Re: What was the quid pro quo for Wassenaar countries?

One thing which came to me recently when I was trying to figure out what sort 
of gun the US held to the rest of the world's head to get them to agree to 
this: Could the Wassenaar outcome have been a sign of Echelon in action?
 
Consider this: Delegates from each country have been travelling to Vienna for 
some months now to negotiate their countries position.  During the 
negotiations, they'll be contacting their governments via phonecalls carried 
over microwave trunks, satellite links, or undersea cables to discuss the 
progress of the negotiations and what position they should take.  Just like 
the negotiations which lead to the Five-Power Treaty in 1921, if one country 
had the ability to intercept all the other countries communications it would 
know how far they could be pushed, and where the most resistance was likely to 
come from, allowing greater amounts of "persuasion" to be concentrated on them.
 
I can't think of a more appropriate application of Echelon (use worldwide 
surveillance technology to perpetuate the usefulness of worldwide surveillance 
technology), and it would go some way towards explaining the very peculiar 
agreement which was reached.
 
Peter.

Peter Gutmann may be close to the truth about Echelon's role
in the Wassenaar changes.

The NYT reports today that the US is proposing to NATO a
combined intelligence center to combat use of Weapons of Mass
Destruction by rogue states and non-state terrorists like Usama
Bin Laden.

There is some dissent among the Europeans over the US's
attempt to frighten the populace with a new worldwide menace
to replace the boogies of the Cold War.

Still, it appears that intelligence on the threat of terrorist use of 
WMD is being whispered in ears of those holding out for
privacy protection. And a correlative threat of strong encryption
is surely part of those scenarios.

As in the US, it's probable that domestic restrictions on strong
crypto are being advanced to combat domestic terrorism in countries
around the world, following the precedent set during the Cold War,
which, as we all know was the evil parent of Wassenaar's predecessor
COCOM.

GAO put out a report (GGD-99-7) a few days ago on the FBI's 
expenditures for counterterrorism from 1995-98. It shows a dramatic 
increase year by year, with big leaps authorized by Congress following 
each "terrorist incident," for funds for a host of domestic agencies. 
GAO wonders (as does Congress which asked for the report) if it's 
all being put to beneficial effect. Its description of CT activities
carefully 
excludes the classified, and also omits the global efforts of US military 
-- not least of which is its vast intelligence apparatus, tidbits of which 
are surely being tossed to the Wassenaar puppies to get them to
go along with the Terrorism War Machinery.

The NYT has been running a series on how long the TLAs and military
have been tracking Usama Bin Laden (at least since 1991, maybe longer). 
It appears that if he did not exist he would have to be invented for the 
counterterrorism agenda. It's even possible that Bin Laden is their invention,
cultivated, strung along, not arrested, for that purpose. The African bombings
were probably preventable, and it will be interesting if Congress lets this
possibility go uninvestigated.

More interesting to Americans, maybe, is that there also appears to be
an effort to boost domestic militia, particularly the religious brand, as the
homefront Bin Laden. The rise of religion-based terrorism is explored at
length in Bruce Hoffman's recent "Inside Terrorism." Hoffman claims that
religious terrorists may be the worst enemies ever, for they do not 
believe in political compromise: they want to kill every single opponent,
and have no reservations about using WMD.

If this theory is correct (and Hoffman has worked with RAND for years on
the issue) then the menace of terrorism is worse than that hawked during
the Cold War. The enemy is not distant, not even ICBM seconds away,
but rather it lives amongst us, it's our neighbors readying Armageddon not
merely a familiar commie takeover. 

Hoffman says to expect more OKCs around the globe. To be sure, that's
his business to say that.

John Young wrote:

> Peter Gutmann may be close to the truth about Echelon's role
> in the Wassenaar changes.
>
> The NYT reports today that the US is proposing to NATO a
> combined intelligence center to combat use of Weapons of Mass
> Destruction by rogue states and non-state terrorists like Usama
> Bin Laden.

[...]

> The NYT has been running a series on how long the TLAs and military
> have been tracking Usama Bin Laden (at least since 1991, maybe longer).
> It appears that if he did not exist he would have to be invented for the
> counterterrorism agenda. It's even possible that Bin Laden is their invention,
> cultivated, strung along, not arrested, for that purpose. The African bombings
> were probably preventable, and it will be interesting if Congress lets this
> possibility go uninvestigated.

It is a matter of record that the CIA vastly overestimated the wherewithal of the
former Soviet military, much less economy. Was this done on purpose to justify
opening the Capitol floodgates to float the USS United States, flagship of the
lone superpower?

Today's justification; third world sand fleas lighting paperbags full of dogshit
and ringing the doorbell. Can't have pranksters disturbing our good neighborhood.
Don't let children play with matches, and the US will organize the neighborhood
watch.

Meanwhile, the earth warms, storms ravage the tropics, glaciers recede, permafrost
defrosts, icebergs the size of Delaware calve and castoff, and the warm earth
sheds it's ozone like a sweater. Yeah, let's spend millions on Usama Bin Laden.
Who's the captain of this fuckin' ship of fools? How do you spell democracy?
M-U-T-I-N-Y.

On Mon, 7 Dec 1998, Peter Gutmann wrote:

> One thing which came to me recently when I was trying to figure out what sort 
> of gun the US held to the rest of the world's head to get them to agree to 
> this: Could the Wassenaar outcome have been a sign of Echelon in action?

Much more I believe it could have been the promise of US to allow the W
countries to use the Echelon system sometimes. Something like in case your
country needs access to the system, it might be possible to order this
service from US Echelon Co. Of course US either would allow it in cases
like international terrorism threats, not for spying on European political
organs, technological and development and research organisations US
probably is using it for today. And it could be just a promise by US. 

Why this thing might have worked would be because the level education and
understanding of US and European representatives at these issues (Echelon,
communications wiretapping) could be very different, so the non-US
politicians might have not understood what they were really voting on. And
of course the government of every country in the world is always happy if
it can spy on anyone. Sad that they do not understand that the crypto
software today is a little bit too advanced and freely available that who
wants can still use it. 

Jyri Kaljundi
jk@stallion.ee
AS Stallion Ltd
http://www.stallion.ee/