Travel Intelligence is an exceedingly effective, specialized company that employs former staff members of the NSA, CIA, KGB and South African intelligence services.

    The company's task is to furnish reports for top executives from US business and industry that reveal everything about the destination to which they are travelling for their multinational company. All the information they need to make the trip as safe as possible. The company resembles a miniature version of his previous employer, the world's most powerful intelligence agency, the NSA.

    And they are almost neighbours.

    Bruce McIndoe's new company is headquartered in the state of Maryland, near the NSA's gigantic Fort Meade headquarters.

    CURIOUS SPY

    We phone IJet Travel Intelligence and a secretary asks us to spell our names. Bruce McIndoe calls back one hour later, at the very minute we had agreed on. He starts by asking the first questions. "It appears you have written a lot about spies, intelligence and Echelon before."

    "Well, you might say that."

    "You have especially written a lot about Echelon, haven't you?"

    "Yes, we have, some two hundred articles."

    Bruce McIndoe is more than just casually inquisitive when he calls. He hasn't wasted any time and obviously ran a background check on the two curious reporters from Denmark, and it all took less than an hour. Now that he has broached the subject of top-secret Echelon himself, we decide to get right to the point.

    "You were one of the architects for Echelon II. When did you work on that program for the NSA?"

    "When I was at CSSI. We worked for the NSA most of the time that CSSI existed. Mainly from 1987 until four years ago. At that time, my company was bought out by a company known as the Computer Science Corporation. Although CSSI was involved in many large-scale projects for the NSA, Echelon was probably the biggest."

    "Is Echelon II some sort of superstructure to Echelon?"

    "Yes. Echelon has existed for a long time, as you know, and they needed to update the system."

    SILLY POLITICIANS

    "Have you kept up with the European Echelon discussion and the report issued by the European Parliament?"

    "Yes, I have followed it quite closely, actually. At least I know that some countries are uncertain about the entire program, and I'm familiar with their considerations on whether they shall continue to support it. The US government and its allies have already run into somewhat of a challenge."

    "What do you mean by that?"

    "Well, they can't avoid the glare of publicity anymore. If I perform a search on the word 'Echelon' right now, I can find maybe one thousand articles dealing with Echelon, so it is a pretty well-known system by now. And as you know, many people mildly disapprove of Echelon. So accepting the use of it poses a challenge to many countries."

    "The European Parliament is airing the possibility that the EU should make its own Echelon system?"

    "Well, there are three possible options. They can openly join Echelon and demand more control, they can make their own system or they can refrain from having one. But in my opinion, pretending it doesn't exist just isn't an option. Especially not after September eleventh."

    "Were you ever involved in the first Echelon system?"

    "Only at the end of it. It was already operational when I entered the picture."

    "The report of the European Parliament firmly establishes that Echelon is a global surveillance system which intercepts private and commercial communication and that it is led by the US in concert with Great Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand as second partners. But the Parliament is not totally sure the system is named Echelon."

    Bruce McIndoe laughs dryly and somewhat indulgently about the thought of our silly European politicians. IJet Travel Intelligence's website proudly, and with surprising candour, mentions McIndoe's contribution to making Echelon II. The website states that: 'Bruce was one of the lead architects for the National Security Agency's Echelon II program, identified as one of the most productive intelligence programs in the agency's history.'

    LISTENING IN ON EVERYTHING

    "On the whole, it doesn't take long to verify the existence of Echelon if you look at the US Defence Department's budgets. And besides, code names are usually not classified as top secret. This practice enables people in the right circles to refer to the program, yet without revealing its capacity or how it operates."

    "So you are the person who can document that you have made Echelon II?"

    "Yes, that's for sure. I can even do so without revealing any secrets. Echelon II is the successor, so to speak, of the original Echelon system."

    "Can you tell us whether it is used to monitor all types of communication?"

    "No system of such enormous magnitude would only be used for a single purpose. They use it for everything they can, if they feel it's necessary. Whenever they need to exploit its potential, they do it."

    Bruce takes a little breather while he considers whether he has said too much:

    "But it doesn't mean they're a bunch of wild cowboys. There are rules, you know, that stipulate what they are allowed to monitor, and they definitely don't ignore the laws of any individual countries. Not American laws either. This poses somewhat of a challenge, of course, but after they get a court order, they can do just about anything they please," explains McIndoe, who emphasizes that he is no expert in these matters.

    In 1998, Computer Science Corporation took over Bruce McIndoe's company - and with that the Echelon contract with the National Security Agency. Shortly afterwards, Bruce McIndoe co-founded the company he now works for. A company where he makes great use of his experience from working with the largest espionage system in the world.

    AUTOMATIC TRANSLATION

    "Tell us something about the company you work for now."

    "Okay. In short, we have transferred everything I did for the NSA and other services to a private company that then sells intelligence to businesspersons. We get information on everything from local diseases, outbreaks of malaria epidemics and local unrest to strikes, the weather and traffic conditions. Our customers are large multinational companies like Prudential and Texas Instruments. We also work for institutions like the World Bank and the IMF."

    "Your offices resemble a command post at the NSA's Fort Meade headquarters?"

    "Yes, exactly. Our staff are also former intelligent agents who have either developed or run espionage operations for US intelligence agencies or people from the UK, South Africa and Russia."

    "How does the NSA feel about the fact you're applying the same technology in the private sector?"

    "A lot of the technology developed at the NSA will sooner or later find its way into civilian life. Things like word spotting, automatic translation, language recognition and so on. But since we don't try to hide our work and primarily use open sources, the NSA doesn't complain."

    Yet the architect for Echelon II indirectly reveals some secrets to us. One of the ways Echelon works is by using words and voice recognition, as well as automatic translation.

  5. Re:Considering the Echelon project is surrounded.. by Bob+McCown · · Score: 2, Funny

    You'd like us to believe that, wouldn't you?? You're in on it too!

  6. He's got a head start by datastew · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Hopefully this guy doesn't now disappear like the world's leading microbiologists. At least he is "the business" and should be better able to protect himself.

  7. I wonder... by CaffeineAddict2001 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Why arn't senators\congressmen worried about being blackmailed by this thing?
    What if there was a watergate-esque break in to echelon?

    1. Re:I wonder... by SubtleNuance · · Score: 2, Troll

      If something like 9/11 gets by the system

      Who says it did?

    2. Re:I wonder... by ajs · · Score: 5, Interesting

      A good point.

      Realistically, Echelon likely had no indications of what was going to occur (after all, Echelon is a fairly well known tool of the US government, so if you're going to attack us you don't use cell phones and faxes to coordinate it... duh).

      However, as an accedemic question the disposition of such information would be interesting and troubling. The parallels to WWII England are rather obvious, but let's stay with the current example. Let's say that the NSA got wind of a an attempt like 9/11. Well, they'd probably only have some details, so let's say that they knew there would be a hijacking attempt during September and it might involve using the hijacked planes as weapons.

      Clearly your first urge is to stop this terrible thing, but that would come at great cost... even if you see the planes deviating from their courses and heading toward Manhatten and D.C., simply shooting them down is a pretty big indicator that you knew exactly what was going to happen, which in turn lets your enemy (in what is sure to be a coming retaliatory strike) know that there is a leak in their organization... critical data indeed!

      You could take action sooner and let airports know or station more guards at airports, but again it's a clear signal of what you know.

      This is the scary, messy part of intellegence gathering. You have to be willing, going into the game, to accept that short-term knowledge that you gather may not be usable, even when failing to use it may mean you never sleep well again.

      In World War II, there was a city that was bombed in England by the Germans. Churchill knew, and did nothing in order to preserve the secret that the allies had broken Enigma. In the end, this lead to (or at least contributed mightily to) the defeat of the Germans. If, say, Bush knew about what was going to happen in Manhatten... I don't think the information would have been used directly. If the NSA knew and didn't tell Bush, that's another story entirely, and I would classify that as treason pure and simple. A decision of that magnitude must be made by an elected official, not a political appointee.

  8. shocked, shocked! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny
    Trying to deny Echelon just got that much harder.

    ok, so i just read the article... if this is all true, it implies that the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Administration (in cooperation with foreign intelligence agencies) actually spy on communications including email and voice? and that they use computer systems to do it? and they even have a code name for it? WTF???!!!

    why weren't we kept informed about this?

    1. Re:shocked, shocked! by daniel_howell · · Score: 2, Interesting

      OK, try looking at it from the other side of the Atlantic.

      A consortium of countries, led by the USA, is spying on (among others) European governments and comapnies. It is doing this using equipment based in (among other places) the UK. It is denying doing this.

      So the US government is in cahoots with part of the European Union to spy on another part of the EU. There are also suggestions that the results of this spying are used for commercial benefit as well as national security.

      Try imagining it was Canada and Texas spying on the rest of the USA, and using the results to compete against US companies and see if that changes the way you feel about it...

    2. Re:shocked, shocked! by LunaticLeo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Let me turn that around one more time. Spying...why is it bad? I would love to have the EU spying on the US.

      Spying reassures each country that the others are doing what each say they are doing. Spying evens out technological developements. Without spying your fears are fed with ignorance, and in the end your enemy may be hiding a Nuke behind his back.

      Spying between nations is good. I think it sucks when it goes from national security (ie war, death, territorial gain, etc), to enomomic security. That is were the it changes from self preservation to a crime.

      --
      -- I am not a fanatic, I am a true believer.
    3. Re:shocked, shocked! by ozbird · · Score: 2

      I would love to have the EU spying on the US.

      I doubt the EU as a body would ever spy, but their individual countries are certainly at it. The French in particular (one of the loudest complainers of "Echelon") have a nice little satellite network keeping an eye on the rest of the world, and probably their EU partners. Where are the screams of protest about this? The whole hoo-har about "Echelon" is simply an attempt to embarass the US and gain concessions - welcome to diplomacy...

  9. That hole is now plugged too by GMontag · · Score: 2

    "Gateway Timeout

    The following error occurred:

    Server unreachable

    Please contact the administrator. "

    See? They are just toying with us!

  10. iJET Services for the Plebes by floppy+ears · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The company that this guy works for -- iJET -- is fairly interesting. I'm surprised to see that they have a service for regular travelers. For $8 per day (1 week minimum), you get an international cell phone or satellite phone, as well as text alerts "of any major developments that may impact your trip, such as civil unrest, labor strikes, severe weather, disease outbreaks or transportation delays." The info comes from the iJET database that is somehow similar to Echelon.

    The service is called WorldLink. It sounds like a pretty good service to me, especially if you don't already have a cell phone that works internationally. For more info, this is the product web site.

    --

    "If I could live to be several hundred
    I could take a walk and really wander, really wonder."
    1. Re:iJET Services for the Plebes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You all are breaking the TOS by linking to a page other than the index. Now that I think about it, so am I.

      http://www.ijet.com/about/terms.html


      "General. You may create a bookmark in your browser to the home page of the Site. Otherwise, you may not create a link to the Site without our prior written approval. All rights not expressly granted in this Agreement are reserved to iJET No other rights or licenses, whether express, implied, arising by estoppel, or otherwise are conveyed or intended by this Agreement."

  11. Echelon and Issues of Trust by Alien54 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Looking back over time, it is interesting to look at the history of electronic intelligence and survellience.

    I seem to remember that when the US was the only one with surveillance satellites, countries like Ruissia got very very nervous and upset about it, claiming the violation of airspace, etc.

    With the advent of the first Russian spy satellites, things got a lot easier. and dealing with the Russians was easier, because they could verify things with their own spy satellites. They didn't have to take the US word on things.

    You didn't have a situation of someone saying "Trust Us"

    I wonder if a similar situation will exist with other forms of surverlliance as they develop. Countries tend to get nervous when there are a lot of secrets involved, especially their own. While countries probably can justify secrets, I imagine that life will be easier when there is some sort of parity.

    This would be especially interesting in seeing about the average citizen getting some parity with his/her/its government.

    --
    "It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
    1. Re:Echelon and Issues of Trust by Alien54 · · Score: 2
      so they should make echelon's results freely available to the public, with a nifty web search interface. It just might lead to more honesty and faster progress...

      I don't know, but life would be very interesting if every politicians life were more an open book.

      But then there is the problem of only saints would be qualified for public office. and who would volunteer, or be wise enough?

      --
      "It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
  12. if you believe that by gobelijn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well, I don't know what to think of this article. Actually, I do: I don't believe any of it.

    I've somewhat followed the entire echelon story, and you quickly end up with a lot of speculation, conspiracy theories etc., which is of course exactly what THEY want :-)

    Anyway, more reliable information can be found in the official reports of the european union, in their investigation of the echelon system. Look on google for Duncan Campbell and his first reports for the european parliament. Scary stuff, and definitely more trustworthy than some interview with the supposed creator of echelon, containing no evidence of anything whatsoever.

    Here's a link to get you started:
    http://www.europarl.eu.int/tempcom/echel on/prechel on_en.htm

    1. Re:if you believe that by guttentag · · Score: 5, Interesting
      I agree the story seems pretty sketchy... it has the pretentious tone of a 15-year-old's tale of his latest StarCraft conquest mixed with the ambiguity of fiction written for people who want to believe. And no, it doesn't tell us anything new.

      On the other hand, The New York Times seems to confirm McIndoe knows something about Echelon (though it doesn't call him the architect): "...Mr. McIndoe, who previously helped develop the National Security Agency's Echelon II program and also founded a company that develops computer intelligence-gathering systems." That seems to me like a pretty major claim (in light of the insistence that Echelon doesn't exist) and the reporter should qualify the source of his info, but he doesn't.

      The Washington Post ran one of its standard "check out this company" profiles on iJet, though it makes no mention of Echelon or McIndoe's intelligence background. It's still an interesting read.

  13. Re:So Secret... by Anonymous+DWord · · Score: 2

    http://www.google.com/search?q=echelon

    Searched the web for echelon. Results 1 - 10 of about 400,000. Search took 0.05 seconds.

    That help?

    --
    "If he thinks he can hide and run from the United States and our allies, he's sorely mistaken." Bush on bin Laden
  14. aiming low? by Fjord · · Score: 2

    If I perform a search on the word 'Echelon' right now, I can find maybe one thousand articles dealing with Echelon, so it is a pretty well-known system by now

    Uh, try 397,000

    --
    -no broken link
  15. Big Secret by asv108 · · Score: 3, Funny
    From The Article:

    Yet the architect for Echelon II indirectly reveals some secrets to us. One of the ways Echelon works is by using words and voice recognition, as well as automatic translation

    Umm yeah, nobody thought it did that.

  16. Echelon == SkyNet???? by binaryDigit · · Score: 5, Funny

    Think about it, it listens in on everything we say and type. I know it must be automatically programmed into the SAC/NORAD so it can automatically launch offsenives if it monitors a phone call or email warning of an impending attack. With all this "human", "unfiltered" knowledge going through it, it shouldn't be long before it becomes self aware and after listening to umpteen gazillion phone calls that are so incredibly mundane and banal, it realizes that humans are hardly worth the carbon they're based on, then decides to take over the planet.

  17. Mirror... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Here is a mirror site.

  18. Echelon admitted by U.S. Senator by dmccarty · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I'm kicking myself for not having written down the name of the station, the time and the Senator being interviewed, but I'll post from what I do remember.

    The evening of Sept. 11 I was watching the news--ABC, probably--and some senator from such and such intelligence committee was on for a few minutes. The anchor was asking him about the plane crash in Pennsylvania, which we all knew very little about at the time.

    The anchor said, "There are reports that some phone calls were made on mobile phones from the airplane shortly before it went down. Do you have any more information about this?"

    Senator XYZ [matter-of-factly]: "Well there were several calls made and I can't comment on that right now, but we should't have any problem getting the recordings on those."

    The anchor moved on to the next question without realizing the impact of what had just been said. But if that wasn't an admission of clandestine listening of routine telephone traffic in the U.S., I don't know what is.

    --
    Have fun: Join D.N.A. (National Dyslexics Association)
  19. Er, not necessarily. by Wakko+Warner · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If they were calls to 911, they were recorded anyway. No reason to be paranoid.

    - A.P.

    --
    "Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
    1. Re:Er, not necessarily. by dmccarty · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But there weren't any calls to 911 that we know about. There were several calls to wives and loved ones, and a call to a GTE operator on an AirFone. See this page (about halfway down) for more details. So the fact remains that somehow a U.S. Senator was pretty sure of himself in stating that they would find out what was said on those calls, even though they were placed on private cell phones and a private airplane satellite phone.

      --
      Have fun: Join D.N.A. (National Dyslexics Association)
  20. Re:Considering the Echelon project is surrounded.. by beme · · Score: 2, Informative
    Well, the website looks kinda legit, and Echelon II is mentioned in the guy's bio:

    http://www.ijet.com/about/management.html

    --

    -beme
    1971
  21. after re-reading.... by flirzan · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "Okay. In short, we have transferred everything I did for the NSA and other services to a private company that then sells intelligence to businesspersons.

    I'm sorry, but I don't think you'd be transferring ANYTHING you did *for* the NSA...you might take something you did for the NSA and implement a similar solution, but you're not just going to grab a project and run with it.

    We get information on everything from local diseases, outbreaks of malaria epidemics and local unrest to strikes, the weather and traffic conditions. Our customers are large multinational companies like Prudential and Texas Instruments. We also work for institutions like the World Bank and the IMF."

    And you need former KGB, NSA, etc agents to check the weather...?

    This whole interview strikes me as a little off. Something's not right in Denamrk, here folks.

    --
    Twinkies sure taste good for something that is 68% air.
    1. Re:after re-reading.... by Rev.LoveJoy · · Score: 2
      Well ... you could, but I doubt you'd make the doors.

      Hey! You! Blam! Blam! Blam! STOP! Blam! Blam! Blam!

      Cheers,
      -- RLJ

    2. Re:after re-reading.... by juliao · · Score: 2
      (...) Something's not right in Denamrk, here folks
      Yes, you switched the a and the m around.
  22. Re:Now The Question Is... by onemorehour · · Score: 2, Funny

    How long until this guy gets offed by the feds? :-)

    as long as it takes for Jed Bartlett to say "take him."
  23. Re:Considering the Echelon project is surrounded.. by elmegil · · Score: 2
    Of course, that's what they want you to believe.

    If you want people to believe what doesn't exist, deny it's existence. If you want people to not believe what does exist, admit it existence. Basic lesson from Illuminatus!

    --
    7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
  24. More information available in "Body of Secrets" by u2zoo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    A book by James Bamford called "Body of Secrets" (booksamillon.com) contains tons of info on Echelon... yep they are spying on us and everyone else and they put into one large database which has the NSA's own version of Google ontop. Also governements around the world have access to this database - Bamford shows an example of how someone got blacklisted in various countries due to humor error. I'm not saying the whole deal is a bad or good thing... not until I get my hands on it. *grin*

    Read the book... it is awesome.. you'll never look at our government's security system the same way again - we have a powerful system. He covers the whole thing from the start in World War II till now. Has several interesting bits in there - one on the U.S.S. Liberty (background info) incident which is fascinating really - Israel really screwed us over on that one.

    1. Re:More information available in "Body of Secrets" by brer_rabbit · · Score: 3, Funny
      Bamford shows an example of how someone got blacklisted in various countries due to humor error.

      Too bad Slashdot doesn't blacklist based on humor error; we'd have half as many posts.

    2. Re:More information available in "Body of Secrets" by u2zoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Clearly I can't answer your question as I don't have access to what was in Echelon prior to Sept. 11th... While the data is in the system, it still takes people (translators, specialists, etc) to put the pieces together... maybe no one was looking - maybe people were blinded (on purpose) from looking into it... who knows...

      This book clearly points out that the CIA and NSA don't share info together... and the NSA primary function is to spy on other governments not the US. Basically the book says that have been trapping US information in various ways but they aren't doing anything with it right now... it's there if they need it - but they don't spend the time looking into like they do on foreign governments. So a lot of intel on what was going while the terrorist where in the states was probably overlooked - the flaw is in how the information is handled and not how it is gathered. The NSA intercepts more than it can handle... I believe something like 20% is actually looked at a second time and so forth.

      Also the NSA - while in transition to a more global format - is heavily broken into regions... so it takes someone in the western european region to report that terrorist are doing such and such.. and someone would have to compare that to what was going on the middle east. According to the book... and any research you do into the subject - a shitload of stuff goes into this databank .. most from the NSA's own tools - but some from external goverments and sources... the NSA lacks translators to make sense of non-english intercepts - this flaw has been taking advantage repeatedly over the last couple decades.

  25. Helios by bonch · · Score: 3, Funny

    I merged with the Helios A.I., so all of this is very exciting.

  26. Warning about that Danis newspaper! by pointwood · · Score: 4, Informative

    The Danish newspaper, Ekstra Bladet, which apparently got that story isn't exactly the most "respected" (sorry, english isn't my primary language) newspaper in Denmark. Actually it's quite the opposite - it's one of the least frivolous papers in Denmark and I generally don't take much of their writings too seriously.

  27. He's right. by sanermind · · Score: 2

    Seriously, I heard that too. It struck me quite strongly, and I -wished- I had been taping it. If only someone who did would capture it and post it somewhere.

    --

    ---
    the pen is mightier than the sword, the sword is mightier than the court, the court is mightier than the pen.
  28. The Real Consequence of Echelon by donnacha · · Score: 5, Insightful


    Echelon is the largest contributor to the exasperation that Europe feels towards America. Essentially, Europe is happy to back the US line on everything as they, too, stand to gain from the promoting the fantasy of a free market that puts the rest of the world at a permanent disadvantage.

    What stuns European leaders is the fact the US is just as enthusiastic about screwing them: using this incredibly sophisticated spy network, lavishly funded by the American people, to undermine European companies, all the while evangelistically talking up the idea of Free Markets.

    And the kicker is that, in order not to rock the boat, the European leaders have to pretend they don't know that Echelon exists! So far only the Netherlands government has officially acknowledged what everyone already knows.

    Here's an article describing the growing concerns of America's most important partner. The main problem is that the contradiction between the Free Market talk and actual actions such as Echelon threaten to stoke a widespread antipathy towards America.

    BTW, I'm so tired of the way in which any post that in any way examines American foreign policy gets modded down. If we're discussing Echelon, of all things, we should be able to discuss it's real implications without feeling that someone is attacking the American Way of Life.

    1. Re:The Real Consequence of Echelon by Telastyn · · Score: 2

      I'm sure there's a great many people who will say that screwing your neighbor is one of the great principles of a "Free Market".

      But of course Americans are blazing hypocrits when it comes to the Free Market, since most Americans believe we (as I am an American) invented it. Sorry folks, Adam Smith (probably the most famous economist wrt Free Markets) was a Scot.

    2. Re:The Real Consequence of Echelon by kevlar · · Score: 2


      Sure, we're friends with Europe. Don't expect me to believe for a second that the EU is a reliable ally that will bail us out in times of need though. Also don't expect me to have faith in your system, especially after 2 world wars and an enormous amount of civil unrest over the last century. The only country in the EU that I personally have any faith is in GB...

    3. Re:The Real Consequence of Echelon by donnacha · · Score: 2


      The only country in the EU that I personally have any faith is in GB

      Well, Ireland is practically the 51st state.

      And I've heard that Poland is very pro-US too.

    4. Re:The Real Consequence of Echelon by cpeterso · · Score: 2


      I thought that Israel was the 51st US state. That would certainly explain a lot.

    5. Re:The Real Consequence of Echelon by zmooc · · Score: 2

      Do you have a link about this official acknowledgement by the dutch government? Thanks.

      --
      0x or or snor perron?!
    6. Re:The Real Consequence of Echelon by donnacha · · Score: 4, Informative


      Do you have a link about this official acknowledgement by the dutch government? Thanks.

      Sure:

      Dutch government acknowledges Echelon spy network

    7. Re:The Real Consequence of Echelon by elefantstn · · Score: 2
      But of course Americans are blazing hypocrits when it comes to the Free Market, since most Americans believe we (as I am an American) invented it. Sorry folks, Adam Smith (probably the most famous economist wrt Free Markets) was a Scot.


      You must have stupid friends. Nobody I know believes that, and nobody who actually knows what a "free market" is believes the US invented it.

      So, to sum up, you either hang out with idiots or are lying.
      --
      If it ain't broke, you need more software.
  29. Mirrors by henben · · Score: 2, Informative
    Have mercy on cryptome.org's server - the main one seems to be running on very limited bandwidth.

    Here are the automatic mirrors: http://www.eu.cryptome.org/echelon2-arch.htm http://www.nl.cryptome.org/echelon2-arch.htm http://www.at.cryptome.org/echelon2-arch.htm

    Slashdot needs to figure out some automatic mirroring scheme to avoid shutting down useful sites. Make it available to subscribers only if you have to.

  30. Treading carefully by PortPuppie · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How do we know if they are abusing the power of Echelon? Easy.

    One of the scary facts of Intelligence is having to intentionally not act on it.

    For example, we broke the German codes during WWII. We knew way too much. But yet to act on that info (saving Allied lives in the process) would tip our hand, the Germans would change encryption, and we would lose our advantage.

    So what advantage did we have? The Big Picture. Which allowed us to "randomly" take advantage of weak points, etc. Allowing us to win the overall objective: National Security (and win the war).

    So how does this relate here? If the NSA et al actually used this massive field of info to help small, pathetic things (saving an individual life, helping an individual company, saying "tsk, tsk" about naughty e-mail suggestions to your secretary), that would not have survived any other way, then the NSA would be giving up their hand.

    By not caring about day to day affairs of people and the world, they are free to inform heads of government about grave threats to national security and then play the chess game which follows.

    If the NSA began abusing this power, eg, a lot of NSA employees making it big on the stock market, or the guvmint coming to your door asking about e-mail sent to your tailor in the middle east, etc. There would be huge public outrage.

    The truth of the matter is, the intel weenies aren't hitting it big on the market. I have not been harassed for getting hand-tailored suits from the middle east (I was stationed there btw). And the average joe isn't getting harassed by NSA for copyright infringment, etc...

    Just my 1/50th of a dollar.

    The USA Patriot Act is another matter entirely.

    --
    Abort, Retry, Fail?
  31. ! (Plausable deniability) by terrymr · · Score: 2

    Our ability to deny the existance of echelon went out the window when politicians started demanding more use of echelon to gather inteligence in the wake of sept 11.

  32. Totally agree by Codex+The+Sloth · · Score: 2

    I recall this thing on the Discovery channel that was an interview with a senior guy from Area 51 -- I didn't believe that either.

    --
    I am not a number! I am a man! And don't you ... oh wait, I'm #93427. Ha ha! In your face #93428!
  33. Re:but can it hear? by symbolic · · Score: 2


    Repeat after me...
    "Os@ma Bin L@den...."

    Unless I see hard evidence that it's providing any real value, it's just a political toy being masqueraded as a security measure. To put this in perspective, it's the politician's answer to the miracle pill we're all looking for that will restore our health after years of neglect.

  34. Accuracy be damned! by brooks_talley · · Score: 4, Insightful

    From ./'s blurb:

    Now, a lead architect for Echelon and its "big brother," Echelon II, has been discovered and interviewed.

    From the article:

    "Were you ever involved in the first Echelon system?"

    "Only at the end of it. It was already operational when I entered the picture."

    Aren't most architects involved before something is built? Is it really that hard to get this kind of thing right?

    Cheers
    -b

  35. Re:Now The Question Is... by Gaijin42 · · Score: 2

    You obviously missed the last episode, where Jed said "Take Him"

  36. Echelon is also apparently useless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It would seem obvious to me, but I haven't seen anyone point out that this was useless against al Qaeda. Supposedly, bin Laden and them all communicate personally through close family ties, not with the use of pgp or e-mail. So not only is this a waste of money, a violation of our civil rights, and a great wedge between the US and Europe, but it, ah, well, that's about it, actually. Hope this isn't redundant.

    Dan

  37. PGP/GnuPG secure. Yea right! by jbf · · Score: 3, Informative

    Hope you're not using the public key algorithms in PGP and GnuPG if your paranoid about the NSA. Consider that the NSA typically is 15 years ahead of the academics in security (hence DES' security against differential cryptanalysis). Recently there's been some talk about being able to factor 3x as many bits just as quickly; imagine what factoring breakthroughs the NSA has made...

    If you want something really secure, exchange keys privately and use a secure private key block cipher in CBC mode, and pray that the NSA hasn't broken your block cipher...

  38. Echelon by surfcow · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I wrote to my congressmen about Echelon, only one replied. He said that he was on a congressional committee charged with investigating Echelon which repeatedly questioned the military and has repeatedly been stonewalled, publically told that it does not exist. He was genuinely pissed about it. This is positive proof that parts of the military are no longer responsive to government. (I wonder what happens when all of it is unresponsive?)

    The European Parliment is also upset about Echelon. Germany has strong evidence that german Echelon stations have been used for industrial espionage. I recall that Japan was upset when it was learned that their private calls between negotiators were being spied on during high-level trade-talks.

    I have no doubt that the information yeilded from the system has been used for good purposes, like preventing terrorist attacks and such. It ihas also been misused. It is my opinion that you can not use fascist tactics in defense of democracy.

    A good source of information on Echelon is the ACLU: http://www.aclu.org/echelonwatch/faq.html The ACLU even have a simple way to send your congressmen a fax about it. http://www.aclu.org/action/echelon107.html

    Let them know. Use your vote or you may lose it.

    =brian (a coward, but not an anonymous coward)

    1. Re:Echelon by Baka*Exp+2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "he was on a congressional committee charged with investigating Echelon which repeatedly questioned the military" Very vague.. the U.S. military is very compartmentalized, and information between classified projects isn't supposed to be passed around. Who did they question, and why were those Military Officers thought to have knowledge of Echelon. (I could go up to a boot camp private, demand he acknoledge the existence of Echelon, and also claim proof of "stonewall"(ing) and military denial) Also, is the NSA is a part of any branch of the U.S. Military?

  39. More Echelon Information by inKubus · · Score: 2

    Whoring here, but:

    Extensive Information on Echelon. Note that the ACLU is investigating. Or was, until it became neccessary for "combatting terrorism."

    Keep in mind our government is using this information to KILL PEOPLE.

    But I digress. Form your own conclusions.

    --
    Cool! Amazing Toys.
    1. Re:More Echelon Information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful
      kill the right people

      And how do you define "the right" people?

      Did you see in the news the 100th innocent death row inmate getting released? How many have been put to death by the state for being "the right people"?

      Abolish the death penalty. Right now.

      The state shall have no power of individual's life.

    2. Re:More Echelon Information by monkeydo · · Score: 2

      How many [innocent people] have been put to death by the state for being "the right people"?

      None. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Not a single one. You can be confident of this because all those orgs counting the innocents being released have been desperatly trying to find an innocent person who had been executed for the last hundred years and they haven't been able to come up with a single case. The innocent people being released is simply further proof that the system works. After all, they were released.

      Bear in mind that is is only a teensy tiny fraction of those being released who are actually found innocent of the crime for which they are convicted; in most cases these people's sentences are commuted, or they are released because of some legal technical or procedural problem.

      --
      Si vis pacem, para bellum
      The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
    3. Re:More Echelon Information by identity0 · · Score: 3, Informative

      all those orgs counting the innocents being released have been desperatly trying to find an innocent person who had been executed for the last hundred years and they haven't been able to come up with a single case.

      Might that be because they're too busy working on current death penalty cases, which have a "deadline", so to speak? Most death penalty opponents seem to focus on a particular case with the aim of saving that person, and once he's been executed, there is little urgency to continue. Keep in mind that in the American system, there is no such thing as 'proven innocent'. You can try to overturn a sentence after someone's dead, but courts are unlikely to hear your case, as they're also busy dealing with current cases. Examples such as the Sam Sheppard case(though not a death penalty case) show that even high-profile cases will not get reviewed by the courts if the defendant is dead. The closest you usually get are things such as these:

      In 1990, Jesse Tafero was executed in Florida. He had been convicted in 1976 along with his wife, Sonia Jacobs, for murdering a state trooper. In 1981 Jacobs' death sentence was reduced on appeal to life imprisonment, and 11 years later her conviction was vacated by a federal court. The evidence on which Tafero and Jacobs had been convicted and sentenced was identical; it consisted mainly of the perjured testimony of an ex-convict who turned state's witness in order to avoid a death sentence. Had Tafero been alive in 1992, he no doubt would have been released along with Jacobs. Tafero's death is probably the clearest case in recent years of the execution of an innocent person. (from the ACLDU).

      If you want more number than that, how about this:
      A study published in 1982 in the Stanford Law Review documents 350 capital convictions in which it was later proven that the convict had not committed the crime. Of those, 23 convicts were executed; others spent decades of their lives in prison. In a 1996 update of this study it was revealed that in the past few years alone, four individuals were executed although there was strong evidence that they were not guilty of the crime for which they were condemned. (from the ACLU

      Okay, simple question: how does killing these people make society safer, if they're already convicted and sitting in jail? It seems to me that taking a "life means life" approach, where a life sentence means you spend the rest of your life in jail unless your conviction is overturned, is the most reasonable approach to murder and violent crime.

    4. Re:More Echelon Information by monkeydo · · Score: 2

      Might that be because they're too busy working on current death penalty cases, which have a "deadline", so to speak? Most death penalty opponents seem to focus on a particular case with the aim of saving that person, and once he's been executed, there is little urgency to continue.

      I doubt this is the case. If it is then these groups are bigger fools than I gave them credit for. Convincing demonstrating that an actually innocent person had been executed would probably result in calls for a moritorium.

      I read the two ACLU articles you quoted, and I must say that I'm shocked the ACLU is against the death penalty. Since I can't seem to track down any of their sources I am dubious of their biased interpretation.

      Okay, simple question: how does killing these people make society safer, if they're already convicted and sitting in jail?

      Nobody ever escapes from prison do they?
      Have you ever heard of parole?
      Do you think that having a bunch of prisoners, who have already been given the worst sentence they can get, have no chance for parole, and will be in prison for the rest of their lives no matter what they do makes prisons a safer place to be?
      No matter what you sentence a person to they may be released from prisio in the future. You cannot control what future legislatures or judges will do. This is a fact. Hundreds of people who were in jail for "life without the possibility of parole" have been released. You cannot claim that a life sentence is equivalent to the death penalty.

      It seems to me that taking a "life means life" approach, where a life sentence means you spend the rest of your life in jail unless your conviction is overturned, is the most reasonable approach to murder and violent crime.

      People sentenced to life in prison are usually released. Even if you could change that, why should we support the most henious criminals for the rest of their lives? Prisioners are expensive; the morst violent ones even more so. A prisoner in jail for life with no possibility for parole is bullet proof. You can't control him with promises of rewards for good behavior, because he'll never get out. You can't punish him for bad behavior, because the ACLU won't let you. No, you just have to build more prisons, hire more guards, and suppport these bastards for the rest of their lives. No thanks.

      --
      Si vis pacem, para bellum
      The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
  40. Ask NSA! by vrt3 · · Score: 2

    Undoubtedly, they taped it.

    --
    This sig under construction. Please check back later.
  41. Re:Considering the Echelon project is surrounded.. by Khalid · · Score: 2

    He also appears in this Washinton post article

    http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/zforum/ 02 / etro_ijet040402.htm

  42. Re:Must be a younger brother by Binky+The+Oracle · · Score: 2

    Hmmm... my younger brothers are all bigger than me...

    And if Echelon II is more capable of watching every aspect of your life, then doesn't that effectively make it Big Brother? ;-)

    --

    Slashdot comments... splitting hairs since 1997.

  43. about 'ekstra bladet' by C_nemo · · Score: 2, Informative

    'ekstra bladet' is a very tabloid newspaper willing to print anything that will sell issues. one of the first newspapers to include a pinup model every thuesday. read with caution

  44. This guy really did help build echelon! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
    Because the guy really has worked on Echelon II, just check out their site:

    HERE

    Bruce McIndoe was the founder & CEO of CSSi, an Inc.500 and four-time Washington Technology FAST 50 company that developed intelligence collection and processing systems for various national intelligence organizations. Bruce was one of the lead architects for the National Security Agency's Echelon II program, identified as one of the most productive intelligence programs in the agency's history. He was also a major contributor to the Future Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) Systems Architecture Program, several major Communications Security (COMSEC) programs and numerous technical programs. After successfully growing CSSi to 150 people and $17 million in annual revenues, Bruce sold the company to Nichols Research Corporation where he became VP Enterprise Applications and then VP Sales & Marketing with Nichols InfoTec. Prior to joining iJET, he was President of B2B Web Solutions specializing in supply chain automation using the Internet and XML technologies. Bruce holds an M.S. in Computer Science from Johns Hopkins University and is a trustee of Allegheny College, where he received his B.S. in Physics.

  45. Mr McIndoe by Popocatepetl · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It is not like the interview revealed anything. Absolutely nothing of importance was mentioned that you can not find elsewhere. The thing is, I think this interview is real.

    This doesn't prove the case, but Bruce McIndoe is mentioned on the net. Here is his official biographical blurb on IJet's web site: . Everything there corroborates the interview. His bio hypes him up, but that doesn't mean it is totally false.

    I just don't understand why everyone is so skeptical about this interview. It wasn't even particularly interesting. I would understand the cynicism if Mr McIndoe had actually said something of interest, but since he said exactly the things (nothing juicy or outrageous or even anything more than mildly interesting) I would expect someone to say who is involved in such projects, I don't have any reason to doubt the credibility of the article.

  46. Re: Not necessarily by Dirk+Pitt · · Score: 2

    You make a good point, but keep in mind that large, mature software systems that live on for years will continually have projects to enhance functionality and performance. Even echelon, if it's in maintenance mode, could need new architects for performance tweaks and whatnot.

    But, just as easily, this guy's full of crap and was just a co-op when echelon was finishing up ;-) .

  47. Echolon talk on DDJ's Technetcast by MavEtJu · · Score: 2

    I have to admit, I got more information about Echolon from a talk on DDJ's Technetcast:

    'ECHELON and The Insecurity Industry' at
    http://technetcast.ddj.com/tnc_play_stream.htm l?st ream_id=423

    --
    bash$ :(){ :|:&};:
  48. The Echelon paradox by famazza · · Score: 2

    The Echelon project cannot be completely implemented due to the Echelon paradox:

    • If you have a system that classifies every information in the internet and also make it avaiable in the internet; the more data it classifies, the more data it generates, the more information need to be classified.

    • So it's impossible to classify every information in the internet and make it avaiable without add more information to the internet.

    That's why I don't believe that Echelon is watching me now.

    --

    -=-=-=-=
    I know life isn't fair, but why can't it ever be un-fair in MY favor!?
    1. Re:The Echelon paradox by Ziviyr · · Score: 2

      Do you think Google indexes it's indexes?

      --

      Someone set us up the bomb, so shine we are!
  49. Re:Now The Question Is... by darien · · Score: 2

    You just choose to do it at the expense of others by confiscating the fruits of their labor rather than to strive for it yourself.

    We're not communists over here, you know. Few Europeans would argue that they should have a share of Bill Gates' money themselves. But since he has more money than he can possibly ever need, it'd be nice to see some of the surplus being spent on education, health, shelters for the homeless, etc., rather than simply being stockpiled in a bank account somewhere, doing nobody any good.

  50. Re:Atheism? No thanks. by jejones · · Score: 2

    While I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment, the second quote is not from George Washington; it dates from a later time--I think it was when US vessels were being hassled by the Barbary pirates. (Ah...it was in the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli, during the Adams administration.)

  51. The problems with automatic translation by Mandelbrute · · Score: 2

    And here Sir, on this diagram we see that the landing gear on the Iranian jet is lowered by a water sheep - er, hydraulic ram.

  52. Cryptonomicon in action (again) by devphil · · Score: 2


    Large chunks of the WWII-era plotline in Cryptonomicon are pinned on precisely this problem (how to make best use of the broken Enigma ciphers without letting Germany know that Enigma has been broken).

    Anybody who thinks this is a simple, clear issue should pull his head out of his ass and go read that book. (The book is good regardless, but also goes to show that the problems of the intelligence community haven't changed much.)

    --
    You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
  53. Re:Considering the Echelon project is surrounded.. by datastew · · Score: 2

    The only thing disturbing about the kids' section is the horrible navigation and site design.

    Trying to find my way through it made my brain hurt.