FITUG e.V.
Förderverein Informationstechnik und Gesellschaft
FITUG e.V.Förderverein Informationstechnik und Gesellschaft |
|
------- 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 -------