Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
News

Echelon Used to Capture Terrorist 663

An anonymous reader writes "Echelon was used to track and capture Khalid Sheikh Mohammed." Ahh, bitter sweet victories. The article kind of explains what Echelon is, and pretty much says that those disposable phones really don't have much security at all.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Echelon Used to Capture Terrorist

Comments Filter:
  • by AlabamaMike ( 657318 ) on Tuesday March 11, 2003 @10:11AM (#5483900) Journal
    Gotta love the capture of this a$$hole, but damn do I hate the govt's ability to pull such things.
  • by pubjames ( 468013 ) on Tuesday March 11, 2003 @10:17AM (#5483940)

    Did you know that they can track the location of a mobile phone even if it is turned off, as long as there is some charge left in the battery?

    I just read "Killing Pablo", about the hunt for Pablo Escobar, which says that Pablo stopped using his mobile phone because he knew it could be tracked. The book mentions how it was possible to turn it on at night when Pablo was asleep, so it's location could be tracked.

    So if you find your mobile suddenly turning itself on in the middle of the night, it's time to get paranoid...

  • Umm.. Why pay? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Alcohol Fueled ( 603402 ) on Tuesday March 11, 2003 @10:18AM (#5483951) Homepage
    "They were tracking him for some time," an unnamed intelligence official told the American news magazine US News and World Report. "He would shift; they would follow."

    To me, if they were tracking him, that tells that they knew where he was. So, why didn't they just use the tracking from Echelon to capture Mohammed, instead of paying out 27 million to someone else also?



    To quote Bill Maher:

    Khalid Sheikh Sheikh Sheikh, Sheikh Sheikh Sheikh, Sheikh Mohammed!

  • As it was intended (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Shadow2097 ( 561710 ) <shadow2097@nOSpam.gmail.com> on Tuesday March 11, 2003 @10:19AM (#5483964)
    While its still a fair target to use for Big Brother type arguments, hopefully this event will score a few points for proponents of 21st century electronic surveilance.

    This guy is a fair and legitimate target for electronic surveilance. He's a know leader of a network of individuals who are dedicated to causing harm to untold millions of people whose biggest crime is living in a country whose ideals he disagrees with. If Echelon is used fairly and honestly in these types of situations, then I will not complain one bit about the extraordinary secrecy of its network.

    -Shadow

  • by rearl ( 262579 ) on Tuesday March 11, 2003 @10:21AM (#5483975)
    There are some tools with no reasonable purpose besides evil.

    While this instance proves that Echelon can be used for good, who insures that?
  • by Wino ( 655084 ) on Tuesday March 11, 2003 @10:22AM (#5483981) Homepage
    The rival magazine Newsweek quoted a Middle Eastern intelligence source as saying that an unidentified al-Qaida member "turned over and made a deal with the United States", taking the $25m reward offered and extracting a supplementary $2m in order to relocate with his family to the United Kingdom. A US law enforcement source confirmed that the payment had been made, the magazine said.

    $25M and a legal visa... terrorism seems to pay well.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 11, 2003 @10:24AM (#5484003)
    ...or were the other "successes" merely not palatable to the general public? ie. privacy violations, industrial espionage, etc.?
  • by xyzzy ( 10685 ) on Tuesday March 11, 2003 @10:26AM (#5484022) Homepage
    ...or vice-versa... it's so hard to tell sometimes :-)
  • UK Royal family... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by pubjames ( 468013 ) on Tuesday March 11, 2003 @10:29AM (#5484038)

    Something I've always wondered...

    Quite a few years ago, there was a spate of embarrassing phone calls by members of the Royal family that found there way into the press. The phone calls were "acidentally" overhead and taped by amateur radio enthusiasts. There was reported evidence that the phone calls had actually been played repeatedly near the homes of these amateur radio enthusiasts - presumably as a way of leaking the calls without it being traceable back to the leakers.

    What has never been explained (or at least I've never come across any explanation in the mainstream press) is who did or might have done this, and why.

    In a similar vein, it was never explained how Colin Powell had a transcript of Bin Laden's last taped message, before the al-Jazeera station even had the tape. To me that means either:

    1) It was a fabrication or
    2) They know where Bin Laden is.

  • by Highwayman ( 68808 ) on Tuesday March 11, 2003 @10:30AM (#5484043)
    If they "had been tracking him for some time", I wonder why they waiting so long to do anything. I suspect that the human intelligence had more to do with it than the alleged use of Echelon. The last person I would believe is some anonymous, talking-head Echelon apologist. I think there is some FUD involved. Exactly how do you provide oversight over a project like Echelon? I think that the system is probably used more to spy on people whose whereabouts are known than to track down some people in some sort of Hollywood "Bourne Identity" drama. If Echelon was designed to be a lost-and-found device that actually found Mohammed, I think you would hear a lot more chest-thumping from the intelligence community. The rest of the article is the real story. The NSA/CIA/EIEIO paid off some guy who sold his boss down the river.
  • Echelon (Score:2, Interesting)

    by broothal ( 186066 ) <christian@fabel.dk> on Tuesday March 11, 2003 @10:31AM (#5484052) Homepage Journal
    "If you say a lie often enough it becomes truth"... I've never seen nor heard any solid evidence that Echelon exists. But the press has been using the word "echelon" as a common denominator for all intelligence involving electronic surveilance.

    Now, I'm not denying it's existence (nor am I trying to start a discussion wether it does or not), I'm just saying that journalists should be more careful when they chose their words.
  • Re:Echelon (Score:4, Interesting)

    by trezor ( 555230 ) on Tuesday March 11, 2003 @10:31AM (#5484056) Homepage

    I thought those phones were military graded?

    In Norway some encrypted phones have been developed [sectra.se], but civilians are not allowed to purchase them.

  • by filmcritic ( 190324 ) on Tuesday March 11, 2003 @10:36AM (#5484096)
    This is for all the blockheaded, blinded-by-stallmans-ignorance, pseudointellectuals that live in Mom's basement:

    Echelon did exactly what it was designed to do - catch criminals.

    Don't flatter yourselves thinking that the US govt would waste one second of it's time monitoring your calls to the phone sex line or your visits to nakedgeekgrrls.com. Honestly, why would anyone here even begin to think they would use such a powerful tool to find you? Must be a guilty conscience or paranoid delusions of the DMCA police taking your little MP3 collection. They could find you in a heartbeat if they wanted to, WITHOUT using Echelon. Here's a tip for ya - if the feds want you, they'll find you by tax records, credit records, driver's license/registration, etc etc. Now I know you eggheads watched the X-Files (and thought it was a reality show)...they found everyone they wanted without using anything like Echelon.

    Catching that crusty, hairy ape was fan-fucking-tastic - one more asshole responsible for the deaths of 3000 of my fellow Americans. If you have a problem with the methods used to capture these boils on the collective asshole of the human race, then I have a serious problem with you. I watched 2 mighty buildings in the greatest city in the world collapse, killing thousands of my countrymen. I won't tolerate any jackass spouting shit about the methods used to capture those fuckheads. Get off the linux/free/communist/socialist ideology and use your goddamn head for once - those responsible need to found, pumped for intelligence, then shot. By ANY means necessary - find them.
  • by More Trouble ( 211162 ) on Tuesday March 11, 2003 @10:37AM (#5484100)
    He's a know leader of a network of individuals who are dedicated to causing harm to untold millions of people whose biggest crime is living in a country whose ideals he disagrees with.

    Oh! I thought the biggest crime was not keeping our errant gov'ment in check, letting it install and support a bunch of nasty repressive dictators in countries this guy considers his homeland. My mistake.

    Did you get a load of the CIA reports that those damn Iraqis are planning to use Terrorist Methods against our beloved soldiers when we attack them? The nerve. I mean, what, they think they have the right to defend their borders from an extra-national aggressor? Who do they think they are, the Founding Fathers?

    :w
  • by prentiz ( 565940 ) on Tuesday March 11, 2003 @10:38AM (#5484108)
    It is important to note that in the case of the UK royals they were using old analogue phones which you could overhear on a scanner (remember doing so when i was a kid!).

    I think a more plausible explanation is that the hams in question knew what they were looking for and went out to find it.

    Equally communications interception (possibly between intermediaries) is a more plausible explanation as to how the US got the Bin Ladin tape.

  • Re:We can quibble, (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 11, 2003 @10:39AM (#5484113)

    Who cares about his civil liberties or even the Constitution?

    There's one thing in the USA that overrides the Constitution - international treaties. Treaties like the International Telecommunications Convention. Article 22 promises that member states "agree to take all possible measures, compatible with the system of telecommunication used, with a view to ensuring the secrecy of international correspondence".

    There is something above and beyond his Constitutional rights that protects him from Echelon.

  • by IamTheRealMike ( 537420 ) on Tuesday March 11, 2003 @10:39AM (#5484118)
    If Echelon is used fairly and honestly in these types of situations, then I will not complain one bit about the extraordinary secrecy of its network.

    I think the main problem people have with Echelon is that the European Commision investigation into it concluded the US was using it for corporate/economic sabotage, for instance shortly after an executive of some big aerospace company talked about a bid they were making on a phone, a large american firm who was also making a bid changed their numbers to be slightly less than what the european one was bidding.

    So, the worry is that when there aren't any terrorists to catch, it will be and has been used for other things.

  • by the gnat ( 153162 ) on Tuesday March 11, 2003 @10:43AM (#5484148)
    The counterargument to this is that if you really want privacy, you need to use strong encryption or simply forget about using mobile phones that way. In this era of high technology, unencrypted cellular communications are about as private as shouting across a crowded street. People have such short memories - remember when Newt Gingrich was overheard discussion GOP strategy on the phone by a pair of retirees with a police scanner?

    By the same token, we should simply forget about using surveillance satellites. It's when the government really starts to intrude on areas that have always been considered private, or tries to prevent us from using technology that aid privacy, that we should be really worried.
  • by Uninvited Guest ( 237316 ) on Tuesday March 11, 2003 @10:44AM (#5484152)
    Given what little we now know about Echelon's capabilities, how could you avoid identification and triangulation? Encrypted phones only help so much. They disguise your voice and the content, but they narrow down the monitoring pool, since only so many people in the world will have or use encrypted wireless phones. Echelon can simply triangulate ALL of the encrypted calls and narrow the search to the most likely targets. Using multiple anonymous wireless phones clearly doesn't help; the subject of this article was caught despite their use. Should the you leave the phones connected all the time, and fill the air time with idle chatter? Should you use wireless voice-over-ip in an anonymous setting, such as an Internet cafe? How can you initiate a real time voice conversation with who you want, when you want, without revealing your own identity, location, or conversation content? If I understand the implications of this article, the solution does not involve wireless phones.
  • by malraid ( 592373 ) on Tuesday March 11, 2003 @10:51AM (#5484210)
    It seems that a lot of people are saying that it's good that the terrorist was caught, but that the goverment should be able to spy like that on us? Shouldn't the government be able to spy on terrorists? If you have dealings with a terrorist (either on purpose or by mistake) you can get caught by a LOT of other means, and then you'll have a bunch of things to explain.

    Some weeks ago, the store that my parents own was robbed. They put a gun to my father and mother. They even put a gun to my 4 year old sister. Luckily no one was hurt. They also stole my father's cell phone, and even answered when we called. Do you think that I would be happy to be "tracked" by my phone's location, just so those assholes could have been caught? I sure will.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 11, 2003 @10:56AM (#5484259)
    Well, you see, the idea behind Eschelon is to circumvent the Constitution's protections by having foreign governments monitor US citizens and report back to the US Government (And in return the US government does the same for them).
  • Re:Umm.. Why pay? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Elvisisdead ( 450946 ) on Tuesday March 11, 2003 @10:57AM (#5484265) Homepage Journal
    The article never said if Echelon picked him up all by itself, or the human intelligence provided a key to track him by (like the cell # itself). If the only way to know about the Swiss phones was for somebody to drop a dime on him, then it was worth the 18 million USD to get that information.
  • by Alcohol Fueled ( 603402 ) on Tuesday March 11, 2003 @11:02AM (#5484321) Homepage
    True, valid point. But I for one would not mind being 'inspected'/'watched'/etc if it meant that I was being kept safe. I hardly talk on the phone, I don't care if someone knows that I've downloaded hot_blonde_lesbians.avi, or whatever. People are going to have to realize that hey, ever since 9-11, everyone's gonna have to give up some privacy. There should be a limit as to how much, though. But if my being watched is part of keeping me safe, then let them watch away.
  • by jcoy42 ( 412359 ) on Tuesday March 11, 2003 @11:07AM (#5484365) Homepage Journal
    Did you read the article? They say Echelon "played a key role". I would say that the $27 million they paid to an informant, and the fact that the guy was sick played a larger role.

  • What can also be done is a new firmware can be loaded to the phone remotely when it is turned on, which could turn the phone on due to some real time clock interrupt or other mechanism.

    The authorities then would only have to know which phones to load the firmware on at one point in time, then the phones will turn on, find it's closest cell point, log on once, then log off and turn itself off.

    -Adam
  • by pe1rxq ( 141710 ) on Tuesday March 11, 2003 @11:18AM (#5484461) Homepage Journal
    9-11 didn't happen because people had to much privacy...

    It happened because people were opressed and somebody offered a way out (although arguably not the right way). That is were you have to change things. Preventing somebody from blowing himself up is done by taking away the need for such an act.

    Jeroen
  • by CommieLib ( 468883 ) on Tuesday March 11, 2003 @11:28AM (#5484528) Homepage
    It was the Patriot Act that enabled authorities to use foreign intelligence...something to think about.
  • by Reziac ( 43301 ) on Tuesday March 11, 2003 @11:41AM (#5484619) Homepage Journal
    Look at the flipside: if the gov't can use your cellphone to track you, so can tech-aware criminals.

  • Re:Nobody caught me! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Loki_1929 ( 550940 ) on Tuesday March 11, 2003 @11:46AM (#5484659) Journal
    "Then *they* have to listen to my boring conversations. "

    20 years ago, this would be so as the system simply looked for keywords and phrases. Now, the capability is such that the entire context of what you're saying is taken into account when determining whether or not a human needs to hear what you're saying. When you say "they", you're most likely talking about a computer that listens to your boring conversations (and emails, faxes, internet traffic, etc) anyway.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 11, 2003 @11:59AM (#5484780)
    I vaguely remember something called PGPfone (Or PGPPhone)... Not a cellual handset, but encrypted voice traffic between two network connected computers.

    With IPSec, all your VoIP can be encrypted (What's an extra few milliseconds of delay?).

  • by Melantha_Bacchae ( 232402 ) on Tuesday March 11, 2003 @12:13PM (#5484892)
    0rx wrote:

    > Khalid Sheikh Mohammed wasn't part of the Taliban, he
    > was part of Al-Qaeda. They're 2 seperate entities, like
    > Southern Baptists, and the Amish...

    The Taliban are more like Islamic Puritans (and just as big on "fun is evil"). The Christian Puritans fled England to escape religious persecution. When the Catholics came to the same colony for the same reason, the Puritans turned around and subjected them to the same persecution the Puritans had come here to escape. The Taliban, like the Puritans, were most dangerous to their own people and possibly immediate neighbors. The Taliban were terrorists only in that they ruled their own people through terror while they were in power. The clubs were for punishing infractions against their strict interpretation of Islamic law and general bullying, not for terrorist attacks against other countries.

    The Al Qaeda are a world-wide extreme fundamentalist cult on the fringe of Islam, with a paramilitary/terrorist arm that does actual attacks, and a network of local preacher types that raise money and get recruits.

    Bin Laden started out recruiting Muslim guerrillas to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan (which is why he got such a warm welcome from the Taliban - he was a hero to them). When an Iraqi army supposedly showed up on Saudi borders after they invaded Kuwait (there is some debate that the US satellite photos in question might have been forged), Bin Laden went to his king and offered the service of his men to defend Saudi Arabia from Iraq. The king told him that it wasn't necessary, the US were coming to protect them.

    When the US "invaded" Saudi Arabia, and when they didn't leave, that is when Bin Laden's anger and hatred caused him to become a terrorist, and that is when his little band of freedom fighters became the Al Qaeda we know today.

    That is why the "war on terror" is so ridiculous. Taking away the rights of Americans is not going to stop a single terrorist. Changing US foreign policy might not change Bin Laden's mind at this late date, but it would slow down his recruitment and keep other Al Qaedas from being formed. But nope, we are going back to Iraq to repeat the same mistakes all over again.

    Material on the history of Bin Laden based on a World Book Encyclopedia article. Opinion is, as always, my own.

    "Lola, kindness is not enough, look for the reason of hatred and anger.
    When you find and understand that, love becomes the strongest power..."
    Belabera, "Mothra 3: King Ghidora Attacks"
  • by diablobynight ( 646304 ) on Tuesday March 11, 2003 @12:30PM (#5485046) Journal
    You would sacrifice your privacy and yet you posted as an Anonymous Coward, The irony is striking, I don't mean this to be a flame, so I will get to my point. The whole if your doing nothing wrong side of the argument is flawed because who decides what is wrong. What if you wake up one day and some big Catholic church group pushes a law that says your not allowed to masterbate. I wouldn't enjoy that. Or you might wake up one morning and suddenly there is a law against smoking, string up all the smokers, then a year later you can only drink in government sanctioned facilities and then to stop aids, you can only have sex after being properly tested and approved for sex. This is what I fear. All the do gooders of the world will turn our houses into prisons. I honestly don't think that a little rudeness on the internet is worth sacrificing all the inalienable rights our country was built upon.
  • by skillet-thief ( 622320 ) on Tuesday March 11, 2003 @12:39PM (#5485119) Homepage Journal
    Did you read the article? They say Echelon "played a key role". I would say that the $27 million they paid to an informant, and the fact that the guy was sick played a larger role.

    Exactly. The Echelon bit is just a way of getting us used to having Big Brother around and evening thinking that he is a quite likeable guy, once you get to know him.

    While in reality, it was just regular intelligence work that got the job done.

    Think of the payoffs they could hand out to informants with what it is costing to keep our soldiers in the Persian Gulf, getting ready to attack a country that had nothing to do with 9-11.

    And if Echelon is such a great anti-terr'rist tool, why hasn't it been used to prove that the iraqis were hooked up with Al Quaida?

  • by Chris Y Taylor ( 455585 ) on Tuesday March 11, 2003 @12:54PM (#5485247) Homepage
    I seem to remember right after 9/11 the FBI wanted to get NSA records for their investigation into terrorist networks and the NSA announced that they were erasing a bunch of them that involved Americans or American organizations so that the FBI couldn't get them. Am I just misremembering, or did that happen. If so, does anyone have a link to a story on it?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 11, 2003 @01:26PM (#5485472)
    He's not saying that, he's pointing out a causal relationship, as in, perhaps there was a REASON something happened.

    Obviously, the attacks were not simply the result of a group of 20 people acting independently, but of an entire society that has been festering in hatred of the US for a number of reasons. SOME of those reasons include the way we have treated the middle east (and the rest of the world).

    Or to put it another way, if you're really willing to do whatever it takes to prevent terrorist attacks, you have to explore all the complex reasons behind them.

    The problem is, stuff like TV talk shows, Lefties and (Neo-)Conservatives alike, seem to reduce this issue into one of two extremes, which is not the case!
  • by einhverfr ( 238914 ) <chris...travers@@@gmail...com> on Tuesday March 11, 2003 @03:09PM (#5486418) Homepage Journal
    Warning-- this post may not be suitable for all audiences.

    But, the primary purpose of nuclear weapons was to destroy, that is why they stetched the line of thinking

    Agreed. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were horrible. (I say Nagasaki was unjustifiable, but not Hiroshima because after Hiroshima the Japanese made a conditional surrender. After Nagasaki, the surrender was unconditional in letter, but we gave them all the conditions they asked for after Hiroshima.)

    That being said-- which was worse? Firebombing Tokyo, killing over 80,000 civilians (some people were litterally melted into little puddles of congealed fat), and bomber crews were able to smell the burning human flesh? Dresden where we have no idea how many civilians (mostly war refugees) were killed, though estimates range from 35,000 to 135,000 and descriptions are very similar to that of Tokyo? IMHO, the firebombings against major cities was far worse than even Nagasaki.

    Nuclear weapons have prevented another Dresden, and another Tokyo. We might have used napalm in Vietnam, but we didn't use it wholesale over large cities like we did in WWII.

    As for eschelon, the real problem is that there are no real controls on it. I assume that this means that it could be used for tracking someone, but probably would not be valid against US Citizens without a warrent, and now that it looks like the ACLU will be able to appeal the FISA process to the US Supreme Court, FISA may not be able to use its process in order to issue such warrents. As for foreign nationals, they would have to be protected by their governments. So controls are not impossible, but right now seem to be in existance simply by the secret status of the project.
  • by glesga_kiss ( 596639 ) on Wednesday March 12, 2003 @07:39AM (#5492601)
    Try getting a hold of the documentary "Palestine is still the issue". You might have problems getting it in the USA, it's banned there.

    In it, a story is told of a young palestinion family, where the pregnant woman and her child died at a check point because they wouldn't let them through to a hospital. Guess what the husband did?

    The documentary was not anti-Israeli, and it was full of stories from both sides about the suicide attacks. There was a Israeli father who lost both of his children in another attack, who stated that he understood why the person did it, after hearing what had happened to his family. It presented a reasonably balanced view of the issue. It didn't blame anyone for starting the problem, in fact it barely touched on the long history of the affair. It covered the endless cycle of violence, that won't end until both sides stop.

We are each entitled to our own opinion, but no one is entitled to his own facts. -- Patrick Moynihan

Working...