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.

26 of 497 comments (clear)

  1. So, is Echelon good now? by rearl · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:So, is Echelon good now? by gmuslera · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Well, if arsenic is used to kill a killer, is good?

      Tools not have moral, only the ones that use them. But give a tool like that to someone paranoic and it will be bad, very bad.

    2. Re:So, is Echelon good now? by snowsalt · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Evil. Alternate solutions exist that do not involve privacy invasion. I can root out child pornography by putting cameras in everyone's house, but the good end doesn't justify the invasion of privacy.

    3. Re:So, is Echelon good now? by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Everybody tries to monitor as many communications as possible. We know how the anglo- types do it. We don't know how the han- and slav- types do it. That doesn't mean the anglos are any worse than anyone else, necessarily. The question, simply, is whether it serves the purposes outlined in the US constitution. If so, it's perfectly acceptable to me. If that shit ever gets used to monitor someone that is neither a foreign spy nor a foreign soldier, we'll have every reason to go nuts.

      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
    4. Re:So, is Echelon good now? by wfrp01 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The counterargument to this is that if you really want privacy, you need to use strong encryption or simply forget about using mobile phones that way.

      The counterargument to your counterargument is that if you don't want people to break into your house, you should build it out of reinforced concrete, use bank vault doors, and multiple layers of bulletproof glass for your windows. That's silly. Instead, you prevail upon people that breaking into people's homes is bad, and punish people who do it. Must less costly, and quite effective.

      --

      --Lawrence Lessig for Congress!
    5. Re:So, is Echelon good now? by glesga_kiss · · Score: 3, Insightful
      The question, simply, is whether it serves the purposes outlined in the US constitution. If so, it's perfectly acceptable to me.

      It complies with the US constitution, but only to the letter of the law. It is completely against it in spirit.

      Basically, the US agents spy on the UK citizens (it's also illegal here). In return, the UK agents spy on the US citizens. The data is exchanged, everything's all nice and legal.

    6. Re:So, is Echelon good now? by t0ny · · Score: 3, Insightful
      There are some tools with no reasonable purpose besides evil.

      While this instance proves that Echelon can be used for good, who insures that?

      Kind of a baseless arguement- you can state that for anything. A car: driving to work = good, smashing it into a person or loading it with explosives and driving it into an embasy = bad

      Guns: defending your self from kidnappers breaking into your home = good, killing someone during an armed robbery = bad.

      GameCube: Metroid = good, staying up til 3am playing on a worknight = bad

      --

      Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.

    7. Re:So, is Echelon good now? by mangu · · Score: 4, Insightful
      However, there are some tools (nukes, Echelon?) that stretch this limit


      Echelon, maybe, but not nukes. Nuclear weapons have been used for good for the last 58 years. Or do you think such a potentially unstable situation as the cold war would have lasted long without mutual assured destruction?


      If nukes didnt exist, we would continue to have a major war in Europe every few decades, as we had in the last couple of millennia. Nuclear weapons held the balance long enough for the European Union to be created and the Soviet Union to disappear. Considering the amount of destruction and suffering they avoided, few tools can be considered as "moral" as nuclear weapons.

    8. Re:So, is Echelon good now? by Mr.Happy3050 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm not saying that nukes are evil. I merely stated that tools are not inherently good or bad. I did give nukes as an example that "stretched" this line of thinking. MAD worked. But, the primary purpose of nuclear weapons was to destroy, that is why they stetched the line of thinking. Also, you state that the creation of the EU was a good thing. This is debatable. Nation-States giving up parts of their soverignty so Chirac can belittle/bully them later, in my eyes, not completely a good thing.

      --
      "All great truths begin as blasphemies." -George Bernard Shaw
    9. Re:So, is Echelon good now? by enjo13 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not to sound, you know.. anti-Slashdot.. But has anyone ever produced any kind of PROOF that this is the case?

      Maybe I'm not paranoid, but I just don't think our government is nearly as concerned about our daily lives as most people seem to think.

      --
      Turn s60 photos into awesome videos with mScrapbook for all S60 3rd edition phones!
  2. Don't believe everything you read by tkrotchko · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Don't believe everything you read by tkrotchko · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I usually hate typos myself, but every time I spent 20 minutes crafting a post here, I suspect no one reads it. So I put together a 60 second note, re-read it and it has typos. Like this one will, but hey.

      My intention was just to point out that authorities may oversell what they have for a whole variety of reasons... they may want more funding from congress...they may want the enemy to feel insecure and stop using all electronic communications. They may just be boasting.

      But think of Enigma during WWII. US & GB really could read all the intercepts from Germany & Japan. But they didn't tell anybody; in fact they went out of their way to make sure the Axis powers didn't suspect (check out Cryptonomicon by Stephenson for a fictional account). Now all of the sudden they're telling everybody that not only they know what the enemy is saying, but where they're located? But then they pay informants anyway?

      Seems hard to believe on the surface.

      --
      You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
  3. Not Echelon. COLD, HARD CASH. by MightyTribble · · Score: 5, Insightful


    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.

    1. Re:Not Echelon. COLD, HARD CASH. by glesga_kiss · · Score: 4, Insightful
      The suicide bombers don't do it for the money. Most of them have lost familly to whoever they are attacking, and they feel it is the last resort to stike back. Of course, our propaganda makes them look like raving religious zealots, when in fact they are just very pissed off people.

      It doesn't excuse what they do, but it doesn't help the problem by the media lying about their motives.

      Our media presents a very disgraceful bias on these affairs. May I recommend that you take a look at this article, which is an analysis of the fairness of the media reporting.

  4. It is a new world we live in by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I remember when stories like this were science fiction fodder.

    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
    1. Re:It is a new world we live in by Moofie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hey, as long as I can monitor the cell phone conversations of the top FBI brass, the Legislature, the intelligence community, that's just fine. If we're going to have a transparent society, that's groovy baby.

      But we're not. The people making these decisions want THEIR privacy, they just find MINE inconvenient.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
  5. Re:Hate the tech, love the results by Alcohol+Fueled · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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! (\(-__-)/)
  6. Re:As it was intended by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  7. Re:Hate the tech, love the results by pe1rxq · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Trying to protect your ass by continuously 'inspecting' it is not was most people want....

    Jeroen

    --
    Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
  8. Re:If Echelon is that good... by mithras+the+prophet · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  9. In the words of Ani DiFranco... by rfischer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...any tool can be a weapon, if you just hold it right.

  10. Re:As it was intended by Shadow2097 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Every time a criminal investigation takes place, innocent people are likely to be included in police files. Why? Because it is an investigation. How can authorities determine innocence or guilt without gathering information?

    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

  11. ALLEGED Terrorist by Stiletto · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ... or are we going to just skip that whole pesky "due process" thing and just string him up by his nuts in the public square?

  12. Re:UK Royal family... by pubjames · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  13. Re:We can quibble, by Loki_1929 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "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."
  14. Potential for abuse by karlandtanya · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Let's stipulate that catching terrorists is good, and that echelon has been instrumental in catching a terrorist.


    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