[107486] in Cypherpunks
Re: Suggestion for Public Echelon counter-measures
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ian Briggs)
Fri Jan 15 00:34:00 1999
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 21:19:26 +0000
To: Dutra de Lacerda <dulac@ip.pt>
From: Ian Briggs <ian@deepwell.com>
Cc: cypherpunks-unedited@toad.com
In-Reply-To: <4.1.19990111172800.009456a0@pop.ip.pt>
Reply-To: Ian Briggs <ian@deepwell.com>
> 'Terrorists' do not speak plainly on phones nor do plan actions by mail.
>Not now, not before echellon was known (taps always existed), nor ever.
Several people have commented that "Terrorist do not speak plainly on
phones..."
Could you please quote what research document you are getting this
information from
and/or what your field specialization is that would allow you to make an
educated statement like this.
Unless someone here has intimate knowledge of terrorism modus operandi
concerning communications
then the above assumptions basically unproven and one would have no idea
how successful
communication monitoring is, when concerning terrorism.
>Now: Who does speak and write in plain words?!?
>The People... Companies... Scientific Research... and some more groups.
>Each target... At least one objective.
The rest of the argument, although probably true in fact, is basically just
one big slippery slope.
No one knows, nor has there been any good proof (or at least a couple
hints that the US government's)
echelon system monitors and USES the private corporate sectors information.
The government could get most corporate secrets simply by looking them up
in the patent application database.
That would be much easier that actually piecing together a couple dozen
conversations and reassembling them into
a linear piece of useful information, assuming that any one conversation
would flow linearly, that the person has 100% of
the information, that at least a useable amount of information is
communicated outside the company or in a manner that
Echelon can intercept, assuming that the technology or information is in
ANY way valuable to the US government's, assuming...
Get what im saying?
>>Tomorrow you can predict how 99% of the sheeple will "think" about it.
So can most polls, and generally any well educated person who deals with
the teeming masses of humanity.
Case in point, ABC's webmaster putting up some practice points concerning
the Nations elections.
>After few years you know what public will do and how much more it can take
better than the
>public itself.
So do most Public relations firms. If Echelons so good, how come we didn't
see the FALL OF THE SOVIET UNION?
Or the DETONATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS in India and Pakistan? <the later
being on the front cover of the local
news paper>.
>>That is the purpose of Echelon AND THOSE OTHERS, UNNAMED YET, harvesting
>>networks.
>
>Not only: Economic and Scientific Intelligence are two other major objectives.
>The first had proved determinant in "pushing" the USSR to it's end and is
also
>used in the war with Japan and Europe. Main beneficiary are some huge
>corporations.
You have examples to site proof that Echelon was used in any of the above
statement? Or that the economical
"war" with Japan and Europe? Or that the main beneficiaries are some
<rather vague> huge <rather vague> corporations?
Im not saying that corporate espionage doesn't happen. Im saying that
there is no proof, nor even a well defined argument
that points to the conclusions concerning Echelon.
>>THE GOVERNMENT BECOMES SUPERIOR OPPONENT - they know what
>>you are going to do (on average) better than you do. They know your circle
>of friends and their friends.
So does my phone company, as they know what numbers I dial. No one knows
what I am going to do better than I do.
Im the one that inniates my behavior.
>"Knowledge is Power"... This is a major rule... But "Power Corrupts" is
forgotten.
Most people know the Power Corrupts ... quote its relatively common in
mainstream society and especially in movies.
>>I would not be surprised if they are selling digested opinions about products
>>to the industry as a side job.
I would. Why would the NSA need a site job?
>>The only way to fight this is wide spread use of encryption.
>>Teaching someone to use PGP is not that much harder than explaining the
>use of a new .sig.
Very true.
I don't mean to seem to attack your post specifically. Im just pointing
out that wide spread speculation about
Echelon does not contribute to a discursion of the impact of a global
listening system any more than talking about the
X files would validate an alien technology / US Military theory.
Ian Briggs
RebelBase
