Hej,

längs ner länkar jag till en detaljerad rapport om hur EU 2001 bedömde att Echelon såg ut och agerade, 133 sidor, sisådär. Den nämner dock inget om 'individernas' integritet men har däremot en bra sektion om infrastruktur och kända fall av industrispionage, den sistnämnda får ni finskrivet här i inlägget:

Publicerade fall av Industrispionage, involverande bla ECHELON/NSA/CIA

[B]Sektion 10.7 - Published cases[/B]

There are some cases of industrial espionage and/or competitive intelligence which have been described in the press or in the relevant literature. Some of these sources have been analysed and the results are summarised in the following table. Brief details are given of the persons involved, when the cases occurred, the detailed issues at stake, the objectives and the consequences.

It is noticeable that sometimes a single case is reported in very different ways. One example is the Enercom case, in connection with which either the NSA, or the US Department of Commerce or the competitor which took the photographs is described as the 'perpetrator'.

Case: Air France
Who: DGSE
When: Until 1994
What: Conversations between travelling businessmen
How: Bugs were discovered in the first class cabins of Air France aircraft - public apology by the company
Aim: Obtaining information
Consequences: Not stated
Source: „Wirtschaftsspionage: Was macht eigentlich die Konkurrenz?" von Arno Schütze, 1/98

Case: Airbus
Who: NSA
When: 1994
What: Information on an order for aircraft concluded between Airbus and the Saudi Arabian national airline
How: Interception of faxes and telephone calls between the negotiating parties
Aim: Forwarding of information to Airbus's US competitors, Boeing and McDonnell-Douglas
Consequences: The Americans won the contract (US$ 6 bn)
Source: „Antennen gedreht", Wirtschaftswoche Nr.46 / 9 November 2000

Case: Airbus
Who: NSA
When: 1994
What: Contract with Saudi Arabia worth US$ 6 bn uncovering of bribes paid by the European Airbus Consortium
How: Interception of faxes and telephone calls, routed via telecommunications satellites, between Airbus Consortium and the Saudi Arabian national airline/Government
Aim: Uncovering of bribes
Consequences: McDonnel-Douglas, Airbus's American competitor, won the contract
Source: Duncan Campbell in STOA 1999, Part 2/5, with reference to Baltimore Sun, America's Fortress of Spies, by Scott Shane and Tom Bowman, 3 December 1995, and Washington Post, Recent US Coups in New Espionnage, by William Drozdiak

Case: BASF
Who: Marketing manager
When: Not stated
What: Description of the process for the production of a raw material for skin creams by BASF (cosmetics division)
How: Not stated
Aim: Not stated
Consequences: None, because the attempt was discovered
Source: „Nicht gerade zimperlich", Wirtschaftswoche Nr.43 / 16 October 1992

Case: Federal German Ministry of Economic Affairs
Who: CIA
When: 1997
What: Information concerning high-tech products held by the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs
How: Use of an agent
Aim: Obtaining information
Consequences: Agent unmasked and expelled from the country
Source: „Wirtschaftsspionage: Was macht eigentlich die Konkurrenz?" von Arno Schütze, 1/98

Case: Federal German Ministry of Economic Affairs
Who: CIA
When: 1997
What: Background to the Mykonos trial in Berlin, Hermes loans concerning exports to Iran, setting-up of German firms supplying high-tech products to Iran
How: CIA agent disguised as US Ambassador holds friendly conversations with the Head of the Department in the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs responsible for the Arab region (particular responsibility: Iran)
Aim: Obtaining information
Consequences: Not stated Civil servant contacts the German security authorities, who inform the Americans that the CIA operation is unwelcome. CIA agent then 'withdrawn'.
Source: Industrial espionage. Firms as a target for foreign intelligence services, Baden-Württemberg Constitutional Protection Agency, Stuttgart as at 1998

Case: Dasa
Who: Russian Intelligence Service
When: 1996 – 1999
What: Purchase and forwarding of armaments-related documents drawn up by a Munich arms firm (according to SZ of 30.05.2000: arms firm Dasa in Ottobrunn)
How: 2 Germans working on behalf of the Russians
Aim: Obtaining information on guided missiles, armaments systems (anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles)
Consequences: SZ / 30.05.2000:
'(...) Betrayal of secrets 'not particularly serious' from a military point of view. The court ruled that this also applied to the economic damage suffered.'
Source: „Anmerkungen zur Sicherheitslage der deutschen Wirtschaft", ASW; Bonn, April 2001 „Haftstrafe wegen Spionage für Russland", SZ / 30 May 2000

Case: Embargo
Who: FIS
When: Around 1990
What: Resumption of exports of embargoed technology to Libya (e.g. by Siemens)
How: Interception of telephone calls
Aim: Uncovering illegal arms and technology transfer
Consequences: No particular consequences, deliveries not prevented
Source: 'Maulwürfe in Nadelstreifen', Andreas Förster, p. 110

Case: Enercon
Who: Wind power expert from Oldenburg, Kenetech employee
When: Not stated
What: Wind-power plant developed by Enercon, a firm located in Aurich
How: Not stated
Aim: Not stated
Consequences: Not stated
Source: „Anmerkungen zur Sicherheitslage der deutschen Wirtschaft", ASW; Bonn, April 2001

Case: Enercon
Who: NSA
When: Not stated
What: Wind wheel for electricity generation, developed by Aloys Wobben, an engineer from East Frisia
How: Not stated
Aim: Forwarding of technical details of Wobben's wind wheel to a US firm
Consequences: US firm patents the wind wheel before Wobben; (breach of patent rights)
Source: „Aktenkrieger", SZ, 29 March 2001

Case: Enercon
Who: Engineer W., from Oldenburg, and US firm Kenetech
When: March 1994
What: Type E-40 wind-powered electricity generator developed by Enercon
How: Engineer W. passes on details, Kenetech employee photographs the plant and electrical components
Aim: Kenetech seeking evidence for legal action against Enercon for breach of patent rights on the grounds that Enercon had obtained commercial secrets illegally, According to an NSA employee, detailed information concerning Enercon was passed on to Kenetech via ECHELON
Consequences: Not stated
Source: „Klettern für die Konkurrenz", SZ, 13 October 2000

Case: Enercon
Who: Kenetech Windpower
When: Before 1996
What: Data concerning Enercon's wind-powered electricity generating plant
How: Kenetech engineers photograph the plant
Aim: Kenetech copies the plant
Consequences: Enercon vindicated; legal action brought against spy; estimated loss: several hundred million DM
Source: „Wirtschaftsspionage: Was macht eigentlich die Konkurrenz?" von Arno Schütze, 1/98

Case: Japanese Trade Ministry
Who: CIA
When: 1996
What: Negotiations on import quotas for US cars on the Japanese market
How: Hacking into computer system of the Japanese Trade Ministry
Aim: US negotiator Mickey Kantor should accept lowers offer
Consequences: Kantor accepts lowest offer
Source: „Wirtschaftsspionage: Was macht eigentlich die Konkurrenz?" von Arno Schütze, 1/98

Case: Japanese cars
Who: US Government
When: 1995
What: Negotiations on the import of Japanese luxury cars
Information on the emissions standards of Japanese cars
How: COMINT, no detailed information
Aim: Obtaining information
Consequences: No details
Source: Duncan Campbell in STOA, Part 2/5, 1999, with reference to Financial Post, Canada, 28 February 1998

Case: López
Who: US Government
When: Not stated
What: Videoconference involving VW and López
How: Interception from Bad Aibling
Aim: Forwarding of information to General Motors and Opel
Consequences: The interception operation allegedly provided the State Prosecutor's Office with 'very detailed evidence' for its investigation
Source: Bundeswehr Captain Erich Schmidt-Eenboom, quoted in 'Wenn Freunde spionieren' [url]www.zdf.msnbc.de/news/54637.asp?cp1=1[/url]

Case: Los Alamos
Who: Israel
When: 1988
What: Two employees of the Israeli nuclear research programme hack into the central computer of the Los Alamos nuclear weapons laboratory
How: Hacking
Aim: Obtaining information about new fuses for US atomic weapons
Consequences: No specific consequences, since the hackers fled to Israel. One is briefly held in custody in Israel, links with the Israeli Secret Service are not officially confirmed
Source: 'Maulwürfe in Nadelstreifen', Andreas Förster, p. 137

Case: Smuggling
Who: FIS
When: 1970s
What: Smuggling of computers into the GDR
How: Not stated
Aim: Uncovering of technology transfer to the Eastern Bloc
Consequences: No particular consequences, deliveries not prevented
Source: 'Maulwürfe in Nadelstreifen', Andreas Förster, p. 113

Case: TGV
Who: DGSE
When: 1993
What: Cost calculation by Siemens
Contract to supply high-speed trains to South Korea
How: Not stated
Aim: Lower price offer
Consequences: The manufacturer of the ICE loses the contract to Alcatel-Alsthom
Source: „Wirtschaftsspionage: Was macht eigentlich die Konkurrenz?" von Arno Schütze, 1/98

Case: TGV
Who: Unknown
When: 1993
What: Cost calculation by AEG and Siemens concerning a government contract to supply South Korea with high-speed trains
How: Siemens claims that the telephone and fax connections in its Seoul office are being tapped
Aim: Negotiating advantage for the Anglo-French competitor GEC Alsthom
Consequences: South Korea decides in favour of GEC Alsthom, although the German offer was initially regarded as better
Source: „Abgehört", Berliner Zeitung, 22 January 1996

Case: Thomson-Alcatel v Raytheon
Who: CIA/NSA
When: 1994
What: Award to the French firm Thomson-Alcatel of a Brazilian contract for the satellite monitoring of the Amazon Basin (US$ 1.4 bn)
How: Interception of communications to and from the successful tenderer (Thomson-Alcatel)
Aim: Uncovering corruption (payment of bribes)
Consequences: Clinton complains to the Brazilian Government; under pressure from the US Government, the contract is awarded to the US firm Raytheon
Source: 'Maulwürfe in Nadelstreifen', Andreas Förster, p. 91

Case: Thomson-Alcatel v Raytheon
Who: US Department of Commerce 'made efforts'
When: 1994
What: Negotiations on a project worth billions of dollars concerning the radar monitoring of the Brazilian rainforest
How: INot stated
Aim: Win contract
Consequences: The French firms Thomson CSF and Alcatel lose the contract to the US firm Raytheon
Source: „Antennen gedreht", Wirtschaftswoche Nr.46 / 9 November 2000

Case: Thomson-Alcatel v Raytheon
Who: NSA Department of Commerce
When: Not Stated
What: - Negotiations concerning a project worth US$ 1.4 bn concerning the monitoring of Amazon Basin (SIVA)
- Discovery that the Brazilian selection panel had accepted bribes.
- Comment by Campbell: Raytheon supplies equipment for the Sugar Grove interception station
How: Surveillance of the negotiations between Thomson-CSF and Brazil and forwarding of the findings to Raytheon Corp.
Aim: Uncovering bribery and winning of the contract
Consequences: Raytheon wins the contract
Source: Duncan Campbell in STOA, 1999, Part 2/5, with reference to New York Times, How Washington Inc. Makes a Sale, by David Sanger, 19 February 1995, and [url]http://www:raytheon:com/sivam/contract:html[/url]

Case: Thyssen
Who: BP
When: 1990
What: Gas and oil drilling contract in the North Sea worth millions of dollars
How: Interception of faxes sent by the successful tenderer (Thyssen)
Aim: Uncovering corruption
Consequences: BP brings an action for damages against Thyssen
Source: 'Maulwürfe in Nadelstreifen', Andreas Förster, p. 92

Case: VW
Who: Unknown
When: 'recent years'
What: Not stated
How: Inter alia, infrared camera, fixed in a mound of earth, which transmits images by radio
Aim: Obtaining information about new developments
Consequences: VW admits losses of profits totalling hundreds of millions of deutschmarks
Source: „Sicherheit muss künftig zur Chefsache werden", HB / 29 August 1996

Case: VW
Who: Unknown
When: 1996
What: VW test circuit in Ehra-Lessien
How: Hidden camera
Aim: Information about new VW models
Consequences: Not stated
Source: „Auf Schritt und Tritt" Wirtschaftswoche Nr. 25, 11 June 1998

Hela ECHELON rapporten finns här: [url]http://cryptome.org/echelon-ep-fin.htm[/url]

[url]http://realpolitiskt.bloggagratis.se[/url]

Kända fall av industrispionage är misslyckade fall i tid och rum!

VAKNA Humana Resurser värderar, värdesäkrar och väljer att i tid och rum arbeta med möjligheter inte lösa statiska problem.

Säkerhet kan inte köpas - bara utvecklas i tid och rum i varje enskild VAKEN mental fyrarummare som övervinner sin och gruppens kollektiva rädsla från logisk kunskap till dynamisk.