Stealth Communications (by Omar Al-Rikabi)
A couple of days before Christmas 1993, I was sitting in my parent's living room watching a football game when I got a call from my uncle in Baghdad. After a very quick hello, he jumped right into asking if my father was home. I told him no, so he quickly gave me a flight number for a plane that was coming into Dallas the next day. After twice telling me that it was very important to be at the airport tomorrow, he told me to give his love to my mom and hung up. The next day we went to the airport and met my cousin and his wife, who had just spent the last several weeks sneaking out of a war-decimated Iraq. When Saddam Hussein ruled Baghdad, his government kept very close tabs on the people. In order to make an overseas phone call, one had to go to what used to be a post office and wait in line. Why? Because the government had agents who listened to all outgoing phone calls. Whenever my family would call, all hell could be going on around them, but they said nothing: "Oh, everything is just fine! Nothing to report here. How are you?" So intimidated by this reality, my father would never say a thing about Iraq or family during phone calls that took place entirely in the United States.
When I created my blog I attached a site meter, which basically tells me how many people visit the site. One of the features of the site meter is that it will tell you from which city, state, and country a visit originated. It does not tell you the IP address of the computer, just the location and company of the server the visit was routed from.
For example, whenever my mom checks out the site, it registers: Verizon.com: Dallas, Texas.
Since we moved, whenever my wife or I log in, the site meter registers: Cox.net: Fayetteville, Arkansas.
This past fall, at the start of the Muslim fast of Ramadan, I sent a very small e-mail to my father's side of the family all over the world. In three sentences I told them that the move had gone well, gave them our new address, and signed the message with "Happy Ramadan."
The next day I noticed a change in the site meter. Whenever I logged into the blog, it no longer came up as being routed through Fayetteville, Arkansas. Instead, our Internet traffic was being routed through: Barksdale Air Force Base, Louisiana.
Huh?
So I ran a little experiment. I took my laptop up to the chapel office where I work and logged in using the router there. It registered Fayetteville, Arkansas. I went back home and logged in using our neighbor's router. Again, it registered Fayetteville, Arkansas. But sure enough, when I logged back in using our router, it let us know that we were being routed through Barksdale Air Force Base, Louisiana. I tried the same experiment with my wife's laptop. Same result.
I called our provider. The first guy I talked to laughed uncomfortably and said, "I don't know why it is routing through an Air Force base, but I have a pretty good idea." He sent me up the chain of command, but they could not tell me why everyone in my apartment complex was being routed through their local server, but I was being routed through an Air Force base.
A week later my wife and I got tickets to the Kentucky-Arkansas football game. The singing of the National Anthem was punctuated with a flyover by an Air Force B-2 Stealth Bomber. As the black sliver approached from the north, the crowd began to whip itself into a frenzy. But over the cheers I heard the public address announcer state that this very bomber was part of the initial invasion of Baghdad during Operation "Iraqi Freedom."
The flyover was impressive. I have never seen a stealth bomber in person. Those suckers are big, loud, and very intimidating. And as the plane passed right above us, with its roaring engines completely drowning out the roaring crowd, I couldn't help but think of the irony:
This very Air Force plane dropped bombs over Baghdad to "liberate" the Iraqis from an oppressive government that monitored their own citizens' communications. And now that very same Air Force seems to be monitoring mine.
Rev. Omar Hamid Al-Rikabi is a campus minister at the University of Arkansas Wesley Foundation. He is the son of a Muslim father from Iraq and a Christian mother from Texas. He shares his stories on his blog at www.firstbornstories.com
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
Sorry - but I think that you have fallen into a grey area of National Security. I've been there done that back in the 90's. I believe that it will clear up in the next few months as you have nothing to worry about since you are only communicating with family. Those agencies that are doing the survailance will figure that out and they are better at cleaning up their lists than most mag. companies.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | April 22, 2008 11:40 AM
have you done your taxes? if you have you might have noticed we have no privacy. where do you work, where do you bank, how many children do you have. how much is your house payment. roger
Posted by: roger | April 22, 2008 12:22 PM
You might want to try out www.aderes.net They have 128 byte encryption, for email and web surfing, and so not even the US government can break into the code- not for the next 20 years at least. I used them overseas, and its a secure network.
Posted by: Jedidiah Palosaari | April 22, 2008 1:07 PM
"I believe that it will clear up in the next few months as you have nothing to worry about since you are only communicating with family."
There's a certain risk weight assigned to certain expressed opinions, too, I am sure.
Under the Cheney 1% doctrine, in which risk is assigned to be extrapolated as a 99% probability from 1%, there is high collateral damage to innocent but controversial speech.
Those visiting the site will be tracked, cross-referenced and extrapolated, too, and subjected to additional fishing expeditions.
Part of the idea isn't simply to cast a wide net to reel in useful intelligence from all the dross, but to create a climate of disruption and lack of trust in all communications among a certain class of people seen as at-risk. This idea is to make immigrant communities en masse very uncomfortable places for everyone therein, on the theory that then the real bad players won't be able to hide among them so easily. When innocent people out of fear voluntarily (so to speak) censor themselves, (the chilling effect on speech) any remaining anomaly will stand out even more, and be more easily discerned and targetted.
This is the meaning of John Ashcroft's statement, early on, to the legal immigrant community, "If you are an immigrant, and you get a parking ticket, you will go to jail."
The chilling effect is the result sought. It is mandated, under the provisions of CALEA, extended to internet providers last May, that monitoring of traffic will occur in real time to law enforcement with no rerouting and no possible way for monitored endpoints to know about it.
But there are times when it's politically useful to have people know they are being monitored, as well.
How should we respond to this as Christians? In the knowledge that our fellow human beings are listening, we can discuss things that reflect our Christian understanding, our love for others and engage the mind and spirit. In short, an opportunity to change hearts and minds to better reflect the peaceful ways that Jesus gave as an example to us, and to those listening.
Posted by: Larry The Baptist Preacher | April 22, 2008 1:19 PM
Posted by: Larry The Baptist Preacher | April 22, 2008 1:19 PM
Thank you for making sure that Ashcroft and ultimatly conservatives are brought into the discussion. My experience was in the 90's - you can make you own conclusions
Blessings-
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | April 22, 2008 1:45 PM
"Thank you for making sure that Ashcroft and ultimatly conservatives are brought into the discussion."
That is penultimately, for ultimately it isn't about who is wielding power, but how they wield it. It doesn't help that our American character is not one marked by restraint in any endeavor, for good or evil. (So I won't be voting for the Clintons, either - my memories are longer than the last seven years, as well. However, in our time and place, it is authoritarianism and force that have been the particular temptation to governing conservatives. Given our religious absolutism, it is tempting to try to impose what we believe are correct standards through the application of totalitarian methods, for society's own good, especially if there is a sense of emergency and impending doom.)
However, in this we are not led by God, but have lost sight of Him in favor of our own zeal. Where angels would fear to tread, self-righteous and serving fools rush in.
Ideology in general tends to promote alienation, fanaticism and excess, as well as conjuring up the heresy and enemies necessary to sustain its adherents.
As usual, WWJD, in His uncommon wisdom.
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | April 22, 2008 2:47 PM
"My experience was in the 90's - you can make you own conclusions"
--Moddieladdie
Yes, my conclusion is that the liberals in the 90s believed you to be the most dangerous conservative Christian in the land. So they created a joint task force (CIA-FBI-NSA-ATF) to do nothing but track your every movement and your every phone call. Black helicopters tailed you every time you went to WalMart.
Fortunately, you were smarter than they.
Posted by: lloyd crump | April 22, 2008 2:54 PM
Posted by: lloyd crump | April 22, 2008 2:54 PM
Fortunately, you were smarter than they.
No - I know that I am not the brightest bulb on the tree. That will be carved in my head stone when I die. I made it through my ordeal - sadder but wiser. I was guilty because of the person/people that I was with at that time. (these were casual friendships I might say) But none the less - I had a file on someones desk in DC. Not sure where that file ended up and most of the info in there I was not allowed to view. I have no desire to run for elected office but if I would ever think about it - I would not because of this file and what it may or maynot contain.
--Moddieladdie
lloyd - it is just Moderatelad - period. A little respect please...
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | April 22, 2008 3:07 PM
I will refrain from directly commenting on the subject, but will point out that Rev. Omar uses a very common logical fallacy by trying to invalidate one group by incorrectly associating it with another party that is easily condemned as wrong. We must use facts, objective reasoning, and logic; not scare crow tactics and guilt by comparison. This will help in having "conversation" that is useful and constructive. As an American, I find it a bit difficult to compare the regime of Saddam to that which is place now in the US, whether I agree with it completely or not.
Best regards,
John
Posted by: John | April 22, 2008 4:16 PM
". As an American, I find it a bit difficult to compare the regime of Saddam to that which is place now in the US, whether I agree with it completely or not."
It's always easy to be sanguine about the collateral damage that occurs to another, especially if they have a suspect name like Omar.
Really bad things happen to a lot of people under other regimes. That doesn't lessen the injustice of our doing it unfairly to only a few, if it is only a few, which it might not be. In order for us to be self-critical, doesn't mean we are either equal to Saddam or complete saints. Unrestrained by constitutional accountability and balances of power, we could eventually unleash our own demagogues and power-seekers. The warnings are there to heed.
If everything done in America were right, there would have been no need for a House UnAmerican Activities Subcommittee, nor Sen. Frank Church's committee.
Posted by: N.M. Rod | April 22, 2008 4:38 PM
Saddam monitored all outgoing calls. Uncle Sam claims to have the right to do the same without a warrant, a la the eavesdropping scandal.
Something that was pointed out to conservatives by the computer security expert Bruce Schneier is this: do you trust the government to not abuse its power that much? Yes? Then do you trust a potential Pres. Clinton with the same power? No? Why not?
He also notes that the warrant requirement actually benefits law-enforcement by forbidding wholesale investigations and forcing investigations to go retail. By looking only where there is a reasonable chance of finding something, law-enforcement resources are expended more wisely. In contrast, looking anywhere and everywhere and turning up nothing 99% of the time makes it more likely that the real culprits get away. In this day and age, investigators actually have a perverse incentive to "look at everyone" because in case something happens, they can then argue "we DID look at the guy" even though the approach is not the most effective in actually stopping crime.
Posted by: Ngchen | April 23, 2008 10:35 AM
Posted by: Ngchen | April 23, 2008 10:35 AM
'...do you trust the government to not abuse its power...'
For the most part - yes. This survailance was in place for the Gov't to do under former Pres Clinton and the war on drugs. It is a narrow margine that allows them to start their work prior to a warrent needed to continue their work. Saddam listened into every call that was made over seas by his people. Only those that fall into a narrow paradyme causes our Gov't to check out the person. Once they have determined that you are an exception - they stop. It takes sometime.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | April 23, 2008 10:47 AM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?