From the New York Times of May 27, 1999:
The report, entitled “Development of Surveillance Technology and Risk of Abuse of Economic Information”, was published on May 10 and provides a detailed account of Echelon and other intelligence monitoring systems.
According to the report, Echelon is just one of the many code names for the monitoring system, which consists of satellite interception stations in participating countries. The stations collectively monitor millions of voice and data messages each day. These messages are then scanned and checked against certain key criteria held in a computer system called the “Dictionary.” In the case of voice communications, the criteria could include a suspected criminal’s telephone number; with respect to data communications, the messages might be scanned for certain keywords, like “bomb” or “drugs.” The report also alleges that Echelon is capable of monitoring terrestrial Internet traffic through interception nodes placed on deep-sea communications cables.
While few dispute the necessity of a system like Echelon to apprehend foreign spies, drug traffickers and terrorists, many are concerned that the system could be abused to collect economic and political information. [bold mine]
Well, those “few” who dispute the necessity of a system like Echelon to apprehend foreign spies, drug traffickers and terrorists, now evidently includes the New York Times. The newspaper appears to have forgotten entirely about the Echelon program they once reported on. Selective amnesia? Of course anyone with a computer can get plenty of info on Echelon and the NSA dated 1998, 1999, etc. when another administration was in place. I can remember reading about it in various quarters and remarking to people how all our email and cell phone calls were scanned for key words. Our lives were no longer private. It was hardly secret, in fact pretty close to public knowledge – to everyone but Chuck Schumer apparently.
PJM Home
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
10 Comments
1. WichitaBoy:People are spewing data these days like there’s no tomorrow. Yes, we’ve all known about Echelon for years. They’ve probably upgraded it a bit in the last five years; I hope they’ve upgraded it.
What scares me more, and what seems to get no attention whatsoever, are the similar programs being run by private entities, such as Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, the Russian Mafia, etc. The technology is such that it’s practically possible for a private individual such as yours truly to write a program which scans the internet for information on individuals, stores it in a gigantic database, and applies statistical analysis to the results to find out all sorts of choice nuggets. This is well within the grasp of, say, GE or Citibank, not that I’ve ever heard any whispers in those particular directions.
Worrying about the US Government is just so 90’s.
Jan 2, 2006 - 2:30 am 2. Ed Poinsett:Schumer had a microphone and a camera, and his only known function is to bloviate. Doesn’t matter what the topic is as long as it bashes Bush. I’m with McConnell, let the subpoeneas begin.
Jan 2, 2006 - 5:31 am 3. David Thomson:“There are differences between felons and whistleblowers, and we ought to wait ’til the investigation occurs to decide what happened,” Sen. Charles Schumerî
I can safely predict that the Democratic Party will be hurt by the investigation. Its leaders like Charles Schumer are in a damned if they do, and damned if they donít predicament. There is no way possible for them to satisfy both the hard left of their party and the so-called middle of the road voters. Whatever they say will come back to haunt them. Let the fun begin.
How does Schumer determine the difference between a felon and a whistleblowr? That is a real easy question to answer. The latter is a Democrat hard-liner while the former votes Republican.
Jan 2, 2006 - 8:40 am 4. Andrew:Interesting that knowledge of Echelon has been in our public psyche for years. The notion of deliberately misspelling words to escape notice from a giant search engine brought us l33t. To whit, the original misspelled words were “warez” and “crakz” which led to the much better “pr0n”, etc.
Jan 2, 2006 - 9:04 am 5. vnjagvet:This is a subject which Pajamas can cover to help the MSM be a bit more evenhanded, and really put itself on the map.
Merely publishing the parallel 1998-1999 NYT and WAPO articles about ECHELON on a regular basis will assure the historical background is well documented — out of the mouths of the same MSM, no less. This will aid any Senatorial committee staff people that want to put perspective on this issue.
I hope the editorial staff puts a full court press on this one.
Jan 2, 2006 - 9:50 am 6. Anthony (Los Angeles):Apparently Senator Chuck does not want the same sauce used with the gander as with the goose.
Jan 2, 2006 - 11:32 am 7. Terrye:Shumer is a self serving hypocrite.
Fine, so let’s say they kill the program and there is an attack…who will Shumer blame?
Jan 2, 2006 - 11:46 am 8. AndyS:Aggressively missing the point, as usual.
A warrant is required, by law, to use such surveillance technologies on Americans. The Bush Administration admits that it did not obtain the necessary warrants.
Simple as that.
Nobody is expressing shock over the existence of the technology. All of us want terrorists surveilled and caught. You guys, however, are out on a limb with the opinion that a President can authorize any act, even one that contravenes both law and Constitution. The onus is on you — how do you justify that view?
Jan 3, 2006 - 10:53 am 9. Bostonian:AndyS,
I might be able to take you seriously if you had 1) acknowledged that there is nothing new about Bush’s use of these powers, and 2) acknowledged that legal scholars themselves (including Sunstein on the Left) do not agree with you.
Jan 3, 2006 - 11:34 am 10. timmy ramone:The Supreme Court was very clear in its 1972 ruling against warrantless domestic surveillance, and that pretty much trumps all opinions from any “legal scholar” you care to name.
Still, it is highly entertaining to watch Junior Bush’s poodle-dogs and the twisted, distorted and (if I may use the word) tortured “logic” used to rationalize Dubya’s criminal activities. Seriously — this is better than Clinton’s re-definition of the word “is”. Highly entertaining, indeed! Bra-vo!
-timmy ramone
Jan 6, 2006 - 10:53 am