-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
At 11:36 PM 18-08-99 +0000, Sandy Harris wrote:
>The Canadian Dep't of Foreign Affairs & International Trade (DFAIT)
has an
>export law
>page at:
>
>http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/~eicb/notices/ser113-e.htm
[ Text deleted]
>If I read it right, the 64-bit limit should be dead in two
>years. I cannot see Germany, or other countries reportedley
>victimized by Echelon, consenting to a continuation.
>What can we do in the remaining year-and-a-half or so to
>ensure consent is nowhere near unanimous?
The best thing I can think of is to find real world cases,
if any, where Echelon data has been used (or appears to have
been used) to manipulate internal politics in some country,
or to help out trade negotiations between countries, or
whatever else. If we (the US) have been using these
intercepts to, say, help friendly politicians get elected in
allied countries, that fact needs to be publicized far and
wide. That will make it impossible for any non-US
politicians to argue for Echelon. (Imagine the public
outcry if it came out that GCHQ or the Mossad were seriously
influencing US presidential elections.)
Anyone have any ideas on this? What would the telltale
signs of political influence via sigint be? Scary
anti-American (or anti-Echelon) politicians routinely having
a scandal kick up a month before the election? (This might
not be a bad indicator, if the people planting the leak were
careless enough that it was something that could only be
known via wiretaps or something.)
- --John Kelsey, [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
NEW PGP print = 5D91 6F57 2646 83F9 6D7F 9C87 886D 88AF
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.5.3i for non-commercial use <http://www.pgpi.com>
iQCVAwUBN8rQ9SZv+/Ry/LrBAQFBpAP+MC3wqhh2QrElAtENqc3FXirHX7UNMNHy
i4dDKsAlxRimpyjKpVHd17n3TJDiDO9I4ujTgQUd6xs+yEySoYpcD6rAqR1T7gBE
ONuOrdp18KHjjTWU32WxNbC7dwnCik65WSPkC6fzrLuHtqg63ZJcKRxJiVqQUhzA
QsmpX1b7WHs=
=qRmn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
