FC: Stu Baker replies to Echelon post, defends U.S. intel agencies

From: Declan McCullagh (declanat_private)
Date: Wed May 30 2001 - 10:23:09 PDT

  • Next message: Declan McCullagh: "FC: Con man bilks MS, Valley investors out of millions, DOJ says"

    **********
    In response to: http://www.politechbot.com/p-02078.html
    **********
    
    From: "Baker, Stewart" <SBakerat_private>
    To: "'declanat_private'" <declanat_private>
    cc: "Albertazzie, Sally" <SAlbertazzieat_private>
    Subject: RE: More on Echelon, intercepts, and a quick history lesson
    Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 12:10:43 -0400
    
    Declan,
    
    Jonathan is right, your rant notwithstanding.  The people who choose careers
    in national security do it mainly for reasons of patriotism, and certainly
    not so they can be part of a patronage machine.  Such a use of intelligence
    would be reported quickly to Congressional oversight bodies that have often
    been in the hands of the opposition party.
    
    To do corporate espionage, there would have to be an intimate relationship
    between intelligence agencies and the US corporate sector, a relationship of
    a kind that has never existed in our country.  Since such relationships do
    exist in other countries, though, including some European countries, it's
    easy to see why Europeans keep suspecting the US of corporate espionage.  Of
    course, that also suggests that at least some European intelligence agencies
    are doing corporate espionage -- against both the US and their fellow EU
    members.  Remarkably, given all the handwaving in this report about the risk
    of US corporate espionage, the report says little or nothing about the risk
    that some EU members are spying on corporations from other EU members.
    Since that's a problem the European Parliament actually could do something
    about fairly efficiently, the determined focus on US capabilities suggests
    that this effort is more about disrupting the US-UK intelligence
    relationship than about the problem of corporate espionage.
    
    Stewart Baker
    Steptoe & Johnson LLP
    1330 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
    Washington, DC 20036
    phone -- 202.429.6413
    email fax -- 202.261.9825
    main fax -- 202.429.3902
    sbakerat_private
    
    **********
    
    To: jonathan.winklerat_private
    cc: declanat_private, duncanat_private
    Subject: Re: FC: More on Echelon, intercepts, and a quick history lesson
    In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 30 May 2001 10:07:37 EDT." 
    <5.0.2.1.0.20010529122647.020d3b00at_private>
    Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 16:10:40 +0100
    From: Ian BROWN <I.Brownat_private>
    
    You wrote:
     >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?
    
    Declan replied:
     >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...
     >
     >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.
    
    The procedures for deidentifying and routing intelligence to commercial
    companies seem to be substantially in place...
    
    From: "Armin Medosch" <arminat_private>
    To: nettime-lat_private
    Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 12:32:06 +0200
    Subject: <nettime> Echelon: new documents on economic espionage and human 
    rights
    
    ...
    
    Four new studies on "Interception Capabilities - Impact and
    Exploitation" were commissioned by the Temporary Committee on
    the Echelon Interception System of the European Parliament in
    December 2000. They cover the use of communications
    intelligence (COMINT) for economic purposes, legal and human
    rights issues, and recent political and technological developments.
    Among the key topics covered are the documentary and factual
    evidence for the existence of the COMSAT (communications
    satellite) intercept system known as "ECHELON".
    
    These studies were presented to the Echelon Committee at its
    Brussels meeting on 22 and 23 January 2001...
    
    IC2001, paper 2: COMINT impact on international trade
    http://www.heise.de/tp/deutsch/special/ech/7752/1.html
    
    Paper 2 sets out, with detailed sources, the case that from 1992 to
    date Europe is likely to have sustained significant employment and
    financial loss as a result of the U.S. government policy of "levelling
    the playing field", introduced in 1991.   It also refers to:
    
    Annexe 2-1
    Background papers about the U.S. Trade Promotion Co-ordinating
    Committee (TPCC) and the Advocacy Center, including statements
    of purpose
    http://www.heise.de/tp/deutsch/special/ech/7743/1.html
    
    Annexe 2-2
    A questionaire for U.S. companies to answer in order to determine
    whether or not they are deemed "American" and thus qualify for
    official assistance.
    http://www.heise.de/tp/deutsch/special/ech/7744/1.html
    
    The questionnaire is also on the internet
    http://www.ita.doc.gov/td/advocacy/question.htm
    
    Annexe 2-3
    Documents revealing the CIA's role in U.S. trade promotion,
    obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.
    http://www.heise.de/tp/deutsch/special/ech/7749/1.html
    -- 
    "Nobody wants to type in a credit card number without getting something you 
    can hold in your hand. Otherwise, porn wouldn't be the only really 
    profitable e-commerce model." --suck.com
    
    **********
    
    From: "Armin Medosch" <arminat_private>
    To: declanat_private
    Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 18:06:32 +0200
    Subject: Re: FC: More on Echelon, intercepts, and a quick history lesson
    Reply-to: arminat_private
    In-reply-to: <5.0.2.1.0.20010529122647.020d3b00at_private>
    
    On 30 May 01, at 10:07, Declan McCullagh wrote:
    
     > 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.
    
    Its not that difficult. The Clinton administration  created the trade promotion
      co-ordinating comitee and the advocacy center.
    Look at
    http://www.heise.de/tp/english/inhalt/te/7753/1.html
    
    yours
    Armin
    
    **********
    
    
    
    
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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/
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed May 30 2001 - 10:26:32 PDT