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?
Did you know that they can track the location of a mobile phone even if it is turned off, as long as there is some charge left in the battery?
I just read "Killing Pablo", about the hunt for Pablo Escobar, which says that Pablo stopped using his mobile phone because he knew it could be tracked. The book mentions how it was possible to turn it on at night when Pablo was asleep, so it's location could be tracked.
So if you find your mobile suddenly turning itself on in the middle of the night, it's time to get paranoid...
To me, if they were tracking him, that tells that they knew where he was. So, why didn't they just use the tracking from Echelon to capture Mohammed, instead of paying out 27 million to someone else also?
To quote Bill Maher:
Khalid Sheikh Sheikh Sheikh, Sheikh Sheikh Sheikh, Sheikh Mohammed!
Ah am not a crook! (\(-__-)/)
WE GOT ONE!
Mod Karma -1: I sed bad wurds. If I cep my mouf shut, I wud be at riyses.
This guy is a fair and legitimate target for electronic surveilance. He's a know leader of a network of individuals who are dedicated to causing harm to untold millions of people whose biggest crime is living in a country whose ideals he disagrees with. 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.
-Shadow
Looks like mr Mohammed wasn't wearing his tinfoil hat...
We can argue abou the wisdom of echelon, using it, or even writing articles in the papers about it... (Something I think is really not in our national best interest.) 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.
I had a sucky sig.
Considering This and This, He may already be dead.
I find the entire thing suspect personally.
You say you want a revolution....
$25M and a legal visa... terrorism seems to pay well.
that someone made out with $25 million dollars for the tip.
I guess the US saves money in the long run, but it kind of sickens me that in a sense, the US taxpayer is paying some guy for opening his mouth.
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.
Something I've always wondered...
Quite a few years ago, there was a spate of embarrassing phone calls by members of the Royal family that found there way into the press. The phone calls were "acidentally" overhead and taped by amateur radio enthusiasts. There was reported evidence that the phone calls had actually been played repeatedly near the homes of these amateur radio enthusiasts - presumably as a way of leaking the calls without it being traceable back to the leakers.
What has never been explained (or at least I've never come across any explanation in the mainstream press) is who did or might have done this, and why.
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. To me that means either:
1) It was a fabrication or
2) They know where Bin Laden is.
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
If they "had been tracking him for some time", I wonder why they waiting so long to do anything. I suspect that the human intelligence had more to do with it than the alleged use of Echelon. The last person I would believe is some anonymous, talking-head Echelon apologist. I think there is some FUD involved. Exactly how do you provide oversight over a project like Echelon? I think that the system is probably used more to spy on people whose whereabouts are known than to track down some people in some sort of Hollywood "Bourne Identity" drama. If Echelon was designed to be a lost-and-found device that actually found Mohammed, I think you would hear a lot more chest-thumping from the intelligence community. The rest of the article is the real story. The NSA/CIA/EIEIO paid off some guy who sold his boss down the river.
"If you say a lie often enough it becomes truth"... I've never seen nor heard any solid evidence that Echelon exists. But the press has been using the word "echelon" as a common denominator for all intelligence involving electronic surveilance.
Now, I'm not denying it's existence (nor am I trying to start a discussion wether it does or not), I'm just saying that journalists should be more careful when they chose their words.
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! (\(-__-)/)
Trying to protect your ass by continuously 'inspecting' it is not was most people want....
Jeroen
Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
Given what little we now know about Echelon's capabilities, how could you avoid identification and triangulation? Encrypted phones only help so much. They disguise your voice and the content, but they narrow down the monitoring pool, since only so many people in the world will have or use encrypted wireless phones. Echelon can simply triangulate ALL of the encrypted calls and narrow the search to the most likely targets. Using multiple anonymous wireless phones clearly doesn't help; the subject of this article was caught despite their use. Should the you leave the phones connected all the time, and fill the air time with idle chatter? Should you use wireless voice-over-ip in an anonymous setting, such as an Internet cafe? How can you initiate a real time voice conversation with who you want, when you want, without revealing your own identity, location, or conversation content? If I understand the implications of this article, the solution does not involve wireless phones.
Sometimes I worry that I'll develop Alzheimer's disease, but no one will notice.
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
...any tool can be a weapon, if you just hold it right.
It seems that a lot of people are saying that it's good that the terrorist was caught, but that the goverment should be able to spy like that on us? Shouldn't the government be able to spy on terrorists? If you have dealings with a terrorist (either on purpose or by mistake) you can get caught by a LOT of other means, and then you'll have a bunch of things to explain.
Some weeks ago, the store that my parents own was robbed. They put a gun to my father and mother. They even put a gun to my 4 year old sister. Luckily no one was hurt. They also stole my father's cell phone, and even answered when we called. Do you think that I would be happy to be "tracked" by my phone's location, just so those assholes could have been caught? I sure will.
please excuse my apathy
...what, you mean like using it to leak commercial information to your nation's companies for commercial gain? already happened! ask the french! http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/sisaus.htm
True, valid point. But I for one would not mind being 'inspected'/'watched'/etc if it meant that I was being kept safe. I hardly talk on the phone, I don't care if someone knows that I've downloaded hot_blonde_lesbians.avi, or whatever. People are going to have to realize that hey, ever since 9-11, everyone's gonna have to give up some privacy. There should be a limit as to how much, though. But if my being watched is part of keeping me safe, then let them watch away.
Ah am not a crook! (\(-__-)/)
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...
I doubt he was using a disposable phone -- probably it was a Swisscom prepaid SIM. Swisscom SIMs can be purchased without ID and unlike many other prepaids can be used to make international calls. That by itself is not unusual, but using such a SIM in Pakistan probably got the attention of the American government.
For those who don't know what SIMs are -- they are consumer-inserted subscriber ID cards found in all GSM phones (normal cell phones outside the US).
9-11 didn't happen because people had to much privacy...
It happened because people were opressed and somebody offered a way out (although arguably not the right way). That is were you have to change things. Preventing somebody from blowing himself up is done by taking away the need for such an act.
Jeroen
Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
It was the Patriot Act that enabled authorities to use foreign intelligence...something to think about.
If your bitterest enemies are people who hack the heads off civilians, then I would say you're doing something right.
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
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/
911 happened because the FAA had a huge hole in their security. Box cutter knives were legally allowed to be carried on airliners. Without them, those planes would not have been hijacked.
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
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.