Why ECHELON doesn't exist
Published on April 29, 2004 By greywar In Current Events
(Disclaimer : This is only my personal opinion and in no way reflects the official position of the US Army or Government)

 

 

(Disclaimer : This is only my personal opinion and in no way reflects the official position of the US Army or Government)

 

            Some time ago I stumbled across a few articles referring to something called ECHELON, for those of you who have never heard of it ECHELON is supposed to be a vast computer and intelligence network that monitors and records every email, telephone call, and fax communication in the civilized world. Ostensibly this is done at the whim and behest of the United States Government and it’s allies. I will not categorically state that there is no ECHELON system as it is quite simply impossible to prove that something does not exist. This very fact is what allows conspiracy theorists, ufologists, and psychics to thrive at all. I will go into some reasons why I believe the network does not exist however.

            Let us start with a brief scenario in which ECHELON does in fact exist and is being used to survey an average German city say… Wiesbaden for instance. A quick bit of googling tell me that Weisbaden’s population is roughly 270,000. Let us assume for the moment that on average over the course of a day the time spent on the telephone is 30 seconds per person. I would say that is likely to be a *very* conservative estimate. This would generate a grand total of 2250 *hours* of conversation each and every day. Take that out to a year and the total is roughly 821,250 hours of conversation which for the most part would be in German.

            We will work with the daily total first. Assuming you have a native speaker listening to these conversations, (not someone who was taught the language), also assuming that this native speaker is a very efficient transcriptionist (at a rate of 1 minute of conversation being transcribed real time), and assuming further that they are a genius at moving the fully transcribed conversation into a formatted report that *all* intelligence databases require (say it takes them another 20 seconds per minute of conversation), we come up with one analyst processing one minute of conversation in 80 seconds. To process one day of Wiesbaden’s telephone conversations would require 180,000 man-hours. If you have 18,000 of these wunder-kind transcribers working for you 10 hours a day. You could keep up with the demand of this one city in terms of *transcription* only. I will not even begin to delve into the time it would require to analyze this mountain of data after the process of putting them into data-readable formats is done.

            The above example of course was so ridiculously conservative in it estimates that the true number of staff this feat would require in the real world staggers the mind. Real transcription times are closer to 5 minutes of transcription per minute of conversation and another 2 minutes per for formatting as well. Which is assuming you have available native language speakers available to do the work which is simply fallacy.

            This article only scratches the surface of this issue and I will address it further in later posts.


Comments (Page 1)
2 Pages1 2 
on Apr 29, 2004
Um... I assume if the government has the ability to monitor all those conversations, it has computers with the simple software necessary to translate spoken word into searchable text.

Of course, the whole idea that the government does is totally preposterous, but with computers the creation of a searchable worldwide database of all communications would be simple, requiring only the IT guys needed to keep the computers online.
on Apr 29, 2004
Man do the math even for this imaginary computer driven task.... Let alone translating the spoken word into text is *terribly* difficult. You have to teach the software each individual voice for it to work with *any* reliablity *and* that is assuming the language is English! Computeers are no where even *close* to acheiveing workable transcritions, beleive me I wish they were. My life would be much much easier if I could replace Pseudosoldier with a linguist-ex-machina.
on Apr 29, 2004
No... my point is that if hypothetically the government has the power to tap every single phone line, and track every e-mail, then it should be small fry to translate spoken word to text.
on Apr 29, 2004
I agree - my apologies for not reading your comments closely enough. Sometimes the spoken word is hard for me to read witht he intended tone
on Apr 29, 2004
Of course. There are always fundamental problems with a medium where the only communication between people is written words. Emoticons can sometimes help that, but it is often too easy to misinterpret what someone said.
on Apr 29, 2004
Dave - if it was "trivial" we wouldn't be typing this on a keyboard now would we? Whenever I see your software appear in a Gov't intel installation to do this "trivial" task I will give your post credence. Until then I will simply regard it as compost.
on Apr 29, 2004
Look man, my logic is this : If it were reliable and easy everyone would do it. Thats free market economics for you. Since people do not do it it is neither easy or reliable. Period. If you will simply include the link to your "trivial" version of the "trivial" software I will recant and call you a programming God. Until you can produce the program to translate perfect German with no voice training I will just have to wait for that "keyboardless computer" that will surely be forthcoming from Gateway anyday now.

For the record I didn't call you any names I just called your post compost. Which it was and still is.
on Apr 29, 2004
Of course. There are always fundamental problems with a medium where the only communication between people is written words. Emoticons can sometimes help that, but it is often too easy to misinterpret what someone said.


Not to troll or anything grey, but I believe this was the subject of your original post, wasn't it?

Anyway...Dave, I'm going to have to side with grey on this one. Language is his job...and I'm pretty sure that if there WERE any really reliable programs out there, the military would have got their sweaty little hands on them and be utilizing them by now.
on Apr 29, 2004
In the interest of fair I did go and google as suggested, what I found was a massive proliferation of "standards" for speech-to-text programs that have not seen implementation. Also found lots of text-to-speech readers in *english* and none even suggested that they were accurate. Dragon Naturally Speaking seems to be the most accurate *english* 'text to speech' bit out there and even it doesn't claim enough reliability to use in intelligence. Additionally the cheapest Dragon come is around 650.00 USD not so trivial... especially for something that is only partly accurate.
on Apr 29, 2004
OK, I'll weigh in on this one... Going to have to side with Dave on it, Greywar, sorry. I was actually on the phone recently with a computer that could understand my questions and answers, so long as I stayed within the conversational parameters. For a computer to be programmed to recognize certain speech wave patterns (words like om-bay, uclear-nay, etc ) and flag them for closer inspection is certainly doable, especially for a computer owned by a major government. And these computers can scan conversations MUCH faster than they are spoken. I'll bet they can even recognize ig-pay atin-lay!
Now, do I think we do collect on all conversations? Of course not. That would be against the law.
on Apr 29, 2004
I agree that there are limited use speech recogniton apps out right now Arq, What I disagree with is a computers ability to do transcription with *any* reliability. You said it yourself, the system you talked to was willing to accept large quantities of possible error due to the *extremely* limited areas of conversation. If you get anywhere near it's dialogue options it just guesses and hopes it gets it right, additionally this is in *english* there has been incomparably more research done on the nuances of English and it's uses in tech areas than any other language. The gap is so great as to make any comparison meaningless. Yet even with that massive gap the technology is *still* not out there to do the things I listed out in *english* even.
on Apr 29, 2004
I've actually had the opportunity to play with Dragon Naturally Speaking (took a class on ADA computer apps). It took a week of "training" to get the software to recognize and reliably translate one of our voices. Throw in an unfamiliar voice and the program was lost. The program did well after training, but it takes time.
on Apr 29, 2004
now THAT is a long post.
on Apr 29, 2004
No, now that is spam.... I knew I recognized your posts from somewhere St. Hubbins... Welcome to "El Blacklisto." Spam a page onto a blog that is not your own and you will pay for it son....
on Apr 29, 2004
I have read a few news stories related to this subject. The gist of them were that the system, made up of literally thousands of computers, keys on certain words and flags those emails and conversations for analysis. I have no idea of the specifics of the software involved, but I can well imagine it's possible with sufficient resources.

As to the conspiracy being in my head....how do you know this? Have you been spying on me again? Who's in on this with you?
2 Pages1 2