Slashdot Mirror
Echelon Used to Capture Terrorist
An anonymous reader writes "Echelon was used to track and capture Khalid Sheikh Mohammed." Ahh, bitter sweet victories. The article kind of explains what Echelon is, and pretty much says that those disposable phones really don't have much security at all.
I wasn't even aware that it was acknowledged as existing by most countries, and now the UK is talking about it openly?
I'm still undecided about good vs. evil on Echelon.
If these guys were not such hypocrites, they would never be caught. The Taliban, etc want to take things back to the glory days of the pre-1000 A.D. Muslim empire, except when it is inconvenient (such as using technology like cell phones). If they were more pure in their ideology and kept with the sticks and clubs and swords, they'd be much harder to catch, wouldn't they?
Just because it on the internet doesn't make it so.
Just because a government spokesman says it doesn't make it so.
If your mother tells you that the stork brought you, it doesn't make it so.
Always remain skeptical and ask yourself why they want everyone to have this information.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
It seems it was a tip-off, not Echelon, that ultimately led to Mohammed's capture. Read the article, and you'll see that some lucky Al-Quayda grunt turned coat and pocketed a cool $25 million dollars.
It's in the US's interests to hype Echelon ("Woooo! We can seeeeeee you!") rather than admit they really got their man through good old fashioned bribery and traitors. Sure, Exchelon helped once they KNEW THE GUY'S STREET ADDRESS. But it was pretty much useless until they were told where to look.
Still, good catch. Here's hoping there's another footsoldier of god out there who'll take $25mil in small bills in exchange for Osama's current location.
People, we live in a new world. The same technology that allows us to expose the dirty laundry inside of corrupt organizations can also be used to expose and dirty laundry in your hamper.
The rules of the game have changed. You can no longer sit back and wonder if someone can see what you are doing, good or bad. They either can observe your actions directly, or they can retrieve the records to reconstruct the event. Political parties now have databases of everything someone has said in public, and can quickly cross reference even the most obscure quote. Sportscaster have massive databases of player statistics and can call up on a whim every dropped ball or missed catch.
What begs the question in my mind, is what are the rules of courtesy? When do you draw the line between what can be retrieved and what should be retreived. Too many people assume that just because you can do something you are compelled to do it. That is a fallicy that was first recognized by the greeks.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
Think of it this way. Would you want the government to be pulling something like this on innocent little grandma, or a terrorist who can be a serious threat to people's safety? If he really is the mastermind of September 11th, I'm glad they caught him, no matter how they did it. Remember, even if the government is fucked up and Bush is a moron, they're still trying to protect your ass.
Ah am not a crook! (\(-__-)/)
If Echelon is used fairly and honestly in these types of situations, then I will not complain one bit about the extraordinary secrecy of its network.
In order for Echelon to find Mohammed they had to scan the voices of him and thousands if not millions of others. By design using Echelon on the bad guys requiers using Echelon on the good guys as well.
Trying to protect your ass by continuously 'inspecting' it is not was most people want....
Jeroen
Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
Because (legally, anyway) Echelon can't be used to intercept purely domestic conversations. And the evidence suggests that the anthrax killer is an American, not an international terrorist.
Also, the anthrax killer is probably just one guy, working alone. He probably isn't making cell phone calls to his network of financiers and associates.
four nine eighteen twenty-7 thirty-nine forty-7 fiftyeight sixty-nine seventy-9 eighty-8 one-hundred-and-nine one-twenty
I see this post was buried like this one because it didn't tow the linux ideology line. Here it is again in case anyone missed it:
Echelon did exactly what it was designed to do - catch criminals.
Don't flatter yourselves thinking that the US govt would waste one second of it's time monitoring your calls to the phone sex line or your visits to nakedgeekgrrls.com. Honestly, why would anyone here even begin to think they would use such a powerful tool to find you? Must be a guilty conscience or paranoid delusions of the DMCA police taking your little MP3 collection. They could find you in a heartbeat if they wanted to, WITHOUT using Echelon. Here's a tip for ya - if the feds want you, they'll find you by tax records, credit records, driver's license/registration, etc etc. Now I know you eggheads watched the X-Files (and thought it was a reality show)...they found everyone they wanted without using anything like Echelon.
Catching that crusty, hairy ape was fan-fucking-tastic - one more asshole responsible for the deaths of 3000 of my fellow Americans. If you have a problem with the methods used to capture these boils on the collective asshole of the human race, then I have a serious problem with you. I watched 2 mighty buildings in the greatest city in the world collapse, killing thousands of my countrymen. I won't tolerate any jackass spouting shit about the methods used to capture those fuckheads. Get off the linux/free/communist/socialist ideology and use your goddamn head for once - those responsible need to found, pumped for intelligence, then shot. By ANY means necessary - find them.
...any tool can be a weapon, if you just hold it right.
Take the case of Laci Peterson (sp?) for example. She was the lady in California who dissappeared when she was 8 months pregnant. The police have been looking for her since November or December I think. They've interviewed dozens, if not hundreds of people and probably conducted at least that many background checks on people too. Do they believe that every single person they interviewed was responsible for her dissappearance? Not likely, but how else will they be sure their information is correct unless they look everywhere?
Can Echelon be used on more people more easily? Probably. Is there a potential for abuse? Of course. Is the principle of what it can do new to the world? No, it is just more electronic now than its manpower intensive perdecessors.
-Shadow
Isn't it time to get dirty and fire up the good old spy tricks again? I refuse to belive that the US can fight terrorism for very long by sniffing conunications. Either they will start using heavy crypto (or simply throw out a huge string of random characters, and look at 42, if it happens to be 13, it's time to go ahead) or use code words that won't mean dingy shit to the US super spy computers.
This can't be the way to go forward, and I am not especially impressed by the modus operandi of letting terrorist go free AND pay them, just because they rat on the next in line. By the account all but Usama and Saddam could get out of this both rich and clean...
You're late for a meeting. You're speeding down the freeway. Your phone is tracked going over 140 km/h (safely, mind you, none of that dangerous weaving or close following) and you are billed for the ticket. Two days later, because of repeated incidents, you lose your license.
I'm not fully awake yet, so this may not be the best example... but this is the wonderous future that the simple act of cellphone tracking could bring to you.
The outrage must be felt early enough for something to be done. Once this sort of system is in place, or even in research, you have very little chance of stopping it. By then it will be hyped to the point where your good friend Joe Everyman believes it to be a good and just cause. After all, it saves lives says the Government.
If you don't speed, and have never ever broken one of the many unreasonable laws of your country (regardless of which it is) in your life, please disregard.
Will
http://www.scsinternet.com/~surak/site/
In a similar vein, it was never explained how Colin Powell had a transcript of Bin Laden's last taped message, before the al-Jazeera station even had the tape.
Correction: before al-Jazeera admitted they had the tape publicly. Or do you believe their denial of ever having heard of the tape and then airing it as Powell had predicted?
If al-Jazeera isn't thoroughly compromised internally via both human and electronic assets, than the CIA/NSA aren't doing their job. They're clearly a very likely avenue for tracking OBL. No doubt we knew before half of al-Jazeera did that the tape had shown up in the shipping room.
Correction: before al-Jazeera admitted they had the tape publicly. Or do you believe their denial of ever having heard of the tape and then airing it as Powell had predicted?
I know that the establishment in the USA has now portrayed Al-Jazeera as "baddies", but they they are actually one of the few Arabic languages stations that have a dedication to fair reporting. Not only that, but Qatar (the country where Al-Jazeera is located) is a democracy and what we would call "advanced". Just because they are Arabs does not mean that I am automatically assume what they say is a lie, just as I don't automatically assume that everything the establishment say in the USA is the truth.
The chief editor at Al-Jazeera told the BBC that he didn't have the tape when Powell read the transcript, and said the tape was handed to the station it later in the day. I have no reason to believe he is lying.
Unfortunately it seems that in the USA these days the general population has been brainwashed into thinking "USA - good, moral, truthful... Arabs, Chinese, French, foreigners generally - bad, immoral, liars).
If you do a bit of research into Colin Powell, you will find that he is not quite as squeaky clean as he is currently portrayed.
This 'foot soldier' who got paid 18 M£ just solved the international terrorist business plan:
1- be a terrorist
2- ?
3- cash in
So 2- was not
2- terrorize the world and risk to dye as a martyr
but
2- tip the CIA
Simple enought. He didn't even have to share the cash with his fellow.
Sneak teach kids Algebra using a game
To the extent that the people who planned 9/11 were `oppressed' (remember, Atta and company were children of wealthy families, who studied abroad in Germany, had no trouble coming to the US, and so forth, and bin Laden is, of course, a millionaire many times over), they were oppressed by their own societies, which don't offer free speech, the right to vote, privacy, or any of the concerns people are voicing in this story or this thread.
So tell us: are you really suggesting that the attacks of September 11 were justified or acceptable? Really?
"All I know is if I hear one word from the ACLU about this guy's civil liberties or privacy being violated, I'm going to start hoping they turn into cactus fertilizer."
So long as the Geneva convention and international treaties are followed, you'll not hear a word from the ACLU. I doubt you'd hear much anyway, so long as he's not an American citizen.
The ACLU is an organization dedicated to the defense of the United States Constitution. In effect, they do nothing more than live by the oath that every President swears to. If you have a problem with the defense of the US Constitution, then perhaps another nation (such as China) would be more to your liking.
Now, I've heard plenty of junk blasting the ACLU as a bunch of liberal hippies, but when they're willing to stand up and defend the rights of those such as the KKK, I think it pretty much blows that argument out of the water.
What you say and what you believe may go against every principle and belief that the members of the ACLU stand for, but we will stand up next to you and fight to ensure that you have the right to express those beliefs. I think it's great that we have an organization in this country willing to stand up for the people no one else will, because I believe, as our forefathers did, that when the rights of one are violated, the rights of all are endangered.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
Why use a tired polemical device in this kind
of forum, when it's so obvious?
You say: So tell us: are you really suggesting that the attacks of September 11 were justified or acceptable? Really?
But the parent said:
somebody offered a way out (although arguably not the right way).
Which part of "not the right way" did you choose to ignore in order to advance your point?
Considered harmful.
They were neither justifyable or acceptable, but they doesn't justify or make acceptable the kneejerk reaction of invading EVERYBODYS privacy for some 'war on terrorism'
Jeroen
Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
-United States Constitution, Amendment IV.
reasonable search? I suppose that could be argued. But I don't think that any decent person would agree. What you do is you get people to say "I'm scared, protect me daddy.", and then you ignore the constitution. Judges are human too, so they are just as succeptible to arguments against fear, and for power and greed and anyone else. And that's why we're in this mess.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Actually, you only have to be very afraid if you are not American. Americans can get by with just being afraid.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
The potential for abuse of echelon is still great and that's what, IMO, makes echelon dangerous.
It's not too hard to imagine a world where unrestricted police authority would result in the capture of more criminals.
Do we want to live in this world? (Or, "Do we want to admit we are becoming this world?") Why not?
It's significant that the supporters of such totalitarian policies have now become this bold. The conversation goes something like this:
"Privacy breeds terrorism. You should give up privacy."
"If you advocate privacy, you're advocating terrorism."
"You're hiding something, therefore you must be guilty. Of terrorism."
"You are an enemy combatant."
"No, you may not speak to a lawyer; you could send messages to your terrorist friends."
"No, we will not tell your family where you are. Then your terrorist friends will know we have you, figure out how we caught you, and plug their security hole."
"Mommy, why didn't daddy come home?" "Shh, dear. He was "disappeared" by the secret police. We can't talk about him anymore or they will take us, too."
But that would never happen here. Hooray Echelon.
Those who would trade freedom for... (you know the rest).
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
Great.
I don't care if Echelon is useful, works, or can feed the ducks at a range of 2000 yards, if those running it are unwilling to be honest, but eager to cash in on free publicity. A tool can never be safer or more dangerous than the person it is in the hands of, and I am never more wary when those hands are very very good at media slight-of-hand.
The agencies involved may well be trustworthy, but they have a lousy way of showing it, IMHO. They may have good intents, they may well even be good at protecting those nations they are intended to protect. That's not the point, here. Stage magicians can show you an empty hat and then pull a rabbit out of it. I don't expect the same from a Government agency. This is not going to be good for anybody's confidence, and rightly so.
Please note that I'm not arguing for or against Echelon here, for or against national secrets, etc, or any of that stuff. All I am saying is that smoke and mirrors should NEVER be taken as a sign of sincerety, no matter WHAT the outcome, and that PR stunts are DEFINITELY NOT a sign of trustability. This is definitely a Code Red Skepticism Alert, whether Echelon exists or not.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Actually, the US tries to back regimes that oppose their enemies, their enemies being those with the most anti-democratic, anti-capitalist govts. Unfortunately, they often back govts. that aren't much better than their worst enemies, and it backfires sometimes, i.e. Bin Laden in Afghanistan aginst the Soviet Union (which looked reasonable at the time since they were fighting a foreign invader), or Iraq aginst Iran (which also looked reasonable for awhile since Iran's funcdamentalist govt. looked worse than Iraq's at the time)
Vote for Pedro
>
> Forcing me to have a license plate should be illegal. All the rest of the things aren't those that you should [I'll assume you meant "shouldn't" here -- cars aren't invisible] expect privacy about. Phone communications, you should.
Your driving habits are private - the cops don't pull you over unless you attract their eye. You can pick your nose, sing to the radio, and in some states, even talk on a cell phone without a cop giving a rat's patoot.
Your car color/model is private - unless the cops are on the lookout for a car matching your description, you don't get a second glance. (Not even at the licence plate.) If your car matches the description of a stolen vehicle, you become interesting - someone may punch up the plate to see if the plate matches your vehicle. (In a world without license plates, "Matched the description of a suspect" might be grounds for a traffic stop, so I'll stick with the license plates as the less-invasive solution.)
If the plate matches your vehicle, but the plate's not the one that was reported stolen, the cops know who you are... for about 30 seconds, and then they forget about you because you've ceased to be interesting. If you remain interesting (plate belongs to a Ford Pinto, but is on a Porsche, or the plate matches the vehicle and was reported stolen, or plate and vehicle match, aren't stolen, but you have 20 unpaid traffic tickets :), you're busted, but that's the point.
Your phone calls are private - unless someone's looking for you. If you make a cell phone call, you broadcast who you were calling and when. If you happen to call the Wrong Number (in the big sense of the word), you become interesting, but only momentarily. Suppose KSM's cell phone number was one digit transposed from your favorite pizza joint, and you misdialed it one day. You were interesting for a few moments, but when the contents of your conversation were "Huh? Oh, wrong number", and the rest of your profile checks out asboring, you cease to be interesting. By picking up the phone for the wrong number, KSM gave away his position, which is still very interesting.
My guess is that most of what I described is automated, and that you have to go through multiple levels of "interesting" before a human even becomes aware you exist.
I'm no fan of Big Brother, but IMO, incidental surveillance - be it of your car by the cops or your calling patterns by the Man - is not a threat to your Fourth Amendment rights.
Well, I think the result is a net positive, but of course I have to be anxious that the authorities in control of the Echelon technology do not use it for means that bring about general unhappiness. [ie., imagine any authoritariam regime given that power...]
In the long run, though, I'm saddened that the image of the U.S. (which is increasing battered on the international stage, sometimes correctly, sometimes not), is further tarnished because we are becoming known for invading the privacy of citizens of the world, while ostensibly respecting the 4th Amendment for our own citizens (though with the Patriot Act and the proposed DSEA, that will soon become history).
The United States bolsters the case of those who hate it. The minute "democracy" and a "Bill of Rights" is introduced into a postwar Iraq, the people will spit on their newly found rights, listen to local demogogues, mullahs or others, and vote into a power a new strongman.
Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
Some time ago, I read the most insightful, forward thinking article I've yet seen on the ramifications of advances in technology and their effect on privacy.
It's still up, (after all these years!) The Transparent Society, originally written in Dec 1996.
I can't recommend this strongly enough...
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
Your car color/model is private - unless the cops are on the lookout for a car matching your description, you don't get a second glance.
As long as you get a first glance, then it's not private. You seem to be redefining private from the way I intended it. Car colors and models are public because the average person with the unaided eye can see them. If the police were using night vision goggles or even binoculars then maybe it could be considered a search, but merely observing something in plain view is not a search.
Suppose KSM's cell phone number was one digit transposed from your favorite pizza joint, and you misdialed it one day. You were interesting for a few moments, but when the contents of your conversation were "Huh? Oh, wrong number", and the rest of your profile checks out asboring, you cease to be interesting.
It's quite easy for police to get a warrant to monitor calls to a particular person. It's when they do so without a warrant that I have a problem.
I'm no fan of Big Brother, but IMO, incidental surveillance - be it of your car by the cops or your calling patterns by the Man - is not a threat to your Fourth Amendment rights.
I'm willing to concede that warantless searches of cell phone conversations may be constitutional. I wouldn't consider them fair or honest though.
Frankly I don't care what information the police obtain, as long as no physical damage is caused and they're not allowed to use it against me (without getting a warrant before the search).
So it's not done because it's impractical. But one day it won't be impractical. And then everyone will be watched. All the time.