How Electronic Intercepts Can Often Give Us The Wrong Message
Police sources today have revealed the arrest of a suspected Terrorist in an undisclosed location in the South of England.
Described as a White male in his late 30's, a family man, and a white collar worker with no previous convictions or known affiliations with Terrorist groups, but the Police are sure that they have prevented a serious incident, probably a bomb attack directed at GCHQ's listening posts and interception facilities, often code-named Echelon.
What is unusual about this suspect, our sources tell us, is that he was informed on by his wife, who became suspicious after seeing unusual documents on the arrested mans PC. Apparently she discussed the files with her daughter and then called in the Police, who promptly arrested the man at work and took him to Paddington Green Secure Police Station in London .
No further information was forthcoming from the Police, except that they were very pleased with the result and were looking forward to charging the suspect.
This is in fact not a spoof, well not quite. I was researching for a book I was going to write on Project Echelon, the US/UK electronic eavesdropping system and how it could be used against terrorists, and had lots of files about bombs, targets, etc on my pc, my wife found them and quizzed me on if I was a terrorist (in fun!). We had quite a laugh about it, but it got me thinking about how relatives could hand their family into the police if they thought their loved ones were involved with terrorism.
The darker side to this is the way that the government, through Project Echelon, is able to intercept and read many e-mails and electronic communications, and the possibility that seemingly innocent data could be misconstrued as a security threat.
The key to intercepting electronic media to eavesdrop on potential terrorist threats is not simply in the words that may be found, but rather in the behaviour surrounding the transfer of information. (Unless of course the terrorists are too stupid to hide their communications, which is unlikely.)
What do I mean? Well let's take probably the most famous example, that of where the Allies fooled the Germans into thinking that the invasion of France was going to come via the Pas de Calais and the landings in Normandy were just a diversion or secondary operation. This misconception was carried on weeks past June 6th 1944, keeping vital German reinforcements tied down in the wrong place. By the time the Germans realised that no force was going to land at Calais it was too late for them to do anything.
What this teaches us is that the Allied plan worked well because it was comprehensive. Hundreds of phoney radio operators transmitting thousands of fake troop movement reports and supply requests. Whole fake divisions were dreamed up; wooden tanks were built to fools German air reconnaissance. It worked like a dream. Now the German's did send some aircraft over Portsmouth, and they saw the massive build up of ships, but chose to ignore it, because they wanted to believe that the invasion was coming through Calais and not France.
So we cannot rely just on electronic intercepts for our anti-terrorist plans, and we should also be vary careful that our preconceived ideas about what may happen don't get in the way of us actually find out what will happen. There is no substitute for agents on the ground, infiltrating the suspected groups and doing information gathering the good old fashioned way.
This article was a pack of lies. Read more untruths.....
Comments / Questions:
Add A Comment / Question: