ACLU Launches Echelonwatch

coldfusion writes "The American Civil Liberties Union in conjunction with EPIC and others has just launched Echelon Watch, a site which tracks developments about the intelligence gathering organization. The site does a good job of collating all of the information that has spread in the last few months. It also contains a 'write to Congress' component." Update: 11/17 09:30 by J : Baccus just informed us that the NSA has applied for a patent on Echelon-related (tapping) technology.

Comments

Okay

[True Dork]

That's it! I'm gonna start a site that watches the people who watch the Echelon people who are watching you watch me watch the people who watch the echelon people.

I think I have officially lost my mind. I'll be back in a bit.

Re:Okay

[Zack]

No, no, no... We're going to have to set up a meta-monitoring system to monitor everyone. We could give everyone Karma based on how the act, and when it gets above a certain level, all of their monitoring gains Score: +1!!

ACLU's "Write you congressman"

[reptilian]

In case anyone is worried that their representatives don't listen to electronic mail, the ACLU's website feature faxes a copy of what you write, rather than using email. I personally have used this feature a couple of times, and have always recieved a response from my congressman (though, my senators chose to ignore it, for whatever reason. probably because they have a lot more constituents).

Even so, if you are going to write your reps, I would suggest writing a snail-mail letter as well. The style in which you write it us up to you, and probably depends on the issue at hand. If it personally affects you, hand-written might be preferable. If that's too much of a pain, ACLU's free-fax system is Good Enough - better than doing nothing at all.

Man's unique agony as a species consists in his perpetual conflict between the desire to stand out and the need to blend in.

a good echelon read..

[discore]

i have posted a very informative echelon article on my little webserver. please dont break it

you may read the article here

i hope you enjoy it.

tyler

Re:Conspiracy

[Ungrounded Lightning]

The meme that conspiracy theories are paranoid ravings is very convenient for actual conspirators.

Throughout history groups of people, especially people in high places, have conspired to obtain power and wealth at the expense of others. Many of these conspiracies were exposed and are now well documented.

Why should that have suddenly stopped in the 1960s?

Now, any particular conspiracy theory may be bogus. But don't be surprised when some of them turn out to be true.

Of COURSE the government spy agencies spy on everybody they can. That's what government spy agencies DO.

Of COURSE corrupt politicians and bureaucrats have given such information to their business cronies. Of COURSE politicians and bureaucrats, corrupt or perhaps otherwise, have given the data to industries in their countries, to give them an advantage over foreign competition. That's government at work.

Of COURSE investigative agencies have targeted politically "troublesome" opposition groups. That's where the trouble comes from, right?

And get ready for the next "Of COURSE" revalations: How investigative and law enforcement organizations have used this information to engage in "dirty trick" campaigns against members of those out groups. "Dirty tricks" that may have turned out to be horrendously damaging and sometimes fatal. Did you think that stuff stopped after COINTELPRO?

Government is a disease masquerading as its own cure.

When mailing your congressperson...

[WombatControl]

...make sure to be nice and polite. Here's a sample you can work off of...

To The Honorable XXXXXXXXXX,

My friends in the MILITIA are concerned about the government's Echelon monitoring system. While were were making BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS for our JIHAD, OSAMA BIN-LADEN told me about this system. I was so surprised that I almost dropped my WEAPONS-GRADE PLUTONIUM into the vat of ANTHRAX. The government shoud not attempt to monitor the private communications of others, even if they're talking about VINCE FOSTER or HILLARY CLINTON. Thank you for your time.

Re:When mailing your congressperson...

[whoosp]

I would laugh, except it's too eerily real.. The archiving of the web and usenet leads to exactly this.

A couple years ago, I found a document from the heavensgate cult people and I found it so amusing that I posted it to a newsgroup at my college. A year later, they all committed suicide and the Associated Press somehow looked up my parents and called them and asked them if I was still alive, operating under the mistaken assumption that since I posted one of their documents I was obviously a self-castrating suicidal maniac. I can't imagine what the result would have been if I'd also posted something anti-government in the same post.. :-)

Anyway, let them intercept my transmissions, then the UK can tell the US about all the porn i've been downloading.

Time to amend an Amendment?

[jalefkowit]

We've almost reached the point where it's less surprising to hear about a government agency that abuses its powers than it is to hear about one that doesn't. It's not just Echelon, either -- abuses abound; for example, CNN is reporting that politicians of both parties regularly lean on the IRS to force audits of their political opponents. Now, I'm generally a politically liberal kinda guy, but in this kind of atmosphere it's not hard to understand why some people feel compelled to keep a firearm in their homes, just in case the Government decides to come after them.

Of course, stocking up arms for the End Times isn't a productive solution, either. It seems to me that the big problem here is that Americans don't have a clear right to privacy in their communications -- we only have patchwork protections from case law, which provides a legal gray area where the government can fit things like Echelon. So what can we, as citizens, do? Well, maybe we should amend the Fourth Amendment, which currently protects your private property from illegal government seizure, to extend to non-physical personal property (i.e. electronic communications) as well.

Currently, Amendment IV reads as follows:

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.

I'd propose adding a few simple words (which I'll denote in bold):

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, effects, and all personal communications, regardless of medium, 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.

Now, IANAL, and I'm certainly willing to be flexible on the wording, but it seems to me that an addition along these lines could have many salutory effects:

• It would finally end the uncertainty as to whether or not Americans have a full-fledged right to privacy by elevating it to the same level as the right to speak freely or bear arms
• It could bring electronic communications up to the same standard of protection as, say, letters you keep in your desk drawer, which AFAIK can't be seized w/o a search warrant
• It would still allow wiretaps for national security or compelling law enforcement purposes, while making huge, broad-based wiretaps like Echelon clearly and undoubtedly unconstitutional
• It would send a powerful message that we're fed up with this kind of unacceptable behavior from our government

Now, I'm generally not a fan of tinkering with the Constitution, which has worked remarkably well for 200+ years. But I'm simply amazed that something as obtrusive, as invasive, as downright un-American as Echelon isn't unconstitutional on its face. In an age of digital communications and restrictions on hard encryption, when it's orders of magnitude easier for the State to intrude on our privacy then it is for us to protect ourselves, I think that a right to privacy is every bit as important to our freedom as are the other rights we enumerate in the Bill of Rights. And if we have to wrest that right back from the state by enshrining it in the highest law of the land, then maybe it's time to do just that.

-- Jason A. Lefkowitz

Re:Time to amend an Amendment?

[Hobbex]

Interestingly, last time I said this on Slashdot it was regarding a very different issue (police on Usenet I believe) but here goes again:

It is wrong to enforce with violence that which can be ensured with intelligence.

The technology (intelligence) to stop ANYONE from imposing on your communication is there already. If you want to be sure that people are not imposing on your communications the choice is yours (see GPG, pgpPhone, etc). Making this a law (violence) can only be harmful, the effort is better spend allowing the technologies to mature and proliferate.

What worries me is when governments like the American attacks the use of intelligence with violence as the have in the Crypto issue.


-
We cannot reason ourselves out of our basic irrationality. All we can do is learn the art of being irrational in a reasonable way.

Re:Time to amend an Amendment?

[Hobbex]

This is actually quite elitist. I see what you're getting at, but this requires that you go to the effort to make sure that you're communications are private which assumes:

I find your idea of what is elitist deeply disturbing. By extension, anything that gives the person willing to think and work towards an end an advantage over he who doesn't is elitist. It figures you are European (disclaimer: so am I) because this is a very Euro-Socialist way of thinking.

Personally, I find your attitude towards this arrogant. I do not presume myself to be any more intelligent than most people, and I don't give myself the right to decide who of the stupid people(sic) is most in need of my forcing protection on them. The "vast majority who do not think about these issues" do so by choice, they are perfectly capable of behaving intelligently regarding issues that are important to them. It is not my place to tell them that privacy should be.


-
We cannot reason ourselves out of our basic irrationality. All we can do is learn the art of being irrational in a reasonable way.

Re:Time to amend an Amendment?

[Hobbex]

• I don't presume myself to be automatically more intelligent than others either, but I do automatically regard myself as more computer literate than the average person based on simple experience. That isn't disciminatory in the least, nor arrogant as I'm not making claims to be the best, merely above average. Considering I'm a Computer Science undergraduate with A-level and GCSE computer qualifications, I think I'm justified in making that claim. Now, I say again - you and I know what we're doing broadly. Our very presence on this site suggests that as a possibility, certainly our participation in this thread suggests marginally more knowledge about this sort of topic than most. Would we gain from this sort of rule? Sure, everyone would. Our gain would be less, though, as we're more capable of using the available barrier technologies. But imagine your example average user again. Do they know this sort of thing is possible? Unlikely, based on my experience. Are they going to know what to do to protect themselves, should they desire such protection? Equally unlikely.

Don't underestimate the market. Were there a broad public interest in secure communications, it would not be as difficult to send secure email as it is today. You cannot get around the fact that the problem here is not one of computer litteracy but one of attitude, people just don't care. Maybe that is because they are under the illusion that they are not being spied on, but my suggestion of simply ending the hypocracy on this subject goes a lot farther towards solving that then passing another, unenforceable, law.

I made my mother get an account on Hushmail so I could communicate with at least moderate security (of course she is using an export netscape, so) for discussing matters that call for it. She had absolutely no problem doing that, but we continue using normal email for most communications, because we just don't care if people are reading.

As for me, I do not agree that I would have anything to gain from it. Another hypocritical unenforceable law for our overbaring behemoth governments to not give a shit about, is not something I consider positive.

• I'm sorry if you think I'm being elitist or arrogant here - I'd consider that I'm mostly trying to defend civil liberties, and this seems to be a way to do it. You, on the other hand, are suggesting that the government and their agencies should be permitted to eavesdrop on our private communications whenever they want for whatever purpose they want, and it's up to us to protect ourselves should we desire. Which I would see as being on a similar level to suggesting that we abolish the police force and hire private security to cover ourselves, though on a knowledge rather than financial elite.

In theory, I do believe that (private security over authoritarian forced upon policing), but I am also pragmatic in my anarchism. I am not naive enough to believe that we can just tear down the disfunctional mal-implemented system of society we have built around us (sort of like a bad routine in software, it isn't working but instead of fixing it we have implemented exception after conditional after hack for every new problem) and expect that something new and working would pop instead. But that does not mean I cannot say no to further movement in the direction of laws to patronise over us rather than being honest and giving the individual responsibility (and don't fool yourself: responsibility == freedom) in a matter where it is so readily available.

-
We cannot reason ourselves out of our basic irrationality. All we can do is learn the art of being irrational in a reasonable way.

Re:Time to amend an Amendment?

[GregWebb]

You cannot get around the fact that the problem here is not one of computer litteracy but one of attitude, people just don't care. Maybe that is because they are under the illusion that they are not being spied on, but my suggestion of simply ending the hypocracy on this subject goes a lot farther towards solving that then passing another, unenforceable, law.

This was my point, TBH - most people simply don't realise that it's an issue so market forces don't kick in as the market is entirely unaware of the possibility. As for suggesting that this is unenforceable, pardon? This sort of law - well, constitutional amendment if you check back to my original proposal, and I'm well aware that I'm debating within the terms of reference of a foreign jurisdiction and I'd still support what I said for the UK - would make evidence gained by such means inadmissable in court. There's certainly been suggestions that the NSA's lstening station at RAF Menwith Hill is being used for commercial espionage, too, which I accept that this wouldn't help hugely as it's not very easy to prove this sort of thing. But ATM it's legal, however undesirable it is. Even if you know they're doing it there's nothing anyone can do to stop them. Make it illegal and you can at least censure them if they're found doing it.

In theory, I do believe that (private security over authoritarian forced upon policing), but I am also pragmatic in my anarchism.

Ouch. The idea that we should all be responsible for our own law enforcement is abhorrent to me and, I would hope, the majority of others here. PLEASE don't let this actually happen.

It might explain why we're having this argument, though, if you would dismantle official law enforcement structures and require us all to make our own provisions. Which is exactly what we have on this issue ATM and exactly what I was opposing, simply as it means you only get rights and protection for an elite. Not good.

That does not mean I cannot say no to further movement in the direction of laws to patronise over us rather than being honest and giving the individual responsibility (and don't fool yourself: responsibility == freedom) in a matter where it is so readily available.

No, I really don't see that parallel in the least. I can accept that you don't like this law, but responsibility == freedom and freedom always being best? No way. While we live in a society governed by human nature, there will always be people who want to abuse something like this. Why is this even being discussed? Because we feel our freedom is being infringed by this system. Do we agree that this infringement is wrong? Yes. So why is it that you are happy for them to continue infringing your right to privacy?

Let's put this another way. Theft. Is it right for me to break into my neigbour's house and steal their posessions? No. So is it legal for me to do so? No. Yet, by extension, you are arguing that I should have the freedom to do that while my neigbour should protect their freedom to retain their posessions by hiring a policeman to stand outside their door or keeping them all locked in safes when they'r not being used. Which is patently ludicrous.

We are (almost) all agreed that we have a right to private communications unless there is strong grounds of suspicion that we might be using such communications to facilitate illegal acts. So why on earth should the various law enforecment agencies have the right to intercept my communications, which they currently do?

Greg

Re:Time to amend an Amendment?

[Hobbex]

• Let's put this another way. Theft. Is it right for me to break into my neigbour's house and steal their posessions? No. So is it legal for me to do so? No. Yet, by extension, you are arguing that I should have the freedom to do that while my neigbour should protect their freedom to retain their posessions by hiring a policeman to stand outside their door or keeping them all locked in safes when they'r not being used. Which is patently ludicrous.

The extension does not (yet) cross the border from the world of mathematics and information to that of physics and meat. The analogy with the car is just as flawed as the same analogy regarding intellectual property (that copying a cd is like stealing a car). Fact is, it is mathematically possible to secure my communications, it is not mathematically possible to secure my car. In one case, the law is necessary, easily verified (you will know if your car has been stolen) and enforceable through finite effort, in the other it is the opposite of all that. I do see a possible future where it may be possible to apply mathematical laws to our physical world, and while I look forward to and strive towards it, I concede that it is far off.

• We are (almost) all agreed that we have a right to private communications unless there is strong grounds of suspicion that we might be using such communications to facilitate illegal acts. So why on earth should the various law enforecment agencies have the right to intercept my communications, which they currently do?

Most of the things that Echelon allegedly does are clearly not legal (such as the NSA keeping tabs on Americans). I have no doubt in my mind that they laugh in the face of the laws and consitution. What makes you think that this law will be any different? Which will be your method of ensuring this? Enforcing it?

I am against it simply because we could spend all our money trying to enforce obedience to this law, start spy agencies to spy on our spies ad inifinum and still not be sure that it is working: or simply encrypt our communications and be sure of it at no cost and ten seconds time spent.

-
We cannot reason ourselves out of our basic irrationality. All we can do is learn the art of being irrational in a reasonable way.

Re:Time to amend an Amendment?

[GregWebb]

The analogy with the car is just as flawed as the same analogy regarding intellectual property (that copying a cd is like stealing a car). Fact is, it is mathematically possible to secure my communications, it is not mathematically possible to secure my car. In one case, the law is necessary, easily verified (you will know if your car has been stolen) and enforceable through finite effort, in the other it is the opposite of all that.

Speaking as a musician here, why should copying a CD be different from stealing a car? I'm no fan of the record industry either, but it's still taking my work without permission or reward.

To get back to the main point, though, I agree about the effort to enforce. Hence my earlier comment: make this illegal and such evidence becomes inadmissable. So what if we can't tell whether they've actually done this? Why would they bother if they couldn't sumbit this as evidence in court or as a justification for a search warrant? The effort then becomes disproportionate to the reward for them. I'd still like to see it as a fundamental right regardless, but I can't see how it's impractical.

Most of the things that Echelon allegedly does are clearly not legal (such as the NSA keeping tabs on Americans). I have no doubt in my mind that they laugh in the face of the laws and consitution. What makes you think that this law will be any different? Which will be your method of ensuring this? Enforcing it?

Actually, as long as the current situation where our data transmissions aren't legally protected remains, I can't see that this is actually illegal. Immoral, sure and against the spirit of the law perhaps, but illegal? No. My point, again, was simple: make it illegal and the evidence becomes inadmissable. At which point they can search as hard as they like, but it's not worth anything other than amusement value to them. So why should they bother?

Greg

Spying on own citizens.

[antizeus]

Governments do spy on their own citizens. For example, the most well-known part of the U.S. federal government which spies on citizens of the several United States is called the "Federal Bureau of Investigation". There are also local organizations called "Police Departments" with certain domestic espionage powers. The whole (alleged) point of Echelon is that organizations which are supposed to spy only on other countries (e.g. CIA) can get dirt on Americans through an information swap.

Good, but could be better.

[Taco Cowboy]

Congrats to ACLU for launching the Echelonwatch.

It is a good project, but it could be better.

Two suggestions:

1. Leave a space at the site, whereby visitors to the site can leave a message to those who administrating the site, with suggestions/comments - or at the very least, an email address where people can email them with questions and/or suggestions.

2. The site listed "intelligence" agencies for Europe, USA, Russia, Isreal and China, but it leaves out secret agencies from other equally dreaded countries such as Japan, Syria, Korea, Indonesia, Libya, Myanmar, Malaysia, Brazil, Singapore; And the site also didn't list the secret police (and hired mercs) working for organizations such as the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization), or the Talibans of Afghanistan.

The fact that I have to leave suggestions over here, and not over ACLU's site means that the site could use an improvement or two.

My hope is someone from ACLU would read this and pass my suggestions to the people who run the Echelonwatch. The site is too valuable for all, and it can be even more valuable if it is made a little bit more user-friendly, and have a wider-ranging coverage.

Thanks.

Think about the consequences people...

[Listen Up]

Alright,
Everybody seems to hate the government and everybody now seems to think that the NSA is the worst thing since AIDS. Alright, let's have every one and their mother write to their congressman to have the NSA just completely shutdown. Then every slimebag on the planet who hates the US will have absolutely nothing to fear. I mean, hey, the US won't have the slightest idea what will hit them. All the Russians, Iraqs, Cambodians, Chinese, Pakistanis, etc. will just have to go to Radio Shack, buy a digital phone and nobody can hear them. Then, they can sit right outside of the White House, plan a conspiracy against the government, kill the president, bomb and kill a ton on innocent people who have nothing to do with it, and then what are we going to say??? Any guesses...oh yeah, that's right...Where was the NSA??? Pooh hooo hooo. How come we didn't see it coming, how come nobody warned us...Pooh hoo hooo. So let's understand that the NSA is there to protect Americans from threats both foreign and domestic and there job is to spy and break codes.
Let's remember, we wouldn't have won WWII without the NSA and their British counterpart...wasn't something of that nature on /. just a couple of days ago? Let's think as people and as a nation about something as important as national security before everyone goes shooting their mouths off. I wrote a letter to my senator and congressmen in support of Echelon and the NSA, and I think you should also.

Re:/. is falling behind

[technos]

Do what I do.. Only view /. on a 8 bit colour X-server, running Enlightenment with the 'Chrome' background, and DO NOT assign Netscape its own colourmap. Everything is sort-of gray green once you stray into the YRO or BSD sections, and not offensive at all.

Anyone know if you can force Win95 to take the old 3.1 schemes? Or does that take a major tweak? (I'm not a Win guy.)

Save ourselves

[mOdQuArK!]

Actually, in a world where technology can make a totalitarian-leaning government (or any other large organization/company with control-freak tendencies) nearly omniscient when keeping tabs on its own populace, the only hope that the populace has to preserve its own rights is to cooperate with each other & use technology to keep tabs on the "surveiller".

The many various little consumer advocacy/corporate/government watchdog groups are a beginning to this kind of self-defensive reaction, but they will have to cooperate with each other in the same way that the government agencies & the big corporate lobbies do in order to be truly effective.

While it's true that those agencies & lobbies have a LOT more money than any of the advocacy groups, almost by definition there are a LOT more of us "non-rich" people than otherwise, and if there was more cooperation going on, we could provide enough balance to their power to keep them from running amuck.