FC: Marc Rotenberg replies to Stu Baker on Echelon, advises hearings

From: Declan McCullagh (declanat_private)
Date: Thu May 31 2001 - 06:17:42 PDT

  • Next message: Declan McCullagh: "FC: MPAA's lead attorney replies to Politech post on DeCSS case"

    *********
    In response to: http://www.politechbot.com/p-02080.html
    Background: http://www.mccullagh.org/cgi-bin/politech.cgi?name=echelon
    *********
    
    Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 13:49:43 -0400
    To: declanat_private
    From: Marc Rotenberg <rotenbergat_private>
    
    To put this debate in some perspective, it is important to
    understand that the Echelon inquiry of the European Parliament
    began with a very real concern about US economic espionage
    based on the loss of certain commercial contracts and prior
    experience with electronic surveillance of European trade
    officials.
    
    But that is not where the report ends up. The final report
    makes clear that electronic surveillance raises far-reaching
    issues concerning the rights of citizens and the need for
    government accountability. It cites international human
    rights instruments, such as the Universal Declaration of
    Human Rights. It urges adoption of better techniques, such
    as encryption, to safeguard private communications. It draws
    attention to growing concerns about surveillance by EU
    countries. It is the most far-reaching report to date on
    the extent of electronic surveillance by government.
    
    I think Jim Bamford describes the problem well in his
    recent book _Body of Secrets_ when he says:
    
       The issue for Europe is not whether UKUSA's Echelon
       system is stealing trade secrets from foreign
       businesses and passing them on to competitors; it
       is not. The real issue is far more important: it is
       whether Echelon is doing away with individual privacy
       -- a basic human right.
    
    Bamford concludes:
    
       Unchecked, UKUSA's worldwide eavesdropping network
       could become a sort of cyber secret police, without
       courts, juries, or the right to a defense.
    
    His words are eerily reminiscent of the warning from
    Senator Frank Church almost thirty years ago that if
    the NSA were ever allowed to use its powers domestically,
    "No American would have any privacy left. . . . There
    would be no place to hide."
    
    In many respects, the Report of the European Parliament
    on Echelon is similar to the Church Committee report and
    fulfills one of the key tasks of public officials -- to
    hold government accountable for its actions.
    
    Patriotism, it would seem to me, now requires the US Congress
    to begin the investigation that is has too long delayed into
    the growing surveillance capabilities of the US intelligence
    agencies.
    
    Marc Rotenberg
    EPIC
    
    *********
    
    Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 15:20:09 -0700
    To: declanat_private
    From: John Young <jyaat_private>
    Subject: Re: FC: Stu Baker replies to Echelon post, defends U.S. intel
       agencies
    In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.0.20010530131834.0299aec0at_private>
    
    Stewart Baker makes a surprising statement:
    
     >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.
    
    No US intelligence agency operates without close, usually long-term,
    relationships with its corporate suppliers for a very wide range of products
    and services. There also exchange personnel for particular tasks.
    They attend conferences and continuing eduction programs together.
    They share experiences in foreign countries. Ex-members of intel agencies
    work for corporations, set up corporations, and some thereafter return
    to the agencies, and then back to corporations. They mutually teach
    and recruit and give references. They spin in concert, they sometimes
    disagree and make up. They belong to intelligence alumini organizations
    and go on retreats and travel to foreign forums to backslap and enjoy
    the benefits of hawking sometimes stale information as if pure gold.
    
    The only thing that distinguishes US intelligence beneficiaries from
    their foreign competitors is the faint difference in moxie, in protestations
    of innocence, in swearing others do what we do not, never did, never
    will. That story changes to be sure when a bestseller is written to
    beat the homeland competition. What spies and their groupies do to
    stigmatize renegades is wondrous. The less these spokespeople
    know about the true innards of intelligence the louder they advertize
    hire me.
    
    *********
    
    Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 14:18:26 -0400
    To: declanat_private
    From: e cummings <berniesat_private>
    Subject: Re: FC: Stu Baker replies to Echelon post, defends U.S. intel
       agencies
    Cc: SBakerat_private
    In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.0.20010530131834.0299aec0at_private>
    
    At 01:23 PM 5/30/01 -0400, SBakerat_private wrote:
    ...
    
    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.
    ...
    
    stewart baker's assumption is false.  u.s. intelligence agencies routinely 
    work with high-level u.s corporate officials to "employ" undercover 
    operatives in target countries.  during the covert operation (which in many 
    cases lasts for years) the u.s. intelligence agency operative functions as 
    a normal u.s corporate employee abroad, and is paid soley by the selected 
    u.s. corporation to avoid any potential exposure.  the operative's 
    intelligence duties are done 'on the side' without further financial 
    compensation.
    
    this was personally explained to me by tony mendez while i visited his home 
    last fall.  tony is a former high-ranking CIA intelligence officer.  his 
    recently published book, "The Master of Disguise - My Secret Life in the 
    CIA" is worth reading: http://www.themasterofdisguise.com/
    
    it is hardly a stretch to assume that u.s. intelligence agencies would, in 
    turn, informally return the favors of u.s corporations (via the same secure 
    channels they were initially transacted through) by occasionally passing on 
    economic intelligence information of value to the u.s. corporation that 
    provided that agency with assistance.
    
    
    -bernieS
    "CALEA's first Casualty"
    
    *********
    
    From: jonathan.winklerat_private
    Received: from pantheon-po04.its.yale.edu (0@pantheon-po04.its.yale.edu 
    [130.132.143.35])
               by smtp.well.com (8.8.5/8.8.4) with ESMTP
               id MAA03857 for <declanat_private>; Wed, 30 May 2001 12:17:11 
    -0700 (PDT)
    Received: from esquiline (esquiline.its.yale.edu [130.132.50.21])
             by pantheon-po04.its.yale.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id PAA23519;
             Wed, 30 May 2001 15:17:02 -0400 (EDT)
    MIME-Version: 1.0
    Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 15:17:01 -0500
    Message-Id: <991250221.webexpressdV3.1.fat_private>
    To: "Ian BROWN" <I.Brownat_private>, <declanat_private>
    Subject: Re: Re: FC: More on Echelon, intercepts, and a quick history lesson
    X-UIDL: acba714051081ea978a6a4e35463eeff
    
    Declan and Ian,
    
    At first I thought my note came across as a bit naive, but now I believe
    I'll stand by it, with clarification.  The United States certainly
    gathers intelligence on foreign commercial activities all the time from
    a variety of sources, and most of these certainly are passed on to U.S.
    firms where appropriate.  Part of the U.S. diplomatic effort abroad has
    always been assisting U.S. firms doing business overseas.
    
    However, I haven't seen much evidence to distinguish between commercial
    intelligence gathered by U.S. diplomats or the CIA and that obtained
    specifically through signals intelligence (the Echelon system).  My
    question would have to stand: is there evidence, anecdotal or otherwise,
    that would suggest the capture of sensitive commercial information
    through the Echelon system that could not have been obtained in another
    manner?  The European complaint seems to be against the Echelon system,
    and its potential use for industrial espionage, not against industrial
    espionage per se.  The distinction isn't clear.
    
    The materials contained in the links sent by Ian are a case in point.
    The documents on Indonesia identify that CIA people sat on a committee
    to discuss encouraging trade with that country, but does not indicate
    how signals intelligence specifically is brought in to help US firms.
    Doing so, given the volume of traffic on the cables and the satellites,
    would be a serious drain on the NSA's resources:  how would they
    prioritize US businesses over other more pressing militaryor diplomatic
    matters?
    
    As for the historical example, I've turned up evidence that some in the
    State Department believed the British cable companies were themselves
    turning over copies of traffic to other British companies, and that the
    British government was out of the loop on the matter.
    
    Thanks,
    
    Jonathan
    _____________
    
    Ian replied:
    The procedures for deidentifying and routing intelligence to commercial
    
    companies seem to be substantially in place...
    
    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.
    
    *********
    
    Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 16:17:20 -0400
    To: declanat_private
    From: Ed Stone <estoneat_private>
    Subject: Re: FC: Stu Baker replies to Echelon post, defends U.S. intel
       agencies
    
    >From: "Baker, Stewart" <SBakerat_private>
    >To: "'declanat_private'" <declanat_private>
    ><snip>
    >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.
    
    They do however take orders and are allowed only piecemeal views into the 
    meaning and use of their secretly gathered and secrety utilized harvest. 
    Compartmentalization, multi-billion dollar budgets, staffs in the thousands 
    and secrecy protected by threat of imprisionment are a sufficient 
    combination to permit, if not encourage, misdeed of this near absolute 
    information power. Two or three staff members among the White House 
    National Security Advisor's staff (remember "plumbers"? Ollie North?) 
    operating "independently" (if caught) would be a sufficient core to have a 
    conversation with a Commerce Department undersecretary of political 
    origins. Alternatively we can believe that our intelligence services would 
    out of principle not deploy information regarding our largest exporter 
    (aviation/aerospace) getting its head handed to it by foreign competitors.
    
    >   Such a use of intelligence
    >would be reported quickly to Congressional oversight bodies that have often
    >been in the hands of the opposition party.
    
    But foxes being foxes, neither the red nor gray foxes confuse themselves 
    with the chickens.
    
    
    >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.
    
    The Glomar Explorer was built on open bids? You can provide certification 
    of Ron Brown's conversations related to NIST leakage of interest to 
    commercial entities? An NSA General has no list of former DOD 
    undersecretaries now scattered in the Fortune 100? Our intelligence 
    services have neither experience nor capability in conveying information 
    (or explosives) with adequate cutouts and plausible deniability? We now 
    know from Mr. Bamford's book that the Joint Chiefs in the 60's looked 
    favorably on an intel proposal to kill Americans on US streets so it could 
    be blamed on Cuba as pretext for invasion, but we are to believe they draw 
    the line at commercial espionage that would benefit the US?
    
    *********
    
    Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 13:04:45 -0700
    From: "James J. Lippard" <lippardat_private>
    To: Declan McCullagh <declanat_private>
    Subject: Re: FC: Stu Baker replies to Echelon post, defends U.S. intel agencies
    
     > 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
    
    See Laton McCartney, _Friends in High Places: The Bechtel Story_, 1988,
    Simon & Schuster.
    
    -- 
    Jim Lippard        lippardat_private       http://www.discord.org/
    PGP Key ID: 0xF8D42CFE
    
    *********
    
    Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 10:49:50 -0700
    From: lizard <lizardat_private>
    To: declanat_private
    CC: politechat_private
    Subject: Re: FC: Stu Baker replies to Echelon post, defends U.S. intel agencies
    
    Declan McCullagh wrote:
     >
     > **********
     > 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.
    
    'Patriotism:The first refuge of a scoundrel.' (Samuel Johnson)
    
    People join the army out of patriotism, too. This doesn't mean they
    don't end up blowing up buildings in Oklahoma City.
    
    *********
    
    From: "Jones, Greg" <greg.jonesat_private>
    To: "'declanat_private'" <declanat_private>
    Subject: RE: Stu Baker replies to Echelon post, defends U.S. intel agencie
             s
    Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 14:06:50 -0400
    
    I have to respond -- the sophistry is killing me.
    
    To allege that there has never been an intimate relationship between
    American intelligence agencies and corporate America is absurd.  That
    expects us to ignore the existence of politics, politicians, special
    interests, corruption, and the entire defense industry.
    
    American arms and money delivered to third world despots by the CIA or other
    agents of the Intelligence Community are a cliche.  No one believes that
    those adventures were financed by purely private, well-meaning patriots from
    their own pockets.
    
    Finally, we have the recent case of the rogue FBI agent selling secrets, and
    what protection would there be to prevent such behavior on an industrial
    espionage basis?  It would only take an "intimate" relationship between two
    people.  Just two!
    
    To expect us to believe that such a relationship "has never existed in our
    country" and therefore could never exist denies the very existence of
    Echelon, itself, which could not have been developed and implemented without
    an intimate relationship between the American intelligence agencies that use
    it and the corporate American entities that produced its components, made
    connections to the network possible, and maintain the system.
    
    As the Brits would say, "Pull the other one, it has bells on."
    
    *********
    
    
    
    
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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 : Thu May 31 2001 - 06:23:15 PDT