11–20 of 26 posts
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.
Who is that? The document makes no such suggestion.
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.
Whoever wants to put the US on that list Who is that? The document makes no such suggestion.
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.
Whoever wants to put the US on that list Who is that? The document makes no such suggestion.
http://wikileaks.org/#us-intel-wikileaks gives a summary this seems odd, given that cryptome has existed for years.
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.
Instead of treating WikiLeaks like a threat, why not use it as a tool for feeding misinformation to specific targets?
"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."
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 pr…
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.
You're all donating to wikileaks, right? Over here: http://wikileaks.org/
Instead of treating WikiLeaks like a threat, why not use it as a tool for feeding misinformation to specific targets?
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."
"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?"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whoever wants to put the US on that list Who is that? The document makes no such suggestion.
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.