
U.S. Intelligence planned to destroy WikiLeaks [pdf] - shrikant
http://wikileaks.org/file/us-intel-wikileaks.pdf
======
GHFigs
The actual content of the report does not support the conclusion in the
headline and description. The entire extent of the supposed "plan" is the
obvious suggestion, in passing, that finding people who leak sensitive
information would deter others from leaking sensitive information.

So what's the story here? That U.S. military intelligence knew, in March 2008,
that Wikileaks was posting classified information that presumably had inside
sources, and that this might be threat to OPSEC/INFOSEC, and that _shockingly_
someone who works in "cyber counterintelligence assessment", wrote a report
about it. Utterly mundane.

~~~
jwecker
I agree except the utterly mundane. It's mildly interesting to see how the
government does threat analysis.

The wikileaks summary on the first page implies that the government actually
tried to carry out a contingency plan to get rid of wikileaks (and that it
"appears the plan was ineffective"), which is beyond silly. Surely wikileaks
of all organizations would understand that these sorts of _analysis_
documents, enumerating even the mildest threats and then pinpointing potential
weaknesses and then basically trying to get permission to investigate further
(probably unsuccessfully but who knows) are a dime a dozen (not implying you
should ever pay for one if offered).

The word "planned" in the phrase "planned to destroy..." has a very different
meaning in the context of government contingency planning than common usage
suggests. In most contexts a plan to do xyz implies a course of action the
organization intends to take. The US government, at least, generates layers
and layers of "plans" that it never intends to act on, or knows that the
probability that they'll need to be acted on are very remote. For the most
part then the actual dispatch of some combination of plans are left up to non
military elected officials.

------
jcromartie
Fascinating. The document states that "Several foreign countries including
China, Israel, North Kora, Russia, Vietnam, and Zimbabwe have denounced or
blocked access to the Wikileaks.org website."

Whoever wants to put the US on that list is no patriot.

~~~
GHFigs
_Whoever wants to put the US on that list_

Who is that? The document makes no such suggestion.

~~~
dsplittgerber
I think he meant that the US shouldn't strive to be a country opposing
Wikileaks like those others. Not the best company to be in.

~~~
GHFigs
Ignorance is a woefully inadequate form of counterintelligence.

------
DenisM
You're all donating to wikileaks, right? Over here: <http://wikileaks.org/>

~~~
oneplusone
Didn't realize they were limiting the information they release because of
monetary concerns. Definitely a worthy cause to donate to.

------
motters
The document is, as might be expected, fairly uninteresting. The main take
home messages are:

a) The US DoD classifies Wikileaks as a "threat", or potential threat.

b) This seems to be primarily because troop sizes/equipment/movements might be
or have already been leaked. Such information may give the upper hand to
potential enemies.

c) There are some complains about material on Wikileaks being inaccurate, or
edited in such a way as to give a misleading impression of events (a fairly
standard complaint).

d) They propose trying to out/scapegoat/make an example of anyone who is
identified as a wikileaker in the hope that that this will deter openness in
government, although so far it seems that they have been unsuccessful in this
endeavor.

e) Wikileakers seem to be a fairly competent bunch, adhering to security best
practices in the handling, anonymising and release of documents, but may still
be vulnerable to cyber attacks of various kinds.

------
dlytle
Anyone know if there could be legal repercussions for a US citizen reading
this, should they have a way to track the IPs of the readers?

(I'm absolutely clueless when it comes to anything related to security
clearances, but considering some of the stuff that is illegal in various parts
of the USA, I wouldn't be surprised if simply reading a classified document is
considered illegal.)

------
JonAtkinson
The server didn't respond for me, so here's a Coral Cache link:

<http://wikileaks.org.nyud.net/file/us-intel-wikileaks.pdf>

------
nfnaaron
By the logic of the report, the New York Times should have been shut down or
marginalized when Daniel Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon Papers.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers>

Maybe a better response by the government to Wikileaks would be to ignore it
as a specific source of leaks, and instead:

a) Ensure that what the government does is legal and moral, and if the
government cannot always be forthcoming with the public it is at least not
lying.

b) Assuming a), tighten up control of classified information.

c) Be a strong enough government that it can withstand the occasional leak.

d) Stay the heck out of my internets.

Edit: added "by the government" in intro to bullet list.

~~~
grandalf
I think the NY Times articles leading up to the Iraq war made up for it...

------
andrewcooke
<http://wikileaks.org/#us-intel-wikileaks> gives a summary

this seems odd, given that cryptome has existed for years.

~~~
GHFigs
The summary is grossly misleading. For instance, it characterizes the mention
that China, et al. block or could disrupt Wikileaks as "justification" for a
"plan", but it is in fact listed as background information _about_ Wikileaks.

------
niels_olson
Weighing in after 21 previous comments just to add that the one other
conclusion I'm willing to at least move toward here is that Julian Assange is
prone to dramatization.

------
phsr
Instead of treating WikiLeaks like a threat, why not use it as a tool for
feeding misinformation to specific targets?

~~~
Gobiner
That very observation is included in the "Key Judgements" section.

"The Wikileaks.org Web site could be used to post fabricated information,
misinformation, disinformation, or propaganda and could be used in perception
management and influence operations to convey a positive or negative message
to specific target audiences that view or retrieve information from the Web
site."

~~~
GHFigs
In context, that appears to be more of a concern that such tactics could be
used _against_ the US. In the "Intelligence Gaps" section, for instance:

"Will the Wikileaks.org Web site be used by FISS, foreign military services,
or foreign terrorist groups to spread propaganda, misinformation, or
disinformation or to conduct perception or influence operations to discredit
the US Army?"

Similarly, although there is mention that Wikileaks could potentially be
hacked to find information about the identity of the leakers, in the context
of this report they seem more concerned that _others_ will do this to identify
potential sources:

"Will foreign entities attempt to conduct CNE or CNA to obtain information on
the posters of information or block content on the Wikileaks.org Web site?"

