[FYI] (Fwd) FC: More on Echelon, intercepts, and a quick history les

["Axel H Horns" <horns@ipjur.com>]

------- Forwarded message follows -------
Date sent:      	Wed, 30 May 2001 10:07:37 -0400
To:             	politech@politechbot.com
From:           	Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
Subject:        	FC: More on Echelon, intercepts, and a quick history lesson
Send reply to:  	declan@well.com


********

From: jonathan.winkler@yale.edu
Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 20:31:09 -0500
To: <declan@well.com>
Subject: Re: FC: Echelon exists and is not that bad, European
Parliament cmte says

Declan,

<snip>
In a 250KB draft report, the committee said that Echelon -- operated
by English-speaking countries including the United States, Canada and
Great Britain -- is designed for intelligence purposes but that no
"substantiated" evidence exists that it has been used to spy on
European firms on behalf of American competitors. <snip>

David Kahn, author of Codebreakers, and I spoke last December at a
conference at Yale about this question of signals intelligence for
corporate espionage.  I had given a paper on allegations by US firms
in the 1915-1921 period that the British were using their control of
submarine telegraph cables to do the same thing.  With much less
traffic relative to now, allegations and evidence was somewhat easier
to come by.

What David and I agreed upon, however, was that it would seem to be
all but impossible for a US (or UK, in the earlier case) government
agency to come up with a way to distribute the corporate intelligence
equitably to the beneficiary companies.  If, for example, the US
learned a French firm were going to bid low on an important contract,
how on earth would it decide which US firm to provide the information
to without the others spilling the beans?

In the earlier case, intelligence historians are going to turn their
attention to the British Board of Trade records to see what was going
on. What sort of circumstantial evidence are the Europeans relying
upon to bolster their case, have they any explanation for how
difficult it would be to pass on such information, and how does the US
refute it (beyond the usual 'no comment)?

Regards,

Jonathan Winkler
PhD Candidate, Yale University
Smithsonian Fellow, National Museum of American History

**********

My response:

I respectfully disagree with Jonathan's position, at least as I
understand it. Much has changed since the early 1900s, and the
executive branch now is entirely capable of picking corporate
favorites in the marketplace.

Not only is this not unprecedented; it's common. Just look at the
well-heeled Democratic-donating execs who bought their way on board
Ron Brown's Commerce department excursions. Bush II is hardly any
different. Just look at the recent flap over Republican-donating
businessmen being feted at the White House and Naval Observatory
(http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/politics/917077).

I admit that the NSA has a far greater interest in keeping its sources
secret than the White House does in rewarding donors. And I have not
seen reliable evidence showing Echelon intercepts are used in this
manner. But saying that it is "impossible" for the executive branch to
dole out information "equitably" seems to me misses the point: Modern
politics is all about favorites -- and, as both major parties say,
donor maintenance -- not equitability.

-Declan

**********

Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 15:36:02 -0400
From: "James Lewis" <JALewis@CSIS.ORG>
To: <declan@well.com>
Subject: Re: FC: Echelon exists and is not that bad, European
 Parliament cmte says

Hi:

people might want to look at some New Zealand Government sites that
discuss the issue NZ has been the most open of the governments
involved (see the second link below).  We're also putting an analysis
on our website in the next day or two.

http://www.dpmc.govt.nz/dess/securingoursafety/index.html

http://www.dpmc.govt.nz/dess/securingoursafety/gcsb.html

http://www.dpmc.govt.nz/dess/securingoursafety/sons2000.pdf

**********

Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 11:12:50 -0700
From: Bruce Gowens <bgowens@home.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en]C-AtHome0405  (Win98; U)
To: declan@well.com
Subject: Re: FC: Echelon exists and is not that bad, European
Parliament cmte
  says
References: <20010524121640.A10997@cluebot.com>

         And just before I read this, I read a SlashDot item about the
NSA tapping fibre cables.  Story at:
http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2764372,00.html

**********

Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 09:26:03 -0700
From: lizard <lizard@mrlizard.com>
To: declan@well.com
CC: politech@politechbot.com
Subject: Re: FC: Echelon exists and is not that bad, European
Parliament cmte
  says

Declan McCullagh wrote:
 >    In a 250KB draft report, the committee said that Echelon --
 operated >    by English-speaking countries including the United
 States, Canada and >    Great Britain -- is designed for intelligence
 purposes but that no >    "substantiated" evidence exists that it has
 been used to spy on >    European firms on behalf of American
 competitors. >
Well, THAT'S a relief! I'm sure most people's first thought, when they
heard of the system, was "Gosh! I sure hope they only use this to
track my email to my friends, and not to conduct industrial
espionage!"

**********




----------------------------------------------------------------------
--- POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing
list You may redistribute this message freely if you include this
notice. To subscribe, visit
http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html This message is
archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
---

------- End of forwarded message -------