Slashdot Mirror
Bringing Echelon In From the Cold
An anonymous reader writes: "UPI columnist James C. Bennett says that governments are going to spy no matter what. So he suggests that it would be better to admit that Echelon exists, and formulate some reasonable guidelines on such spying, than to pretend that it doesn't and let governments go about their business without any scrutiny. Interesting suggestion. But who will watch those watchers? And who will watch them? "
The watchers of those watching the watchers can be watched by the watchers themselves, thus guaranteeing that all the watchers, even the watchers OF the watchers, are watched. Then, just in case, we can have some watchers of the watchers of the watchers of the watchers, making sure everything goes smoothly.
using namespace slashdot;
troll::post();
There has always been a "Big Brother" in every medium (tcp/ip, radio frequencies, etc..). There has always been a way for someone to listen on to communications that was not destined to them.
Independent of what the latest craze is and what name it's given, it's a sniffer and it will sniff stuff. All people gotta do is make sure that what it DOES sniff is garbage to everyone except for the final recipient (PGP for email anyone ? The same pub+private key encryption can apply to just about anything digital).
The philosophy of openness is nice, but somehow I don't think the "Intelligence Community" will buy it, without something fairly spectacular in return. . . . .
If you created enough levels of policing you could have a lower level police the highest level. That would still have the problem of the highest level influencing people down the chain so as they are not policed. I don't think that could happen though.
However, I am forced to question why the public suddenly cries out for oversight of Echelon and other NSA/CIA/FBI counterterrorism operations. Where are the victims of rogue G-men? Why have I never seen a single credible complaint against these intelligence agencies for violation of privacy? In other words, what's the harm of allowing them to intercept the transmissions that they intercept, if at best they are keeping us safer and at worst they are doing nothing at all? Obviously this isn't a monetary argument, as nobody actually knows what the NSA's budget is. To paraphrase Lisa Simpson - if a tree can hear everything you say, but it doesn't tell anyone you know, does it make a sound? The good Lord can hear you having phone sex on those 976 lines you call, so why does it matter if some government agent you'll never even meet can hear you too?
Although I don't want to be monitored, I'll gladly give up the right to complete privacy to stop the chance of a single future terrorist attack. After all, if we have nothing to hide and are not stigmatized for what we say in private, what does it matter who's listening?
WTC Survivor
What exactly can be done when the 'rules' of spying are not followed? Obviously, the game of intel/counter-intel is so secretive, that open trials for those breaking laws would be next to impossible. Military tribunals are probably unconstitutional for domestic spies. Better yet, how do you prosecute someone whose rule-breaking probably saved hundreds of lives? The overall question here is how does the intelligence community fit in with the ideals of any given country. Obviously, in the USA, this is embodied in our Constitution. So how does the intelligence community fit in with the Constitution, and how can it work effectively without crossing the line into illegal searches and other Constitutional violations?
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
This 'article' is nothing more than a plot by the illuminati to make up for their failed 'divx' project. Echelon is nothing more than another assault on our freedom!
They're going to brainwash us all and turn us into goose-stepping communist robots!
GET OUT OF MY TEETH!
using namespace slashdot;
troll::post();
It would seem to me that the Echelon system has worked well at its intended purpose since its inception, that is, collecting and sorting through reams upon reams of data. Since little is known about its actual operation, this statement may or may not be accurate. Hence, the "it would seem to me" part.
I digress; what I think really needs the watching and oversight is not what information is collected, but how that information is used by people with power. The scariest part about the whole post-September 11th security whackabout is how the US government has arrested and held hundreds without charge, essentially incommunicado (and I'm not talking about the Taliban and Al-Qaeda people in Cuba).
To me, the fact that my conversations may or may not be monitored is not particularly scary - after all, Echelon seems to have been around longer than me, and though I can't be certain, I'd say I and millions of others in the Western world have benefitted more from it than we have been harmed.
But being held without charge indefinitely by the government of a country that can't stop talking about how democratic it is? This sort of violation of basic human rights scares the crap out of me; the invasion of my privacy wrought by Echelon is peanuts in comparison.
Unless all citizens are involved in the oversight, then there is no way to say they won't just blackmail the moderators of what they are doing. J Edger Hoover seemed to have this covered when the most advanced thing being used was a typewriter. Imagine how easy it'll be with the massive supercomputers.
BUT if everyone know's what's being done, it moots the point of doing it at all. Catch-22; freedom for security. I won't give up the freedom.
But GOOD! I'd much rather have the government spying on people and catching some people who are doing some warez shit than have someone who could of been caught blow up a bunch of people. If you're not doing things you shouldn't be, then you really don't have too much to worry about.
While this might seem a reasonable solution it will be doomed to failure for the same reason that the NSA couldn't use their info to forwarn. To much inertia due to oversized control structures. This is the same as the mythical man month, ie. if it takes one man one month to do the job then it should only take one day if thirty people are working, PHAH!
;-) for misuse that on the occasions when someone is dumb enough to misuse it and get caught they serve as an example.
What is needed is a system that does not involve bureaucratic overhead, something along the lines of a benevolent dictatorship. Along with a penalty so stiff (I will leave that to more twisted minds than mine
There will always be corruption in any power structure, the idea is to *efficiently* limit said corruption.
-- The morphemes of your disquisition are ascertainable, but they have eschewed an ambit of transpicuous exposition.
To attempt to "out" a secret organization is silly, simply because the organization then ceases to be secret. Espionage is a vital part of any modernized nation's defense and no nation will allow its spies to be watched (therefore, a wise prince will allow some of his spies to be watched, but not the important ones).
What on earth has this to do with Echelon? It is a problem that comes with any situation where someone needs to have someone watching over someone else, i.e most governmental activity.
Rather, the problem is of course that admitting the existence of Echelon is the same as legitimizing it, which for obvious reasons isn't the best idea in the world. It would probably be helpful for those European guys trying to figure out what the hell is going on though...
"If you think education is expensive, try ignorance" - Derek Bok
Out of curiosity, why does it matter if "they" spy on you? Who's really going to care if you buy a copy of the South Park movie from Amazon? Or if you get some caffeinated soap from Think Geek? Or any of that. There's so much communication traffic in the world that for someone to pay a particular interest to you you'd have to be subscribing to the Child Porn for Mad Bombers Who Want to Poison Drinking Water with Alfalfa mailing list. Or some such nonsense. It's crazy to assume that anyone cares about what you write to someone in an email. Hell, you could send emails saying the president's a bastard and someone should off him. If you're starting to research into buying a Cesna and getting a pilot's license and begin looking for some C4 or the such then they should be looking into you. Otherwise who's going to care? The FBI/CIA/Uber secret agency you never heard of isn't gonna waste time looking at you. Time is money, after all. The US works because when things get too big and worrisome then people find out about it and things percolate through the news. If you worry about privacy then why not worry about the checker at your grocery store who sees you buy a certain deodorant or maybe some fungal cream. He or she now knows what you smell like and that you've got nasty feet. That's an invasion of privacy in essence and possibly more embarrasing than having some FBI guy who never met you and likely never will knowing that you subscribe to some porno sites (not that an agent would likely even see such a thing unless you had a lot of red flags against you to begin with in which case, once again, I personally feel secure knowing that they are looking into you). That's just my thoughts on it though
...Sigh...Moderators, please note parent (whom obviously has an auspicious amount of Karma) failed to mention Echelon at all in his post. Actually, you know what the parent reminds me of?
It is official; Shanghai Newspaper confirms: Western Civilization is dying!!!
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered Western Civilization community when Al-Jazeera TV confirmed that Western Civilization market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of the World Culture Market. Coming on the heels of a recent Beijing Times study that points to the implosion of Western Civilization, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along: Western Civilization is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by these last ditch attempts to maintain "control" over an increasingly restless populace.
You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict Western Civilization's future. The hand writing is on the Eastern-styled wall: Western Civilization faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for Western Civilization because Western Civilization is dying. Things are looking very bad for Western Civilization. As many of us are already aware, and this story further demonstrates, Western Civilization continues to lose the trust of its citizens. Red ink flows like a river of blood.
All major surveys show that Western Civilization has steadily declined in market share. Western Civilization is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If Western Civilization is to survive at all it will be among academic dilettante dabblers that survived the horrible asteroid strike. Western Civilization continues to expand, and will eventually implode into a forgotten footprint on History. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, Western Civilization is dead.
Fact: Western Civilization is dying
With apoligies to Trolls Everywhere
whenever possible, i like to include the phrase "fuel grade" in my phone conversations. i hear it really pisses "those guys" off...
--- Ask me about my Sig -- it's a 9mm.
The first rule of spying is that you get away with everything you possibly can, and the second rule of spying is that you get away with everything you possibly can. Admitting that you're spying is one thing, as everyone has spies, but saying how you're doing it, or even acknowledging that you're using certain methods, is a Bad Idea from the government's standpoint. They won't admit to unlawfully tapping people's phone lines, why the heck would they want to admit that they help run a global communications monitoring system?
Besides, the "leaky information" approach is much more effective at keeping people guessing. Any high tech security agency would use high tech methods (like packet sniffing) to increase it's knowledge base. The fact that Echelon exists should not be surprising or amazing. However, by not telling the masses about it, the population who know and care about the technology is left only to speculate, and the rumor mill probably works in the favor of the government on this issue. It's like guerrilla marketing.
But who will watch those watchers? And who will watch them?
I dunno. Coast Guard?
While the FBI and associated spying agencies may have made some noteable mistakes in the recent past, people seem to forget that their primary goal is not to spy on innocent people who may be illegaly trading mp3s, for example - but to focus on the larger issues of great national importance. Limiting their ability to do so by providing "guidelines" (restrictions, and publication of their methods) allows those that truly need to be spied on to easily circumvent any scrutiny of their communications.
In this proposal (to make Echelon more public and transparent), there is one indication up front that the author is a bit goofy. The rest of his suggestions lack common sense.
He says early on that the Japanese attack on Hawaii in 1941 was not all that secret--that the USA had some knowledge that it was about to occur, and fumbled the ball. This has never been demonstrated, but a lot of people believe it. There were some data which, in retrospect, looked consistent with an attack, and some mistakes were made (General Short made the biggest ones), but the truth is that no one knew what was going to happen and by the time a nonspecific warning was issued, it was too late to do anything much. The folks in Hawaii had no reason to believe it applied to them--in fact, they assumed they were safe by virtue of geography. We do know that the War Department figured the Philippines were the certain target (correct, but incomplete), that MacAruthur got the same warning Hawaii did, and that he ignored it. His incompetence was actually far greater than that of Admiral Kimmel, yet Kimmel was crucified and Mac became an icon. I digress.
A roughly parallel pattern emerges in the WTC attack. Looking back, we can see things that might have tipped us off that something nasty was up, but there is nothing clear and the target was not specified. (If it had been, someone in NSA would have said, "Well, duh, we knew that. What's new?") US intelligence services are awash in suggestive information; virtually all the time, it is impossible for them to predict based on this flood of hints, possibilities, suggestions, contradictory data and odd events.
There is one development a more public Echelon could not possibly address. The Bad Guys can flood the communications media with "smoke," bogus messages that will overwhelm the spooks and distract them. That becomes all the easier for the terrorists as the intelligence people come under political pressure not to ignore anything, to predict on the basis of incomplete information, and connect unrelated dots.
Finally, if Echelon has a new more public existence, its main functions will simply recede into the secretive background anyway. Net effect: either Zero, or possibly even detrimental.
IMHO Echelon may be doing a lot better job than we know. Recall the US general who was kidnapped in Italy by a bunch of self-styled Commies? A reporter said at one point that every single telephone in Italy was tapped. True or not, that feat was never referred to again. The general was recovered in one piece.
The author of this proposal to make Echelon into a more visible and therefore somehow more responsible organization is out to lunch.
However, things often remain classified for decades for no good reason, which basically removes any incentive to not do embarassing things from government officials who will be long gone by the time their misdeeds are public knowledge. We need to close that gap so that a politician could actually be hurt within his career/lifetime by conducting activities that are wrong. In thirty years, all of Echelon's dirty laundry will start coming out, and it'll be like all the stuff that came out about J. Edgar Hoover's FBI.
If there is anything I think would be a real solution, it would be to force the government to minimize the amount of information that is kept classified after its usefulness is over. Say, five years after a document is created, it automatically expires into unclassified information unless it is specifically requested to stay classified.
The price of governing a free people (free in theory) is a limited ability to keep secrets from those you are governing. We should hold the US government to an even higher standard of accountability than it is currently held.
Big Brother is watching you watching Big Brother watch you watch Big Brother watching you.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Or so Brin's theory goes. The problem is that the privacy asymmetry parallels a power asymmetry. They can and do watch us because they have all the power. We don't get to watch them because we don't. All of this is dressed up in the rhetoric of national security to help stifle protest, but those are the plain facts.
I used to consider charges that the US was becoming a police state to be alarmist, perhaps absurd. Now I see the things happening which have always been missing before, and I know our time has come. The next few years (at the very least) are going to suck mightily.
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a skull.
As far as the modern form of Western Civilization goes, this sounds about right: take a slimy thing and acculturate it. Drowsy acceptance will be widespread; the spy mechanism will continue to develop no matter how nasty its results. Look at episodes of all those "reality" shows about cops ... we have been desensitized to their treatment of the population and their authority-abuses just continue. (Is it possible to become intoxicated with your own culture? With TV, that might be true.)
Note that one of the most basic civil rights is the Right to Be Left Alone {tm}. A pervasive Echelon-like monitoring of citizen activities will utterly destroy that right. At times like this, I get the distinct urge to write a cheque to Phil Zimmerman, since public cryptography is one line of defense; but it must be as pervasive as the spyware is.
[also misbehaves on Kuro5hin as Peahippo]
So because he lost some of his friends in the WTC, his point that we should lose some of our privacy becomes more valid? I don't think so. I may not have lost anyone there, but I've lost a good number of friends in the military and I'll be damned if I'm going to use that as an excuse for anything. Call me a troll, call me what you want but shit happens. This country was founded on people dying for their freedom. I agree that is was a crap way to buy the farm, and we need to do something about it, but dammit, we fight for freedom. Get it? FREEDOM. What are you going to fight for when it's all gone?
Carpe Canem - Seize the Dog
Not to mention that our laws are not valid in other countries. We can pass whatever law we want but that doesn't mean anything to other countries.
Carpe Canem - Seize the Dog
For what the general public wants, at some point, someone must answer to the public authority (ie. ye whom is accountable to you, me, Joe Q. Doe). Otherwise it is a closed loop of accountability where morality is decided by an authority other than the "greatest good".
(Be careful about the "greater good" part, though. That deserves more attention, which I don't have at the moment.)
Cheers.
I'm a libertarian, and I strongly value the important of our freedom of speech rights. That, however, does not mean we should have fifteen layers of Oversight.
Anyone here watch La Femme Nikita? Well, gee, lets see, there was Section, which was the anti-terrorist organization. Then there was Oversight, which was supposed to watch over Section and make sure everything was going alright. Then there was Center, which was supposed to make sure that everything was going ok in Oversight and Section. Then there was The Agency, which was supposed to make sure everything was going fine in Center, Oversight, and Section.
Do you see my point? We should not have a zillion layers over oversight -- watchers upon watchers upon watchers upon watchers, etc. Bad idea. That just means higher taxes, more beurocracy, less efficiency, and less accountability.
What you need is checks and balances, like the three government branches set up, as well as electability, and amendments.
In our government, the legislative, executive, and judicial branches all put checks and balances on each-other. Meanwhile, we the people, elect the legislative and executive branches, and in some cases, parts of the judicial branches (i.e., local judges).
Meanwhile, there is this little thing called The Constitution and The Amendments, which gaurentee that no branch goes way overboard; thus, protecting (sort of) our rights. Its not perfect, but its decent.
The same thing should be set up for government spying and information gathering.
The problem with our system isn't the system itself, but the implementation of the system, where there are layers upon layers of beurocratic bullshit, and where varioius government officials are bought off and paid for by organizations like the RIAA, MPAA, BSA, etc.
So what's needed is two things: (1) Eliminate the beurocratic bullshit; (2) Get serious on political contributions, bribes, blackmail, etc.
Only these two things, and our system would be much better? Well, for the most part, yes. It wouldn't deal with Christian Conservative idiots getting elected who think that the worst crime on earth is homosexuality and prostitution, and who think that the purple teletubby is gay, and who also believe that we should all be brainwashed in school to be Christians. But it would deal with alot of problems.
Of course, accomplishing those two things -- eliminating hte beurocratic bullshit and dealing with politicians being owned -- is a difficult goal. To eliminate beurocratic BS, you have to destroy useless organizations and eliminate useless positions -- something w/c is not favored by some of those in power b/c they'd be put out of a job. To stop politicians from being owned, you'd have to eliminate political campaign contributions -- something w/c politicians won't like as it won't help them get elected, and will actually allow people other than Democrats and Republican's to win.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Who would pony up the dough to watch this great show?
- marketing titans (Chiat-Day, Coca Cola, etc.)
- insurance companies
- brokerages
- governments that distrust their own citizens (China, Australia, etc.)
- governments that distrust their neighbors (India, Pakistan, etc.)
- terrorist groups (Al Qaeda, Hamas, etc.)
Of course, this would probably decimate the market for cookie-wielding banner ads.But who will watch those watchers? And who will watch them?
"Double Cross."
Look into your history books for this special term...
I agree that Echelon will be more effective if the agencies that operate Echelon continue to stonewall.
The question is whether it's good or bad for the people of this country for Echelon to be optimally effective. The FBI has spied on and infiltrated the organizations of non-violent activists such as Martin Luther King, Jr. In the past, the White House has turned up with 900 FBI files of its political opponents (Mrs. Clinton's office, 1993).
The purpose of this government (unlike most governments) is to protect the rights of the people. I want a lot more transparency in my government's surveillance operations so that I can really tell whether they are protecting me from Al Qaeda or whether they are protecting me from legal and peaceful protestors and legal and peaceful opposition candidates.
Ok, lets say you regulate Echelon after it will be disclosed. So what exactly prevents them from setting up another system that won't be regulated? Seems to me like a vain task :)
If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
While a law doesn't offer you any iron guarantee that someone in a govt. position won't use his position to hurt you for any petty reason, it does provide sanctions. For example, a police officer can use his job to find out just about anything he wants to know about just about anyone--easily, and without suspicion. He could use that information to blackmail or harass someone, and get himself a little cash. Or he could use that computer system to get phone numbers of pretty girls in cars by their license plate numbers (I think Slashdot did a story on this before).
While a privacy law doesn't directly prevent the officer from doing any of these things, most people won't take the risk if they think they could get into serious trouble for it. The citizen's privacy was protected. That "secret" information might still be known by some people, but they aren't going to act to abuse it.
But who will watch those watchers? And who will watch them?
I dunno. The Coast Guard?
Yes, this would be most democratic.
Imagine some of your friends admitting to having a secret alliance and talk about certain things without you, how would you feel?
Maybe it's like finding out your girlfriend has been hanging out with your friends and not telling you about it.
I think the problem is that we humans have caveman residue (for lack of a better term), a kind of primal competitive mindset.
Thinking that we are separate nations rather than a single species. Maybe the time is ripe for an international revolution of humanity, I can smell it in the works, we just have to evolve, think and wake up. not neccesarily in that order.
Imagine all the people, living in harmony. I don't think it's that silly if you think about it.
If the Government has time to read all my e-mail can the summarise it and forward it back to me?
But who will watch those watchers? And who will watch them?
Sounds like Slashdot! Who moderates the moderators? Meta-moderators! So they can have meta-watchers! Who moderates the meta-moderators? I don't know, but it seems like a good sig!
Adidas To Bring Back Sneakernet
I agree with you completely, that government surveyance of it's constituents should have a lot more transparency and visibility to those being surveyed. Unfortunately, I don't believe the government in the United States is actually looking out for the best interests of all of it's citizens -- it's attempting to preserve its current status by reinforcing it's power. That's one of the basic goals of any purposeful organization in existence, not just government.
Of course, referring to the government as "it" is pretty lame, as "it" sounds like some I'm talking about sort of weird conspiracy. The government is an extraordinarily diverse group of humans, most of whom are average Joe and Jane Civilians. I won't write a dissertation on the power structures of government here, but my general point is that paranoia within a government maintained (but not directed) by civilians is self destructive.
Paranoia is the only explanation for the existence of the NSA, and the creation of this Homeland Security department and subsequent reorganization of the government's intelligence community is a huge red flag for a growing sense of instability. The only reason the Powers That Be would create such a broad and powerful organization is if there was a perceived threat not only from a handful of illegal immigrants, but also a substantial number of proper citizens who expressed dissatisfaction with the way things are currently being managed.
Mutter mutter. I'm sure this post will make my folder that much thicker. Heh. ;)
Uh oh, I sense some infinite recursion coming on! What are you trying to do, waste readers' valuable brain cycles? At least give us a base case!
Looking over the responses here, I would like to propose that you try reading James Bamford's book, Body of Secrets. It's about as close to the NSA as you'll get without being invited in.
I personally think Lt. Gen. Michael Hayden has done a great job of letting the public be more aware of the NSA. This man has allowed cameras to go in and look around and so on. Ok, not at everything of course, but that's another matter.
Should we allow the UKUSA agreement to be more public? I don't think we can any more than we already have without threatening resources. Do you want every terrorist organisation to know where all the listening posts are? The NSA does a beautiful job of Sigint, although unfortunately they don't have enough people for enough languages. If you have any language ability and you're a computer geek here good in mathematics, I recommend applying, since they are hiring right now.
What's important to remember is that under agreements within UKUSA and internal orders, the NSA cannot keep track of clearly US citizens and permanent residents (and I believe that applies to other UKUSA countries). If you're in the US, they have to treat you as a U.S. citizen/permanent resident unless your communication clearly indicates otherwise or you're communicating with clearly known terrorists. Still, in the reports, they have to list you without name. Those who can prove that they need to know can find out, but it's not that easy. When abroad, the situation changes. They can record until they know that you're a U.S. citizen or permanent resident.
Anyway, while we computer geeks pick on the NSA, I think we should really take a good look at overhauling the CIA. Ask any resident in Peshawar to point out the CIA guys. Requirements for clandestine spooks favour WASPs way too much.
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. - G.B. Shaw
It scary to believe that the government of USA will have the "organization" Echelon without the admittance it existing. Perhaps the adherence to rights of privacy paramounting formulation of the "protocol" of spying??? ;)
I am not the expert on foreign or the internal policies of the Americas as off yet. However I am "believing" the spying is not in the present what the public is needing. The "government" is not to go withouts the punishments for spying but the encouragement of the spying activates by others are not the ways to "convincing" government to respect privacy, which I believing to be important.
So my fellow "slashbots" my point are the followings: Why watching watchers when we can having no watchers at all? We electing the government. So we telling them what we wanting in the end
*HUGS*
Megumi.
:)
The Shanghai Newspaper later retracted the story stating its source of information was The Onion.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
The problem with our system isn't the system itself, but the implementation of the system
But that's the problem with every form of government. Communism looks good on paper, but it was never, and will never be implemented well. The real problem is us.
should be watching. Be very careful.
It's kind of hard to complain when you're dead. The greatest trick the devil pulled was to make people belive he doesn't exist. The second greatest may well have been to discredit those who believe he exists.
...shame about the moderation.
A tri-lateral government works, and it is a good idea. However, when secret agencies are allowed to exist, we have a quadrilateral system of government. And, when those secret agencies are allowed to break the law, we have a corrupt government. For documentation of this from some of the world's most respected news agencies, see What Should be the Response to Violence?
There are some people who like to act out their inner conflict by making trouble for others. The secret agencies attract the troublemakers, and there are no checks and balances.
For instance, Exec. Order No. 12333, 3 C.F.R. 200 (1982), The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, 50 U.S.C., and the executive orders founding the NSA and the post-Nixon limits on what can be done with intercepts of "US Persons" no matter where they are talking.
The relevant portion of the laws state:
A deference to U.S. persons' rights by closely regulating the conduct of electronic surveillance that either targets U.S. persons or may result in the acquisition of information to, from, or about U.S. persons. For example, in order to conduct electronic surveillance against a U.S. person located within the United States, FISA requires the intelligence agency to obtain a court order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. If the United States person is abroad, the Executive Order requires that the Attorney General approve such surveillance. In both instances, generally speaking there must be probable cause that the target is an agent of a foreign power. In addition, the information sought by the surveillance must be foreign intelligence that cannot be obtained by other less intrusive collection techniques. Furthermore, even if a U.S. person is not the target, all foreign intelligence electronic surveillance must be conducted in a manner that minimizes the acquisition, retention, and dissemination of information about unconsenting U.S. persons.
,br> I worked there over a decade ago as a cryptanalyst, and it was deadly serious business if you intercepted a US person, even by accident. Reports were written, and people were debriefed on the circumstance, but not the content. The content and any sources for the error were destroyed. Talking mag erasor then burn bag for the media.
IMHO you are being paranoid beyond reason simply because you are ignorant of what the truth is. I've been in the belly of the leviathan, and its nowhere as malevolent as you make it out to be. People like you work there, and they are all reminded of their primary oath, which is to uphold and defend the Constitution. And even if there were to be some rogues, all it takes is a few honest people to expose them - the agency was gutted from within during hte Nixon crisis by people who knew that we shoul not be operating against US persons that weree not legitimate intelligence targets. Beleive me, its not the cowboy agency that it was under Nixon, when a lot of the abuses took place. Its not even as good as it was under Reagan - they do not have the staff to handle analysis of all intercepts, so excluding things they cannot legally touch is not only the right thing to do, it also promotes better function of the entire process. And these very laws and situations were heavily emphasised to us during indoctrination. It was our duty to uphold these laws, and we took that duty damned seriously.
There may have been some erosion of ethical standards this during the Clinton years with the "loose" ethics flowing down from the CINC, but there are a lot of stiff necked old spooks that would never let this crpa happen to the agency again like it almost did in the agency after Nixon. And before you keep on eating the BS about Reagan being a "fascist", consider that the only reason you have the protections you do now is due to a series of orders he issued because he did not trust government to regulate itself well when it involvedthe fundamental (4th amendment in this instance) rights of Americans.
Read Jim Bamford's "Puzzle Palace" if you want a good idea of how close things came in the early 70's when there was really nobody except the NSA wathcing itself - and how the NSA corrected itself with the changes to law and executive orders that are the basis of the existence of the agency.
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo! http://goo.gl/J9bkO
Go read the redacted USSID (United States Signals Intelligence Directive) covering this issue USSID 18, Dept Of Defense Order 5240.1-R as operant at the NSA. Its missing chunks, but a lot fo the important stuff is there for you to look at. These documents(USSIDS) are the legal basis for all operations of the NSA. As an employee of the NSA or a military analyst assigned ther, you obey these things or get put in jail.
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo! http://goo.gl/J9bkO
Would you like the gov to have microphones in you bath, your kitchen and you bedroom? Why should you care? After all, they are probably not interested in your buffzz, your boiled eggs or your "in bed" activities. Only if you talking about killing someone, etc. you should care.
... but I STILL DONT LIKE IT.
I wouldn't like it. And I don't like it when they tap my emails either (why should it be different?). I have nothing to hide yet I value my privacy. If it's needed for survival then go ahead
unfinished: (adj.)
And the government has been monitoring this channel. 2000 counts of scrolling:
CAN I GET OP STATUS 4 THIS ROOM PLZ
will be brought against you tomorrow. Whips have been delivered unto members of the ministry of homeland security! It shall be brutal and cloaked.
Open up the results to everyone. If everyone has the capacity to watch everyone else, then the people doing the watching won't be able to abuse the privilege.
My Journal
Thank you for labelling this edjit's post as flamebait - quite insightful of you.
This person is willing to trade his freedom for security, and along with it, my freedom.... Apparently, he is uninformed and a trifle naive, but he is using his Constitutional right to express his opinion... interesting, isn't that one of the rights he is willing to give up for security's sake?...we are from the government - we are here to help...
It is with no small amount of jubliation that I report to you that Miss Manners has in no way "kicked the bucket." For future reference, Miss Manners generally thinks it more considerate to use "gone to her reward," "met her maker," or the old chestnut "gone to a better place." Doing so will tell those around you that you are a caring human being with class.
Call (206) 338-5780 COLLECT for information about a genuine BA, BS, MA, MS, MBA, or Ph.D.
Why don't we (as in 'people who dislike this spying-on-us stuff') plan a nice holiday-trip to one of these echelon-locations nearby? I'd like to see their reaction when a couple of thousand people demand to see the installation that they paid for themselves, indirectly, and that "doesn't exist"... :)
So, you're going to base your criticism of the intelligence community on a version of it depicted in a Hollywood film?
Yeah. I don't think James Bond should get to waste all that cool gear either!
Why don't we (as in 'people who dislike this spying-on-us stuff') plan a nice holiday-trip to one of these echelon-locations nearby? I'd like to see their reaction when a couple of thousand people demand to see the installation that they paid for themselves, indirectly, and that "doesn't exist"...
Echelon is an important device, a weapon as powerful as a nuclear or chemical bomb, which unless stopped by encryption could be a threat to the safety of the United Sates President, Congress and people. Happily it is keyword-list based. At this point, I'd like to welcome those good people from Maryland to Slashdot...very mighty defenders of freedom..let's give it up for the NSA woowoowoo! Actually, you gotta admit, they are the world's super-geeks. I love those guys.
"Well, put a stake in my heart and drag me into sunlight."
The problem with our system isn't the system itself, but the implementation of the system
But that's the problem with every form of government. Communism looks good on paper, but it was never, and will never be implemented well. The real problem is us.
Actually, I disagree. Communism does not look great on paper, nor does fascism, or any of that other totalitarian despotic crap. Communism -- on paper -- basically states that all of the things that individual's have worked to obtain will be taken away and given to the community pot: in other words, your right to property is completely lost, along with many other rights (i.e., w/o the right to property, there can be no privacy -- thus the right to privacy is meaningless).
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
So, you're going to base your criticism of the intelligence community on a version of it depicted in a Hollywood film?
No, actually I was using that as a humorous example.
Having watchers of watchers to the nth itineration does not eliminate corruption. It simply makes the system less efficient, more bloated, more costly, and creates more points where corruption can occur.
What you need is circular watcher-ism.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Who would watch it?
Who's watching it now?
It would be better to at least pretend like
someone is monitoring abuses.
The libertarian solution to the failures of capitalism is to apply more capitalism til the failures are fixed.
You mean the same laws and protections that have been weakened by the current Bush administration? Surely, you've been around to hear that news right?
I'm bored, lets go break something.
Communism is not practiced in the US, not even in families. Though within a house-hold, there may be many things that are shared for the group benefit (similarly in a scientific lab), there are also some things that belong to one person and not another. Of course, the ratio of shared to private objects within a house or lab varies from one to the other.
But communism on a national scale in its pure form does not look good on paper: it looks like all of our property rights have vanished; thus, our privacy rights are gone.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
With my Trace Buster Buster Buster Buster Buster Buster 9000 I will be safe from all, so ha.
What?
Brings to mind the Will Smith/Gene Hackman movie, "Enemy Of The State".
Almost scarey, eh?
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
I agree with you... as it stands, the american gov't (multilevel conglamerate it is) has the ability to sniff out potential "civil disobedience" and eliminate any issues that could occur quite easily. Look at just recently with all the FBI activity related to Militias. (NOT active ones, either.. ones that gathered in case it was necessary to gain our rights back)
Basically, they've made it illegal to gather together as a militia now, which in it's own is unconstitutional.
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
I can actually confirm the existence of the Echelon system. I have spoken with a top level CIA official who has, indeed, confirmed to me that the Echelon project exists. He told me that the government uses KH-11 satelites that can pick up all cell phone and other communication traffic. But he told me that it is not a perfect system. The problem that he described to me is like this: Imagine standing in a resturant full of people. They are all talking at once and all you hear is chatter, you really can't make out any conversations. This is the same problem that the government has with Echelon. They have yet to perfect the system of separating the conversations and pairing them with the respective sources.
SIGFAULT
In this context, here are two definitions for you.
Moron: Somebody who believes that government reading your emails is about catching terrorists.
Terrorists know about Echelon and will use other methods e.g. personal courier - either that or get caught.
Moron: Somebody who says, "They can read my email - I have nothing to hide."
This information can be used retrospectively against you - wait until you get a just cause to fight. The UK government love to put down protesters - as can be seen when they tried to get the dirt on Paddington crash survivors group. This group was lead by the badly injured Pam Warren - whom I presume would have nothing to worry about, having her emails read.
News article: Labour admits second email seeking searches on rail group
Labour has found another email from a government adviser seeking information searches on the Paddington rail campaigners.
The adviser to Stephen Byers, sent a second request for the searches - which have been seen as an attempt to 'dig dirt' on members of the public.
Dan Corry's email to the Labour headquarters at Millbank Tower expressed a wish to find out what was behind the group's criticisms of Stephen Byers.
In it, Mr Corry said: "Any other checking useful. They seem to have an anti-SB agenda and we want to find out what lies behind it."
The department said the second email had been unearthed in a "very thorough" trawl of the email traffic from Mr Byers's special advisers.
A spokesman said it failed to reach the Labour Party owing to "intermittent difficulties" with the system.
The disclosure last week of Mr Corry's original email asking for information about the political affiliations of the Paddington group, prompted bitter accusations that the Government was trying to smear the crash survivors for asking awkward questions.
It led to unreserved apologies from Mr Corry and from new Transport Secretary Alistair Darling.
Story filed: 02:35 Tuesday 11th June 2002
Beware corporate theft of your domain name. Please visit World Intellectual Piracy Organization - not associated with United Nations WIPO.org
That would be Russell's Antinomy, not Cantor's Paradox. Russell's is just the Greek Barber problem in the language of set theory. Cantor's paradox deals with the carninality of the universal set.
Opinions are not Informative, though they may be Insightful or Interesting.
The legaslative is 2-party, and moreover, owned by the same parties.
In the case of the US Federal government those same 2 parties dominate the executive and judiciary, rather subverting the idea of these being independent of each other. Further the same 2 parties dominate every level of government in the US.
The system of greed breeds corporatism. This is what we've developed.
What is it specifically about the USA which has developed this system? There are other representative democracies, even those organised as federal republics, which have considerably more political diversity.
I have posted this basic text before - as nobody has been able to refuted it, I will repost.
What do you think the USA Patriot Act is about?
For those of low intelligence - it is all about Big Brother.
Ask the Security Services in the UK and US to deny this:
Internet surveillance, using carnivore or back doors in encryption, will not stop terrorists communicating by other means e.g. face to face, personal courier or steganography.
Terrorists will have to do that, or they will get caught.
Perhaps using mobile when absolutely essential, saying - Go with plan A (human bomb to target A), or plan B (target B) or abort.
SURVEILANCE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO STOP TERRORISTS - IT IS SPIN AND PROPAGANDA.
It is for several reasons, including: making you feel safer - that the government are doing something and the more malicious motive of privacy invasion.
Government say about surveillance - "you've nothing to fear - if you are not breaking the law"
This argument is made to pressure people into acquiescence - else appear guilty of hiding something.
It does not address the real reason why they want this information - they want a surveillance society.
They wish to invade your basic human right to privacy.
This is like having somebody watching everything you do - all your thoughts, hopes and fears will be open to them.
All your finances for them to scrutinize - heaven help you if you cannot account for every cent when they check on your taxes.
Do not believe the lies of Government - even more money spent on these measures will not protect you from terrorists.
Incidentally, the United States Department of Commerce lies - they know the solution to uniquelly identify all registered trademarks on the Internet. Please visit the World Intellectual Piracy Organization to see it.
That goal will never be achieved because a large advantage of Echalon is its secrecy. Other countries are forced to speculate about what communications are overheard and develop their own cryptography. Even if Echalon were a little Apple IIe sitting in a basement somewhere, everyone assumes America knows what's going on and that's power in itself.
Consider this you have limited capability, limited resources, and a limited budget.
Instead of actually monitoring all communications all the time, you leak stories that you can, and are, but refuse to divulge -any- details, and totally deny it's existance.
Then...
Don't build it, don't do it, and let everyone hunt for your technological Elvis.
Call it Echalon, sit back and laugh while your foes assume you know everything.
I'm not saying it's so, but it sure could be.
>Thing is that things such as face to face meetings, personal courier, steganography (most likely not computer based though), codes (not cyphers) are quite likely amongst the terrorists' prefered methods anyway.
There are several forms of steganography that the terrorist could safely use.
>They probably won't use languages like that though. Something more like if they are going to meet at place A, place B or not bother. How is anyone overhearing this phone call going to know that it's about terrorism?
I was using that as example - it would more likely be "Hello Harry, I will meet you at the bar at the usual time."
>You'd find out that the people involved are terrorists by regular detective work, not through mass surveillance.
I agree with you.
It really annoys me that our governments will con their people like this.
We pay their wages - we deserve the Truth - not this spin and lies.
Like trying to legislate waterflow.
We were tasked to monitor for specific events or types of traffic, not specific people (that's what wiretaps are for, anyway.) We were allowed to copy foreign comms that met the criteria, but not comms involving "US persons"* unless they fell within specified guidelines. If we did "roll tape" on them, we had to remove all personal identification from all transcripts of those conversations.
If we DID hear something involving a crime, we would have to seek permission from the NSA to disseminate it to law enforcement, not a timely process. Even then, we couldn't reveal our source, leading to lines like "Well, we know these guys did it, but we can't tell you how we know." In 10+ years I don't know of a single case where we were responsible for catching a crook.
*The label of "US persons" included citizens, native or naturalized, resident aliens, and businesses incorporated in the US. If the conversation was between a 'US person' and a foreign person, we had to edit out the former in all transcripts, unless they were planning a terrorist act or selling/dealing drugs.
Hmmm. Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
The columnist who wrote this piece claims that George Washington warned that "government, like fire, is a useful servant but a dangerous master." I liked this quote, which I hadn't heard before. However, when I tried to track down the source, I ran across the claim that it is an apocryphal quote which is sometimes attributed to Washington's farewell address, but that its authenticity has not been proven, despite serious efforts to do so. Although I have not checked the sources cited, they appear to be scholarly, and there doesn't appear to be any ulterior motive for those who question the quote to do so.