Wired: Echelon Furor Ends in a Whimper

[John Young]

Brian Gladman wrote:

>Interestingly, however, while I intended universal to mean universal within
>Europe, I don't think the global deployment of crypto would have as much
>impact on Echelon as many people think.

Echelon is one of an unknown number of global surveillance programs,
as the earliest reports on Echelon obeserved. The undue exaggeration
of Echelon has obscured attention to the other programs, again as
knowledgeable reporters have repeatedly stated.

I understand that attempts to get the EuroParl Echelon committee to
investigate the full range of survelliance programs, and not limit its
inquiry to Echelon, was stymied by a willful determination not to
look at the comprehensive apparatus, to restrict the investigation to
what was publicly known already. The report released in May 
manages to continue diverting attention from the other programs 
while accurately and redundantly protraying Echelon as less than 
its exaggeration.

To be sure, these other programs are classified and are not likely
to be exposed by any party which is officially informed about them 
and thereby sworn to secrecy, aa no doubt was some or all of the 
EP committee. It is probable that some classified briefings were
given to the committee members who came to the US and then
claimed they were rebuffed.

Duncan Campbell and Nicky Hager, among others, have described 
the fuller range of programs and in some cases provided codenames 
and technical features.

The Echelon word has served quite well to dazzle, perhaps blind to 
closer investigation and public revelation. And there is now a
willful attempt to emphasize -- as with the title of this thread -- to
proclaim the investigation to end with a whimper when what has 
occurred is a successful disinformation and defusing campaign.

I spoke to the Wired reporter who wrote the story which started this
thread and had to fight off his aggressive charge that Echelon had 
turned out to be less than expected and didn't I agree that was
the case. No, I said, I do not agree. He repeated his demand that 
I agree the program had been exaggerated. I said I agreed that 
there had been exaggeration but not by knowledgeable 
reporters, but only by those who failed to do original investigation
into global surveillance and merely recycled lurid tidbits of
speculation.

I complimented the EP committee for making a helpful
contribution to broading public understanding of unrestrained
global surveillance, but that it was irresponsible to look only
at Echelon and not the gamut of programs operated by a slew 
of international spooks -- government, business and individuals --
well beyond what is commonly reported. I suggested the 
committee probably had learned enough, or already knew 
enough, about the other government programs to affirm the 
policy of keeping secrets out of public sight.

No, repeat, no, public committee will ever report fully on
governmental global surveillance. At best, reports will affirm 
what has been reported by journalists and "disruntled"
former spooks -- and the counter campaigns to disinform
and defuse by the gov-biz-personal spook industry.


The crypto angle of this is that one might rightfully suspect
that benefits and dangers of encryption have been as
exaggerated as Echelon for similar purposes -- to divert
attention from far greater threats.

Presumably Silent Runner is a tip of those, but it is known 
by name if not capability. And one characteristic of
effective disinformation is to tease, taunt and disparage 
any accurate finding.