Talk:ECHELON/Archive 1

message: Morwinstow is a small village with an interesting vicarage, there's certainly no international listening post there. You can see Goonhilly from there though, is that what's meant?
:Who says they want you to know it's there? I'm not a tinfoil hat type, and I still acknowledge that anyone involved could put something there and not make it visibly obvious. -Joseph (Talk) 18:41, 2004 Oct 1 (UTC)
:The Composite Signals Organisation Station near Morwenstow, Cornwall run by Britain's GCHQ is quite visible (just google for pictures of the big satellite antennae... Marcika 15:46, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Morwinstow

message: The Total Information Awareness bit ought to be deleted.  TIA has been torpedoed by Congress and is really no longer relevant, especially not to Echelon. --thames 19:42, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yes? The DoD is still pursuing the idea (see the recent Op-Ed from Pindexter about it in the New York Times), it just has renamed it to Terrorism Information Awareness. And a giant database collecting and connecting information and communication data from US citizens is actually fairly similar to what Echelon is trying to do outside the US. - Marcika 15:46, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: You're right, there have been no news about the resurrection of TIA since about a year ago... We should move the bit about TIA from the header to the end of the article... - Marcika 16:53, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: TIA

message: : Note that the US$3.6 billion number is very likely off by a several orders of magnitude, as those numbers would work out to US$94000 per employee per year: not enough to cover salary requirements.
Really? I would have thought that would have been quite enough to cover salary requirements; what's the average wage in the States? — Matt Crypto 17:36, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed for now...

message: The article currently says:
::::The proposed US-only "Total Information Awareness" program relied on technology similar to ECHELON, and was to integrate the extensive sources it is legally permitted to survey domestically, with the "taps" already compiled by ECHELON. It was cancelled by the U.S. Congress in 2004.
Apparently however, it wasn't "cancelled", after all; the essense of Total Information Awareness didn't die with that. According to the AP story (linked below):
::::"The work, however, did not die.
::::In killing Poindexter's office, Congress quietly agreed to continue paying to develop highly specialized software to gather foreign intelligence on terrorists.
::::In a classified section summarized publicly, Congress added money for this software research to the "National Foreign Intelligence Program," without identifying openly which intelligence agency would do the work."
...etc (my emphasis). See:
:*Slashdot | Total Information Awareness, Disguised And Alive
:*The AP story is widely quoted and also available in full on the net: Google search for the AP story
--Vinsci 15:49, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Total Information Awareness, Disguised And Alive" 

message: The article lists the "Shoal Bay" installation as being in New South Wales, is this corrent?
http://archives.openflows.org/hacktivism/hacktivism01421.html
along with many others (google: "shoal bay" echelon) mentions "Shoal Bay, near Darwin in Northern Australia"...
http://echelononline.free.fr/documents/dc/inside_echelon.htm
Also lists shoal bay as in the NT.
: I do not know who made this first entry, with question, or when. But, I have made further Googles about Shoal Bay, and all point to the proximity of Darwin. Many more than those listed above. Fact is that there _is_ a Shoal Bay in NSW, in the Port Stephen's/Nelson Bay area, wherupon there are rumours about military installations.. On the basis of this, I have still changed the location of Shoal Bay from 'New South Wales' to 'Northern Territory' in the article. The new (NT) location would be: S12.24'11 E130.53'54 The old (NSW) location would be: S32.43'15 E152.10'52 -Snorre/Antwelm 16:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shoal Bay? 

message: *"ECHELON is thought to be the largest signals intelligence and analysis network"
*"some critics claim the system is also being used for large-scale commercial theft"
*etc.
Can you please add sources for these and other claims in the article? Thanks. Read also WP:AWT. --Eleassar my talk 13:48, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Be more specific

message: Whilst this section is interesting, I think it should be modified to remove the implication that the whole echelon system is powered by the same hardware produced by the same company. This is highly unlikely. I would doubt that GCHQ (UK) would use much equipment produced in the US; likewise the other members of Echelon. I have knowledge of several electronics companies based in the UK that provide digital encryption hardware, DSP's and storage hardware to GCHQ.
More likely is that Echelon is a framework for tying together the work of each organisation - not a technological framework for homogenising the hardware used. Rob cowie 19:26, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hardware 

message: The first paragraph in hte history section says it is now also used for the invasion of privacy. But none of the other things can be done without invasion of privacy. So what is meant here? Non-political invasion of pivacy? DirkvdM 12:54, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I imagine something like "invasion of privacy without good reason", where a "good reason" would obviously vary from critic to critic, but would likely   include strong suspicion of serious criminal/terrorist activity, or even plain-old espionage against other governments. — Matt Crypto 14:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If that is how it's meant then it's a POV statement (as you already indicated with the variation from critic to critic). What I was getting at is whether espionage is also an invasion of privacy, something you also bring up. I've asked this at talk:privacy too. DirkvdM 12:54, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invasion of privacy 

message: As mentioned in previous comments on this talk page, there are some interesting claims made for which no specific documentation is referenced.  Obviously, it's difficult to know what the real truth of the matter is for a classified program, so verification here is only going to go so far. The secretive nature of the topic just makes it all the more important to cite specific sources, since it's easy for any one source (or all available sources, for that matter) to get the facts wrong. -- Beland 12:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. This is the sort of article where you need to footnote every other sentence, IMO. — Matt Crypto 12:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verification and sourcing 

message: Introduction states: 
"ECHELON is thought to be the largest signals intelligence and analysis network ... Run by the UKUSA Community, ECHELON can capture radio and satellite communications, ..."
On the one hand, ECHELON is thought to be something. On the other, its capabilities are stated as fact. I don't think we can have it both ways...?
Soundbyte 20:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Style/accuracy Issue

message: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/23/AR2005122302050.html
G Clark 01:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  cited in Washington Post 

message: Cryptome refers to a declassified National Security Council document dated June 30, 1958 that states "Naval Radio Research Observatory (NRRO)... to be erected 
at Sugar Grove, West Virginia for exploiting lunar reflective techniques for the purposes of intelligence collection, radio astronomy, and communications-electronics research... will provide for reception and analyzing emissions from areas of the world not now accessible by any other known method..."  Are they still using this "moonbounce" technique? Could recent lunar explosions possibly be connected to recent revelations about the Bush administrations illegal spying? 58.147.26.57 20:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explosions on the Moon 

message: The article says '"The United States will occasionally have the United Kingdom keep an eye on individuals in this country, with the understanding that if Britain turns up any interesting tidbits, it will slide them across the table." - from the book, CHATTER: Dispatches from the Secret World of Global Eavesdropping'. While this is no doubt a direct quote from a source, it is not clear what 'this country' is - I assume the US? -- Mithent 20:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ambiguity re: 'this country' 

message: Just curious, but how can an article that is classified under the categories "Wikipedia articles needing factual verification" and "Articles with unsourced statements" also be cited as a good article? To me these seem mutually exclusive. Is it considered a good article because of the writing style or structure? --Careax 19:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good article? 

message: The insert about Margaret Newsham's involvement with Lockhead and the project names SILKWORTH and SIRE come from the website of the Blacktown Branch Communist Party of Australia. After reading the interview with Margaret Newsham I find it highly incredulous and would like others to read the article at  and see for themselfs if the report seems accurate.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by  Imladros  (talk • contribs) 08:55, 17 May 2006.
:Actually, they don't; you've just come across one re-publication from the original Danish newspaper, Ekstra Bladet, the Echelon articles from which were consolidated at http://cryptome.org/echelon-baby.htm. 
:Also, please only add discussions to the bottom of talk pages, and sign your comments —LeflymanTalk 18:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apart from which, who really cares what clunky systems they used back then? More relevant material is out there on the present computing capabilities of the NSA, much of which is believed to be denoted to Echelon if I recall correctly. For example, the yearly electricity bill of the NSA headquarters is reputedly $21 million, from which one could make ballpark estimates of their computing power.  I might try and dig it up more of this info and include it. --Russell E 02:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand. But wikipedia doesn't do original research. Find someone else that adds up the data. Since it is all secret; that is the best sourcing and is allowed. But original research is not allowed. Even if it is just drawing a connection between computing power and electricity useage. WAS 4.250 22:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source for Margaret Newsham

message: ECHELON is estimated to intercept up to 3 billion communications every day was deleted from the article by someone else. The number in probably too low. The number whatever it is is classified so we need to know who is doing the guessing - i.e. a source is mandatory. And the number undoubtedly grows every year so when  the guess was made is very important. WAS 4.250 17:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Content deleted from article

message: I believe the ECHELON article as currently written is substandard and misleading. It appears to be mostly a collection of rumors, half truths and factoids collected under the rubric of ECHELON.
It is no secret that the U.S. National Security Agency  collects signal intelligence (SIGINT). They say so on their web site, []:  "The National Security Agency collects, processes and disseminates foreign Signals Intelligence (SIGINT)." On their SIGINT FAQ they say:
:"NSA/CSS’s Signal Intelligence mission is to intercept and analyze foreign adversaries' communications signals, many of which are protected by codes and other complex countermeasures. We collect, process, and disseminate intelligence reports on foreign intelligence targets in response to intelligence requirements set at the highest levels of government. ... Foreign intelligence means information relating to the capabilities, intentions, and activities of foreign powers, organizations or persons."
NSA has been doing this since its inception and its predecessors within the U.S. government have been collecting signals intelligence to some degree since the invention of telegraphy. 
While there is a controversy ongoing in the U.S over whether NSA is complying with the law limiting surveillance of U.S. persons, no one doubts NSA's goals for non-U.S. traffic are omnivorous and limited only by their budget, which is likely large.
The ECHLON story begins to diverge from reality when it gets to details, however.
* The name ECHLON itself. NSA uses many code names. It may once have had a project named ECHELON. It's highly unlikely that they still use it, if for no other reason then the fact it has become public. 
* The focus on sites with big antennas. There is no particular reason to associate big antennas with current SIGINT activities.  Through the 1960s, high frequency radio was a major mode of international and military communications and thus a prime target of SIGINT. The long wavelengths of these signals (10 to 100 meters) required large antennas. Large dish antennas are also useful in monitoring satellites. However the bulk of international communications these days is by fiber optic cable.  Large antennas play no role in monitoring such traffic. And, of course, big antennas have other uses, such as communication. SIGINT satellites do require ground stations, of course, but likely only a few world-wide are needed for this purpose. No doubt may of the sites listed in the article have or had an NSA listening station, however so in all likelihood do most locations where the US and it allies have any control, such as embassies, consulates, etc. Nowadays, an intercept station does not have to be very big, an office or even a cabinet should do. Roof antennas need not be very conspicuous. 
* The emphasis on the "UKUSA Community." It is no secret that the U.S and the UK have had a close working relationship on SIGINT since World War II, when they cooperated on breaking Axis codes. However the challenges presented by modern communications systems, such as fiber optic lines, digital switches and cell phone technology limit what those countries can do on their own. While undersea cables can be tapped and satellites may be able to monitor cell phones on a spot basis, successful interception of these modern methods, particularly for in-country traffic, is best done with the cooperation of local authorities. There is reason to believe the the US and UK have such cooperative relations with many other nations. Most major countries have a signal intelligence organizations and today these have a strong interest in combatting terrorism.  
* Speculation on hardware. NSA has long been associated with the use of advanced computing equipment. Today they probably use large amounts of best-of-breed, commercially developed computer servers and may also have specialized hardware they develop in house. No doubt they once used VAXs, but is would be most surprising (and alarming to their supporters) if they still do. Recent revelations on NSA monitoring in the US gives some indication of their current practice (see Room 641A), but the Hardware section of this article as of this date is unlikely to have any relation to current reality.
In short, while a large international effort to collect communications intelligence undoubtedly exists, large enough, arguably, to raise privacy concerns, and while there is undoubtedly a widespread belief in the ECHELON story, little of the information in this article is likely to be accurate or relevant to current practice. For this reason, I have added a disputed tag to the article.--agr 17:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is well sourced. (You can start by reading this) Wikipedia does not do "truth" (we do "verifyable") or original research (your arguments are original research) and we are not a newspaper so we don't delete stuff just because it may not be current. If you read the sources you will see that the article accurately reflects the contents of the sources. We don't label such articles as somehow wrong or inaccuuate on the basis of original research. Find good verifyable sources that make your points and then those points can be added to the article. WAS 4.250 17:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I made a number of changes, and while I think there is more to be done, I've now removed the disputed tag.--agr 20:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a GA dispute entry listed for this article which I was about to archive and end as no consensus, but since something seems to of happened here, what state is the article in now? Homestarmy 14:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made a number of edits to this article since I posted the GA dispute. I think it is better now.  I'm still concerned about parts of it, particular the Ground Stations section which is largely unsourced. (There are some 19 sites listed in the EP report, p.54 ff.  I haven't collated them with the article yet.) I wouldn't vote for it as a good article, but I have no problem with your archiving the discussion as no consensus.--agr 10:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Critique of article

message: As for the source of the 1600+ staff, see http://www.hrma-agrh.gc.ca/pas-srp/report-rapport_e.asp?cat=f  
The press kit (http://www.cse-cst.gc.ca/documents/media-room/media-kit.pdf) gives 2004 numbers at 1200 people, budget of almost $200CAD, almost double the $110CAD stated.
Lactam 14:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources for section 5: Organization 

message: How can this be considered a good article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wildman7856 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Good?

message: I could be wrong about this, but isn't it illegal to photograph military instalations. The article includes a picture taken at a Royal Air Force Base. Techlotl 21:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be very surprised if taking the photograph was illegal -- I haven't been prosecuted for it yet, at least... — Matt Crypto 21:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Only in the odd totalitarian state.ALR 18:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures of Military Instalations 

message: Added entry on Guardian (database), and expanded entry on TALON (database). Please feel free to view these entries. Oh, and you can edit them too, in case you didn't know. :-) Thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 13:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New entries