This is a favourite topic of mine, in fact, most of my favourite topics involve some efficiency, efficacy or a tumbling tantrum of some kind. This post is about an important abstraction that free-thinkers, security personnel, and contractors all should be aware of.

Sometimes the information you know that isn’t relevant, identifies what is

Have you ever heard the saying of? It’s easier to write down all the people not attending than the people attending, or vice versa? It’s a logical abstraction we all live with, and use on a daily basis. Then again, it’s not really something we understand. Mainly because not many people stop for a moment to think about what really is occuring.

Again, it’s the difference between painting most of a black peice of paper white to see black text and painting a little bit of text on a sheet of paper thats white already.

There is a major factor of economy, usability, functionality & most importantly of all, it affects the difficulty of implementation. This sort of abstraction is worth using in day to day life.

It’s pretty strange really because this seems such a similar topic as my macroverse and microverse theory. It’s a pivotted, balanced, closed system. However, the “way” in which you close it is, optional. I like that in a topic.

Peace,
A

Hi guys, welcome to what you’ve been searching the internet frantically for. Say wa? A no-nonsense guide to anonymous, secure & encrypted port forwarding via SSH tunneling. I will tell you how in just 3 easy steps.

Step 1

Open putty, Goto the Connection-> SSH-> Tunnels and type in 7070 for source port (you can use any port but we use 7070 for this example). Do not enter a destination, but make sure `Dynamic` and `Auto` option buttons are selected like the picture below.

Right once you’ve done the above it should look like:

Notes: `Dynamic` option is set, after clicking add D7070 appears in `forwarded ports`. Thats perfect. Well done. Give yourself a pat on the back. Simple. Isn’t it?

Step 2

After how much of a breeze step 1 is, all that is left is you deciding which linux box you’d like to use to connect to via SSH. For my example I include a fictional machine mybox.reallyrocks.com with the default SSH port of 22. In order to feel special about yourself and save you doing this all again enter in a name to save the session. I’ve put “Spechial SSH tunnelz for webz and ting” just so it is darn clear whats going on there. Ok, see below.

What I didn’t tell you in this guide was howto click the Open button, because to setup an encrypted SSH-2 (SHA-2) connection that tunnels via a secure linux box is already so easy. I figured it’d be an insult mentioning it.

Step 3: Add your proxy settings in firefox and go crazy.

Now maybe i’ll get that job I’ve always wanted. *cough*. As if. I’m going to use firefox as an example on how to use this bloody tunnel you’ve just setup, you’re probably wondering. Not to worry, this is easier than clicking “Open”.

Script `kiddies` may say? wa wa wa whatcha type in though. Well I typed in 127.0.0.1 and the 7070 and selected the option socks v5. comon, simple things. So, Enjoy simplicity. Everybody else is so god damned cryptic about setting up tunnels and the truth of this is, anyone could do it. Yes, thats right now everything you do VIA the WWW is encrypted. The only thing that isnt is the DNS which is the thing that says where the server is. “what is google? google is 68.8.0.3 etc - thats what the DNS does”.

My oh My, Easy.

Peace,
A

Introduction

Having lived in Britain my whole life and aspired to live as a thinker, philosophiser, technician, developer, manager, project manager, liason, scientist, spiritualist, conspiracist and contrived myself towards a more `new age` look at modern sociopolitical concepts I have found myself uncovering remarkable tidbits of concept, ideas and political flim flam.

Privacy Central and the Anonymous World
For instance, under both US and EU law a common statute of privacy is established for the individual, however contrarily the modern development of computer tagging systems, highly sophisticated imaging systems, Retina scanners, genetic profiling, detailed census profiling (e.g. compulsory personal US census programme), search engines, and most importantly service based interconnectivity leave much to be admired. Being anonymous is a practical impossibility, for the average human being and the over-average cracker genius. Why we ask? Well, the way the internet works, and the way people get it, and specifically, the interdependance of intercommunications. Some may say “what say you azio?” - “what does that even mean?” - it goes, well, something like this. You get your internet through an ISP, and they most likely get their global internet coverage (known as partial or global routes in a route table for differing allocations of the internet) via someone else (or many groups or exchanges). Of course we have all seen films that make melodrama of the idea and make it look like simplicity, it really isn’t simple. We need to consider that no one business or government owns the `internet`, owns the fibre or phonelines laid in your street; but, we all have an interdependancy on those systems, and their respective dependant systems. Security and privacy wise this says “DANGER” and nothing less. This says no privacy.

A work that is in progress

Although my research still bears the label of an `early work` having worked with basic routing, switching, and along with other commercial ISP’s it became a quick lesson that there is, at nearly all times for a extraordinarily large amount of people - more than just the lack of privacy - but a system that independantly or collectively monitors user patterns and activity. So much so that, using a HTTP proxy is no longer safe, so much so that using even a remote dns server _SELF OWNED_ by yourself still permits a security risk. “Why?” the reader asks. I answer, because that is the nature of the internet. It is a particularly erroneous claim (and idea) that seems to have been *HIGHLY* circulated in recent and older times, the internet is anonymous. Facts say something totally different, the internet is _NOT_ anonymous, whatsoever. Infact the whole system of DNS and IP/MAC translation allows the ability for specific tracking of the majority of users. All IP (Internet-Protocol) addresses ipv4 of ipv6 are binded to unique MACID’s in hardware NIC’s (Network Interface Cards), wireless cards - even telephone systems and a multitude of other devices. A specific unique identifier for communication, of course, and uniquely the best, most expert way to track anyone, anywhere in the world. So much so that MACID’s can be traced to Credit Cards, which can be traced to people, which can be traced to their bank, their business, their family, friends and their Internet Service Provider.

Expression is pointless in an anonymous society?

Freedom, Privacy and the Data Protection Act
The whole idea of the all seeing eye of Echelon (An unacknowledged system which makes attempts at monitoring all intercommunication systems such as satellite, radiowave, microwave, optical, bnc and hardwire communications - is not a new concept. However, the idea of the internet being wholely un-anonymous and modern systems being actively in breach of peoples basic human rights and the DPA is a new idea; an idea based solely on the assumption of misuse of data, or rather, isolation and review of sensitive and private data without due cause OR the specific ignorance of laws protecting peoples right to privacy. Those who find themselves living in the US should know privacy is not something to reject, it is a right that has been granted to their society by constitutional law, it is just and it should not be unreasonable to expect a system of technology that respects it, however - as a technician it is important to establish that the way computer systems work is on a “unique identifier” basis - otherwise the system can’t do anything. All communication systems need to know their destination, and specifically where they are coming from - so the target can reply. All communication systems route through a multitude of machines. The atypical illusion of the `common user` of P2P connections (point to point) is ridiculous, as quite clearly the data to reach that target (and indeed acknowledgement from target to the initial user source) is a neccesity for data transmission, as such, any use of technology systems - at least to an insanely high majority of people (estimated 99.99% of people) is anything but anonymous.
the way computer systems work is on a "unique identifier" basis

A little bit about the fallacical system of Privacy

Often, in law enforcement, and other security vendors - specifically airports, high security locations, music and dance venue’s, clubs, even your local stores the philosophy of “refusal to submit is admission of guilt” is considered a golden neccesity of operation. I ask “Why?”. I ask “Why?” people must be guilty to value their privacy. For instance, I would feel embarassed and personal intruded if a crowd of people watched as I showered, some wouldn’t , but some would. That is human nature, we are indeed all different. Let’s get back to the topic at hand, the fallacical idea of the system of fallacical security with an example:

Security Guard: Hello sir, I have been informed by a member of staff that you have been acting suspiciously, would you mind if I went through your back and personal items briefly.
Civilian: Yes I would mind, as that is private!
Security Guard: Sir, if you would kindly consent to me searching you for weapons, stolen items, etc then you will be able to go on your way as soon as we have established that you are innocent.
Civilian: I am innocent, however invading my privacy is not your right.
Security Guard: So you refuse to consent to being searched sir?
Civlian: Yes, Yes I do.
Security Guard:
Civilian:
Security Guard: Why disallow me to search through your posessions if you have nothing to hide?
Civilian: I have nothing to hide but my personal privacy and personal items, which I have already said.
Security Guard: Yes, but everyone else has to be searched, you are not an exception to this rule, it is for the security of you and others, and your freedom.
Civilian: My freedom is my privacy.
Security Guard: Perhaps, but refusal to consent to being searched suggests guilt, wheras compliance suggets innocence.

Such situations are of course very common, and such people to challenge the system in such a way are very uncommon. Compliance is not an option in most usual circumstances. In society a “reality” of importance is established and a double standard is born people at airports may be subjected to searches in the UK, those who value their freedom (and indeed, privacy) are persecuted and accused of guilt when they excercise the same rights that security forces claim to protect.
The substitution of freedom for security to protect freedoms deserve nor attain either.
This is not an old idea, of course, but it is a new perspective of the marvels that books like 1984 by George Orwell initiated, predicted and confounded. 1984, written in 1948 and published in 1949 talk about the “BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU” an idea that lives on in our hearts and minds forevermore, and will continue to do so due to the potent threat of Unique Identification systems.

The fallacical idea of injustice, or assured guilt is predefined and primal in those who value their privacy (or even those who desire privacy and agree to adhere to stringent security guidelines) - guilt is assured to all people who value freedom in this way. Refusal to consent to the removal of basic rights of privacy is considered admission of guilt and can lead to further sanctioning as much as agreeing to consent to the removal of their rights, either way freedom is lost - a soul guarantor of a system of fallacical justice.

Below is a furthering of the original idea of removal of privacy by force or otherwise. The below example is presented as an indicator to the system of justice, rather than an argument against or for removal of the nature of the justice, punishment and trialing system.

A brief hypothetical Example of Fallacical Justice:
Example 1
Judge: If you are not guilty you will submit to stringent testing, searching, etc
Civilian: No I won’t submit
Judge: then you must be guilty as if you had nothing to hide you would submit

Example 2
Judge: If you are not guilty you will submit to stringent testing, searching, etc,
Civilian: I will submit.

The Certainty of Judgement
In a modern system of commercial business tracked by software management systems and intercommunication networks there is an insideous movement towards guilt before innocence. A precident that has recently been strengthened by the concept of the “War on Terror”, and the unquenchable need to substitute freedom with security in order to protect it. As a young adult I could only compare it to the actions of a spoilt child whom when finding out he cannot keep his freedom to himself and just himself, destroys it so that others may not enjoy it.

“Let us feel no guilt from the stigma that excercising freedoms of privacy are admissions to it”

Beyond the sociopolitical ideaology, the illusion of perfect society, I find myself confounded by an illusion of the perfect system of reality management. I find myself answering the advocates of the reality system with tips and truisms from the system of idealism; idealism, I would argue is as much as an illusion as the system of reality. i.e. the system of reality uses justifications such as “you must be guilty because you refuse to be searched” - “this patient is beyond help and we cannot justify keeping him on life support”. Such bold and judgemental statements made in the interest of reality and the “life isn’t fair” philosophy are mainly ignorant of the total fallacical illusion of the concept of justification. As an advocate and admirer of the system of idealism as demonstrated in my articles, I would now be forced to argue that
the mockery and “conspiracist nonsense” spoken towards idealist concepts is a result of a society too used to inhabiting a social system based on a nonsensical & unreal system of justification; an illusion more fallacical, judgemental and unwise than the dream of idealist concepts - and most certainly, at least - as dangerous.

References:
1984 by George Orwell http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four

Data Protection Act UK http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/ukpga_19980029_en_1

United States Consitution 3rd ammendment right to privacy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

“Freedom is an illusion created by those with power, for those without” - M. Jacques
“Expression is meaningless in an anonymous society” - M. Jacques

“Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.” — Albert Einstein

Some quotes reach us in a great wind, others in the synchronicity of science and modern sociopolitical values, others appear to masquerade as if from nothing, ever present and ever wise.

This notice serves as a warning to anyone who thinks he knows either truth or knowledge paramount; for those who say they do wield a dangerous and harrowing force to themselves and those who would surround them.

This can apply to many works and ideas. Thankyou Einstein, for a more restful day than usual!!

Hi readers! I thought you might like to read about the german 3rd reich. The mysteries of hitlers science department, and of course the infamous manual which states how UFO’s are real and that it was a critical military objective assigned by hitler and his german government himself. Anyone interested in the occult, ufo’s, alien’s, germany or the strange rumours about The 3rd reich attempting to contact other planets should watch this.

For those who think the crackpot factor is high - well yes it is However, all of the documentary is backed up with video’s and official documents from the german government, so no poo pissing please

[googlevideo]http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-8291386537788537096[/googlevideo]

this story surprised me personally, and it will just go, and continue to, show that people really are mindless to the fact that the M$ slaves have more money, more resources and generally, could get away with murder - at least - if it was in a contract Original Article Source: Inquirer - check it out it’s a good read.

McAfee throws some FUD at the GPL

By Egan Orion: Saturday, 05 January 2008, 5:15 PM

SATURDAY the sky was a sullen violet overcast at dawn, spitting volleys of rain onto the patio roof. Intermittant wind gusts ruffled the laurel hedge out back and swayed the limbs of the big fir tree in the neighbor’s back yard. A few of the cats ventured out but soon retreated back indoors to get out of the cold winter storm that had swept up the Pacific coast from San Francisco overnight.

In the chill morning dark, quiet except for the sounds of wind and rain outside, it seemed only fitting to happen upon the news of yet more FUD manure thrown at open source software by a vassal of the Volish empire, against its own interests.

* * *

In its annual report, Windows security software vendor McAfee told its investors that open source software licence terms it vaguely characterised as ” ambiguous” might “result in unanticipated obligations regarding our products.”

“To the extent that we use ‘open source’ software, we face risks,” McAfee stated.

McAfee explained: “Use of GPL software could subject certain portions of our proprietary software to the GPL requirements, which may have adverse effects on our sales of the products incorporating any such software.”

That statement says several things. First, it reveals that McAfee does use at least some open source software derived code in its products. Second, it betrays that McAfee has misappropriated that open source software and thus is committing copyright infringement, because it doesn’t distribute that open source software derivative source code. Third, by calling its products that include open source software code “proprietary”, McAfee shows that it really doesn’t want to shoulder its GPL licence obligations, but instead wants to both have its cake and eat it too.

The company might have more honestly admitted that, to the extent it might have been abusing open source software by ignoring its licence requirements, it might have to distribute its modified open source software source code to its customers, or at least make it easily available to any customers who might want to obtain it.

That is all that the GPL requires. It explicitly permits that products that use GPL licenced software may be sold, subject only to the requirement that the source code to components that are GPL licenced must be distributed or made available.

Merely including both proprietary and open source software in the same package or on the same distribution media doesn’t transfer GPL requirements from open source components to proprietary components. McAfee ought to consult with the Free Software Foundation if its management and attorneys are not well versed in the accepted methods for keeping proprietary and open source software separate while still allowing them to work together. The FSF will be glad to help them out.

Even if it were to publish all of the source code for, let’s say, its antivirus product, McAfee would certainly be able to keep its virus signatures database proprietary and confidential. That’s data not code, so it couldn’t be subject to GPL disclosure. McAfee’s antivirus product’s marketability wouldn’t be diminished in the least and end-users would still need update subscriptions even if they had the software free.

After all, the long term end-user value of any antivirus product is in the ongoing malware detection and research performed by the vendor, not in the executable module scanning and signature database matching software machinery by itself.

Of course, McAfee might simply be mortified at the thought of having competent customer programmers viewing its software source code. That might be poorly designed and structured, embarrassingly kludgey, or riddled with clumsy coding, and so on. It might even have glaring design loopholes that could be exploited by malware authors if they became widely known. Then again, one doesn’t really need source code to find design flaws, given some sophisticated debugging tools.

Perhaps McAfee believes in “security by obscurity” and that’s the reason it doesn’t want to reveal its modified open source code. But it, and all of the other Windows security software vendors, should know better. After all, that’s been Microsoft’s approach within Windows itself, and it’s been proven to be totally ineffective. The Windows security software vendors only have demand for their products because the Vole’s whole “security by obscurity” approach has failed and continues to fail.

Besides, properly designed security software can’t be defeated simply by knowing exactly how it works. Well designed security routines have checks that malware code can neither satisfy nor avoid, authorisation tests it can’t pass, and function, memory and file protections it can’t evade to reach sensitive resources, and so on. There’s exemplary open source software that is quite highly secure despite being entirely open for anyone to read. OpenBSD is only one example of several.

However, even if one or more of these is the case, that doesn’t excuse continuing GPL violations. The only possible GPL violation cures are to either distribute the derivative open source code or recode the functions in a clean room environment. That, or completely redesign and rewrite the application… entirely from scratch.

If McAfee didn’t like the GPL or want to abide by its licence terms, it should have written its own blasted software rather than stealing code from the open source community in violation of the GPL and the US Copyright Act. It’s far too late now.

There’s nothing at all “ambiguous” about the terms of the GPL, either. Contrary to McAfee’s snide, scurrilous suggestion, the GPL is a simple, straightforward software licence with no confusing or onerous terms. Compared to the McAfee EULA — or especially a Microsoft EULA — the GPL is a veritable model of simple software licence clarity.

McAfee also feigned to be “troubled” that the terms of the GPL have never been tested in court, supposedly. Well, that’s simply false. The GPL has been upheld in a German court of law, under the Berne Convention that conformed international copyright protection, to which the US is a signatory since 1988, and which is now under the auspices of the UN World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO).

The only reason that the GPL has never been “tested” in a US court of law is that every potential defendant in a copyright infringement lawsuit based upon the GPL has chosen to settle out of court rather than risk losing in court.

The US Copyright Act provides for statutory damages of up to $180,000 for each and every instance of willful copyright infringement.

Before it further disparages the GPL, McAfee should contemplate paying multiple authors of open source software licenced under the GPL $180,000 for each copy of its unlicenced and therefore copyright infringing products it ever shipped. One suspects that not even Microsoft has that much money, and certainly not McAfee.

Also, how can McAfee pretend that the redistribution obligations relating to open source software that are so clearly stated in the GPL were “unanticipated” by it?

That claim is tantamount to the admission that McAfee had previously assumed that it could get away with violating the GPL with impunity. Either that, or it’s an admission by McAfee’s executive management of their utterly gross incompetence at directing and managing a legally responsible software development enterprise.

These few statements in its annual report, taken at face value, can’t be viewed as encouraging for investor confidence in McAfee’s executive management team or future business prospects. Indeed, should McAfee’s stock decline in market value, it’s not unimaginable that these statements could come to be cited as evidence of mismanagement in stockholder lawsuits. Under Sarbanes-Oxley, executives might even be held personally liable for causing the corporation to incur legal liabilities. Having disclosed bad management after the fact might not get them off the hook.

On the other hand, open source software developers whose source code McAfee might have misappropriated aren’t likely to sue the company for damages. That’s not the point of the GPL, which merely requires that those developers who modify and redistribute open source software also return those derivative works into the open source software development community. GPL compliance is the objective, not monetary gain, and fortunately for all, compliance is almost always possible.

But McAfee probably knows all of this. So what was the point of the FUD attack?

One can only speculate, but it’s obvious that all of the Windows security software vendors like McAfee are totally dependent upon Microsoft’s dominant Windows OS marketshare for their very existence. Apple Mac and Linux systems aren’t nearly as vulnerable to malware as Windows, which by its very design practically invites infestations of all sorts, the whole menagerie — viruses, adware, spyware, trojans, worms and bots. Without the Vole’s Windows monopoly to provide their customer base, parasitic Windows security vendors like McAfee could not stay in business long. There’s a powerful motive for McAfee to denigrate open source.

Linux users don’t buy antivirus software because Linux isn’t anywhere nearly as insecure as Windows, by orders of magnitude. It just isn’t needed to run Linux.

Perhaps McAfee is afraid that Linux desktop penetration is heading up, which it is, and wants to do whatever it can to slow its takeup, especially in corporations.

That does seem possible, even plausible, but if that’s the case, McAfee is failing to appreciate the direction from which the worst threat to its future viability is most likely to come. Growing uptake of desktop Linux won’t kill off McAfee’s business.

Long before Linux makes big inroads on the desktop, Microsoft will have escaped from federal antitrust oversight. Then the Vole will bundle security functions into Windows and staff its own malware research lab, putting McAfee out of business.

Or perhaps McAfee will offer software that does something actually productive, instead of living as a mere parasite of the Vole, a remora on the Windows shark.

* * *

It’s later Saturday morning and the wind’s died down. The cats are sauntering out again to patrol the soggy grounds under a bright grey, featureless overcast sky. µ

Original Article Source: http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/01/05/mcafee-throws-fud-gpl

As a english patriot my entire life I have enjoyed the peaceful comfort of my own house, and the provisions and the safety that are made for us (and indeed taken for granted). What a lot of my readers don’t know is that privacy is something of the past, and as discussed previously with like minded thinkers, the internet, and telecom network is NOT what we think it is. A lot of it is monitored. What a lot of you do not know is that there is a 5 government alliance that allows a “global” listening/spy network to be installed throughout the world. Unfortunately, this is for our own safety, however in as simple words as I could put it - that much power is terrorism on the greatest scale. Fighting for “liberty” - is not removing them all. And so on. And here I share the FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions that have since been removed from the American Civil Liberties Union Website (Original location: http://www.aclu.org/echelonwatch/echfaq3.htm).

People at the very least should have been made aware of a system to promote their freedom, not to have that knowledge restricted and to be unaware of the truly massive power that governments instil upon themselves. But “why care, unless you have something to hide?” you say; I reply “power corrupts. absolute power, corrupts absolutely - roughly translated to, I care not of the civil liberties removed from me or the people, I care for the absolute `liberty of power` awarded to those who claim to their self indoctrinated wish to create freedom - and that is NOT freedom. That is slavery.”
Q: What is Project ECHELON?

ECHELON is a code word for an automated global interception and relay system operated by the intelligence agencies in five nations — the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand (it is rumored that different nations have different code words for the project). While the United States National Security Agency (NSA) takes the lead, ECHELON works in conjunction with other intelligence agencies, including the Australian Defence Signals Directorate (DSD). It is believed that ECHELON also works with Britain’s Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) and the agencies of other allies of the United States, pursuant to various treaties. ¹

These countries coordinate their activities pursuant to the UKUSA agreement, which dates back to 1947. The original ECHELON dates back to 1971. However, its capabilities and priorities have expanded greatly since its formation. According to reports, it is capable of intercepting and processing many types of transmissions, throughout the globe. In fact, it has been suggested that ECHELON may intercept as many as 3 billion communications everyday, including phone calls, e-mail messages, Internet downloads, satellite transmissions, and so on. ² The ECHELON system gathers all of these transmissions indiscriminately, then distills the information that is most heavily desired through artificial intelligence programs. Some sources have claimed that ECHELON sifts through an estimated 90 percent of all traffic that flows through the Internet. ³

However, the exact capabilities and goals of ECHELON remain unclear. For example, it is unknown whether ECHELON actually targets domestic communications. Also, it is apparently very difficult for ECHELON to intercept certain types of transmissions, particularly fiber communications.

Q: How does ECHELON work?

ECHELON apparently collects data in several ways. Reports suggest it has massive ground based radio antennae to intercept satellite transmissions. In addition, some sites reputedly are tasked with tapping surface traffic. These antennae reportedly are in the United States, Italy, England, Turkey, New Zealand, Canada, Australia, and several other places. ⁴

Similarly, it is believed that ECHELON uses numerous satellites to catch “spillover” data from transmissions between cities. These satellites then beam the information down to processing centers on the ground. The main centers are in the United States (near Denver), England (Menwith Hill), Australia, and Germany. ⁵

According to various sources, ECHELON also routinely intercepts Internet transmissions. The organization allegedly has installed numerous “sniffer” devices. These “sniffers” collect information from data packets as they traverse the Internet via several key junctions. It also uses search software to scan for web sites that may be of interest. ⁶

Furthermore, it is believed that ECHELON has even used special underwater devices which tap into cables that carry phone calls across the seas. According to published reports, American divers, were able to install surveillance devices on to the underwater cables. One of these taps was discovered in 1982, but other devices apparently continued to function undetected. ⁷

It is not known at this point whether ECHELON has been able to tap fiber optic phone cables.

Finally, if the aforementioned methods fail to garner the desired information, there is another alternative. Apparently, the nations that are involved with ECHELON also train special agents to install a variety of special data collection devices. One of these devices is reputed to be an information processing kit that is the size of a suitcase. Another such item is a sophisticated radio receiver that is as small as a credit card. ⁸

After capturing this raw data, ECHELON sifts through them using DICTIONARY. DICTIONARY is actually a special system of computers which find pertinent information by searching for key words, addresses, etc. These search programs help pare down the voluminous quantity of transmissions which pass through the ECHELON network every day. These programs also seem to enable users to focus on any specific subject upon which information is desired. ⁹

Q: If ECHELON is so powerful, why haven’t I heard about it before?

The United States government has gone to extreme lengths to keep ECHELON a secret. To this day, U.S. government refuses to admit that ECHELON even exists. We know it exists because the Australian government (through its Defence Signals Directorate) has admitted to this fact. ¹⁰ However, even with this revelation, U.S. officials have refused to comment.

This “wall of silence” is beginning to erode. The first report on ECHELON was published in 1988. ¹¹ In addition, besides the revelations from Australia, the Scientific and Technical Options Assessment program office (STOA) of the European Parliament commissioned two reports which describe ECHELON’s activities. These reports unearthed a startling amount of evidence, which suggests that ECHELON’s powers may have been underestimated. The first report, entitled “An Appraisal of Technologies of Political Control”, suggested that ECHELON primarily targeted civilians.

This report found that:

“The ECHELON system forms part of the UKUSA system but unlike many of the electronic spy systems developed during the cold war, ECHELON is designed for primarily non-military targets: governments, organisations and businesses in virtually every country. The ECHELON system works by indiscriminately intercepting very large quantities of communications and then siphoning out what is valuable using artificial intelligence aids like Memex to find key words. Five nations share the results with the US as the senior partner under the UKUSA agreement of 1948, Britain, Canada, New Zealand and Australia are very much acting as subordinate information servicers.

“Each of the five centres supply “dictionarie” to the other four of keywords, phrases, people and places to “tag” and the tagged intercept is forwarded straight to the requesting country. Whilst there is much information gathered about potential terrorists, there is a lot of economic intelligence, notably intensive monitoring of all the countries participating in the GATT negotiations. But Hager found that by far the main priorities of this system continued to be military and political intelligence applicable to their wider interests. Hager quotes from a “highly placed intelligence operatives” who spoke to the Observer in London. “We feel we can no longer remain silent regarding that which we regard to be gross malpractice and negligence within the establishment in which we operate.” They gave as examples. GCHQ interception of three charities, including Amnesty International and Christian Aid. “At any time GCHQ is able to home in on their communications for a routine target request,” the GCHQ source said. In the case of phone taps the procedure is known as Mantis. With telexes its called Mayfly. By keying in a code relating to third world aid, the source was able to demonstrate telex “fixes” on the three organisations. With no system of accountability, it is difficult to discover what criteria determine who is not a target.” ¹²

The most recent report, known as “Interception Capabilities 2000”, describes ECHELON capabilities in even more elaborate detail. ¹³

In addition, an Italian government official has begun to investigate Echelon’s intelligence — gathering efforts, based on the belief that the organization may be spying on European citizens in violation of Italian or international law. ¹⁴

The Danish Parliament also has begun an inquiry.

Events in the United States have also indicated that the “wall of silence” might not last much longer. Exercising their Constitutionally created oversight authority, members of the House Select Committee on Intelligence recently started asking questions about the legal basis for NSA’s ECHELON activities. In particular, the Committee wanted to know if the communications of Americans were being intercepted and under what authority, since US law severely limits the ability of the intelligence agencies to engage in domestic surveillance. When asked about its legal authority, NSA invoked the attorney-client privilege and refused to disclose the legal standards by which ECHELON might have conducted its activities. ¹⁵

A funding bill is now making its way through the Congress which would, at a minimum, require the NSA to report on the legal basis for ECHELON and similar activities. ¹⁶

In addition, Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA), who has taken the lead in Congressional efforts to ferret out the truth about ECHELON has arranged for the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee to hold oversight hearings.¹⁷

Q: What is being done with the information that ECHELON collects?

The original purpose of ECHELON was to protect national security. That purpose continues today. For example, we know that ECHELON is gathering information on North Korea. Sources from Australia’s DSD have disclosed this much because Australian officials help operate the facilities there which scan through transmissions, looking for pertinent material. ¹⁸

However, national security is not ECHELON’s only concern. Reports have indicated that industrial espionage has become a part of ECHELON’s activities. While present information seems to suggest that only high- ranking government officials have direct control over ECHELON’s tasks, the information that is gained may be passed along at the discretion of these very same officials. As a result, much of this information has been given to American companies, in apparent attempts to give these companies an edge over their less knowledgeable counterparts. ¹⁹

In addition, there are concerns that ECHELON’s actions may be used to stifle political dissent. Many of these concerns were voiced in a report commissioned by the European Parliament. What is more, there are no known safeguards to prevent such abuses of power. ²⁰

Q: Is there any evidence that ECHELON is doing anything improper or illegal with the spying resources at its disposal?

ECHELON is a highly classified operation, which is conducted with little or not oversight by national parliaments or court. Most of what is known comes from whistleblowers and classified documents. The simple truth is that there is no way to know precisely what ECHELON is being used for.

But there is evidence, much of which is circumstantial, that ECHELON (along with its British counterpart) has been engaged in significant invasions of privacy. These alleged violations include secret surveillance of political organizations, such as Amnesty International. ²¹ It has also been reported that ECHELON has engaged in industrial espionage on various private companies such as Airbus Industries and Panavia, then has passed along the information to their American competitors. ²² It is unclear just how far ECHELON’s activities have harmed private individuals.

However, the most sensational revelation was that Diana, Princess of Wales may have come under ECHELON surveillance before she died. As reported in the Washington Post, the NSA admitted that they possessed files on the Princess, partly composed of intercepted phone conversations. While one official from the NSA claimed that the Princess was never a direct target, this disclosure seems to indicates the intrusive, yet surreptitious manner by which ECHELON operates. ²³

What is even more disquieting about these allegations is that if proven, may have circumvented countless laws in numerous countries. Many nations have laws in place to prevent such invasions of privacy. However, there are suspicions that ECHELON has engaged in subterfuge to avoid these legal restrictions. For example, it is rumored that nations would not use their own agents to spy on their own citizens, but assign the task to agents from other countries. ²⁴ In addition, as mentioned earlier, it is unclear just what legal standards ECHELON follows, if any actually exist. Thus, it is difficult to say what could prevent ECHELON from abusing its remarkable capabilities.

Q: Is everyone else doing what ECHELON does?

Maybe not everyone else, but there are plenty of other countries that engage in the type of intelligence gathering that ECHELON performs. These countries apparently include Russia, France, Israel, India, Pakistan and many others. ²⁵ Indeed, the excesses of these ECHELON-like operations are rumored to be similar in form to their American equivalents, including digging up information for private companies to give them a commercial advantage.

However, it is also known that ECHELON system is the largest of its kind. What is more, its considerable powers are enhanced through the efforts of America’s allies, including the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Other countries don’t have the resources to engage in the massive garnering of information that the United States is carrying out.

Today is christmas eve, the 24th of December, and my breakfast promptly turned from spaghetti into the more sensible choice of toast. mmm, toast. That crispy, crunchy snack or meal that many of us enjoy throughout the year. Unfortunately, what a lot of us do not realise (until we open our minds and think about it) is that toasters are in fact cancerous. Not in one way but two!
-> `Carbon on bread`
-> InfaRed Radiation from heating element  (Causes Skin Cancer)
Of course, the carbon danger being the most significant. Of course, consumption as many doctors will tell you, is many greater times more dangerous than exposure to skin, etc - given that metabolised foods travel a vast proportion of your body - and indeed some cases, the things you could really do without.

Carbon you say? “I never overdo my bread, it’s never black! hence no carbon”. True. However, consider that the microscope may tell a differing story, you may still find a prescence of carbon, even on the ligthliest of toasted bread. Not life threatning, I am sure. However, those who enjoy their lush burnt toast, such as my father should consider the risks involved. Much as the government urged cannabis users to be vigilant and aware of psychotic effects (existing genetic problems or genetic intolerancies may already exist in the subject and as such increasing risk slightly can have surprisingly large latter effects).

Definately, not something we all consider. Things we are brought up with, be it toast, bread, coca cola or a governing system are never questioned enough and it is in my sound judgement that mistakes may be being made! Remember, depend on yourself, not just the mainstream media news & science journals, but listen to what is in your heart, be prepared to take a long journey re-inspecting the foundations of your ideas, you may just be surprised where it leads.