Re: successfully echelonised

From jesse hirsh <>
Date Mon, 27 Sep 1999 10:41:49 -0400 (EDT)
In-reply-to <>

[: hacktivism :]

slasdot has had an interesting thread on echelon:

also, a 'keyword' to use when trolling for info on echelon is:
"Menwith Hill"

On Tue, 28 Sep 1999, sam wrote:

> as some people have already pointed out - encryption is what echelon
> hates most.

this seems rather groundless to me. there is nothing to suggest that this
is the case. rather it is put forward by our own (fetishized) notions of
technology and encryption.

> that's why the us govt has been trying real hard to get
> encrpytion effectively banned.

just like they banned certain profane words on the internet?

> now, they know that this will be quite
> tricky to do - so, their backup plan is to regulate the net.

that is ludicrous.

> currently,
> in oz-  the online regulation act comes in to effect on 1st of jan 1999.
> effectively, the act makes the isp responsible for the contents on
> his/her server.

this is the default policy of most governments. it is a direct translation
of the laws regulating publishing. certainly this is the case in canada.
isps are not 'common carriers' rather they are considered publishers.

> so, here's my views:

and my own in opposition:

> -echelon won't be able to cope with encrpytion.

it already does quite effectively.

> -nsa/corporations won't  be able to stop people encrpypting.

any encryption that is publicly available today poses no threat to the
NSA. rather, encryption acts as a flag, since anybody using it, must be up
to no good (sic), and the ability to decrypt it real easy (for the NSA).

> -so, control the medium that allows the communication.

uhm, they accomplished this long ago. all forms of communications are
highly regulated, if not by governments, then by corporations and
egineers. there is no anarchy on the internet (i checked).

> -ie. regulate the medium by controlling the service provider.

done. not that it has much effect.

> -many laws in many countries already make it illegal to use encrpytion.

why would want encryption? is not the real desire freedom of assembly and
freedom to communicate (article 19 of the UN decl of HR).

> -service provider will force users not to use encrpytion.

another ludicrous suggestion.

> well -there's my piece.... so, the online regulations act in oz is a
> test case for the world. they'll (the corporates) will be watching for
> resistance, protests, patterns, attitudes - so they can develop a global
> net regulation that will get passed illuding us all ...

this is also ludicrous.

> does this make sense.... am very interested in working on dismantling
> online regulation fully - and ensuring that we have an open and free
> medium to communicate through -

fighting regulation would be the quickest way to ensure the 'medium' is
neither free nor open. the real threat is property, and the controls that
property affords its owner. i think that this (corporate) property should
be regulated for the interests of the public, and those who are not
afforded the benefits of presence within said property.

the net is, always has been, and always will be regulated. with that said,
perhaps we should discuss the notion of democratic governance
(regulation), or are we all just 'rule-by-force' tyrants, lamenting the
particular tyrants in control?

to suggest that the net should not be regulated, indicates a desire for an
environment in which the strong (and smart) rule at the expense of all
those who may fall victim to their power (rule).

[: hacktivism :]
[: for unsubscribe instructions or list info consult the list FAQ :]
[: :]