US spooks plotted to destroy Wikileaks

In this two-year-old classified Army Counterintelligence Center report (hosted on wikileaks.org, where else?), American spooks set out to destroy Wikileaks by intimidating its sources. They cite as justification for this the fact that Wikileaks has outed American embarrassments and crimes including "US equipment expenditure in Iraq, probable US violations of the Chemical Warfare Convention Treaty in Iraq, the battle over the Iraqi town of Fallujah and human rights violations at Guantanamo Bay."

The governments of China, Israel, North Korea, Russia, Thailand, Zimbabwe, and several other countries have blocked access to Wikileaks.org-type Web sites, claimed they have the right to investigate and prosecute Wikileaks.org and associated whistleblowers, or insisted they remove false, sensitive, or classified government information, propaganda, or malicious content from the Internet. The governments of China, Israel, and Russia claim the right to remove objectionable content from, block access to, and investigate crimes related to the posting of documents or comments to Web sites such as Wikileaks.org. The governments of these countries most likely have the technical skills to take such action should they choose to do so

Wikileaks.org uses trust as a center of gravity by assuring insiders, leakers, and whistleblowers who pass information to Wikileaks.org personnel or who post information to the Web site that they will remain anonymous. The identification, exposure, or termination of employment of or legal actions against current or former insiders, leakers, or whistleblowers could damage or destroy this center of gravity and deter others from using Wikileaks.org to make such information public.

Wikileaks.org - An Online Reference to Foreign Intelligence Services, Insurgents, Or Terrorist Groups?

• [Anonymous]

  Just in case that document is real (and signs point to it being real) don’t do what Wired just did and mirror it. If you host it inside the US, the FBI might very well pay you a visit.

• [Anonymous Mouse]

  If I was in the industry, I think it would be very valuable to have a few fingers in a group like wikileaks- let the people leak stuff that really isn’t important on a grand scale– just enough to make people think they are making a difference. Then… when something truly important comes down the pipe, you’ve got a chance to “nip it in the bud” (or “plug the leak”).

  • [hymie]

    There’s also the canary trap technique, where each authorized recipient of a document receives a slightly different version so that leaks can be traced back to a particular individual.

• [lasttide]

  How does a paper go from this: “The
  developers believe that the disclosure of sensitive or classified information involving a foreign
  government or corporation will eventually result in the increased accountability of a democratic,
  oppressive, or corrupt the government to its citizens.

  to this: “The possibility that various computer experts, researchers, and users could expand the
  data fields in the TOE SQL database to include pictures; equipment capabilities, limitations and
  vulnerabilities; known unit locations; links to geospatial information; and known unit personnel
  cannot be ruled out.”

  This is just absurd. “Hey these guys are getting classified docs that detail how we torture people and break chemical weapons treaties. Let’s justify shutting them down by saying they could leak troop positions and endanger American soldiers! Anything is ok if it’s to protect soldiers!”

  • [hymie]

    Did you read the report? It shows that Wikileaks is serving a document with a detailed table of US Army equipment deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan. The author is concerned that someone will use this table along with other available information and create a Google Maps mashup showing exactly where each piece of equipment is located. That’s a very reasonable fear.

• [Ugly Canuck]

  Well, I guess that there are absolutists, and then, there are absolutists, eh?

  For instance, I’m for “absolute free speech”, except that all singers of satirical songs ought to be punishable by death.

• [hymie]

  Any person may contractually agree to keep secrets, and he is then obligated to do so and to suffer the specified consequences if he does not. However, once a secret has been revealed by any means it is perforce no longer a secret and repeating that information should not be (but most likely still is) prohibited based on secrecy laws or agreements. Thus, the Pentagon Papers.

  The report referenced by this article does not say that Wikileaks should be shut down or otherwise directly attacked. Instead, it says that a possible way to prevent leaks is to consistently identify those who leak to Wikileaks under the supposition that fear of exposure will prevent leaks from occurring. This is an appropriate way to prevent leaks, and indeed, in a delicious bit of irony, it would use Wikileaks’ own methods against it. After all, why should Wikileaks itself be immune to having its secrets leaked?

  As a First Amendment absolutist, I believe that there is no obligation to keep secrets which you have not agreed to keep. Thus, for example, I believe that there should be no anti-circumvention laws (although those are not unconstitutional per se since they have their origins in copyright law, which is directly based in the Constitution), and no laws against building satellite receivers to decode signals which are being beamed into your property. I believe all obscenity laws are unconstitutional. And I believe that speech must not be abridged based on the details of how an organized group of speakers chooses to manage its affairs, hence my opposition to the notion that there is a difference between the speech of corporations and the speech of individuals.

• [Antinous / Moderator]

  Generally, the word absolute implies an absence of exceptions. Absolute freedom of speech implies that anyone anywhere can say anything at any time.

  Here’s Hymie’s conveniently applied absolutism on the subject of unlimited corporate political contributions. Compare and contrast with his argument in this thread that the government is right to suppress information about a highly destructive, undeclared foreign war.

  A large part of the purpose of the First Amendment is to allow people to expose government malfeasance. When someone defends unlimited corporate contributions as free speech, then turns around and defends the government for suppressing actual speech, that’s not First Amendment absolutism. It’s just a pro-corporate, pro-government agenda. It’s just jingoism pretending to be democracy.

  • [Spoon]

    Antinous, I read through the thread starting from where you linked (nothing prior, not even the post) and sided heavily with Hymie until I read your post with the complete text of: “I think that free speech is a generally positive thing in itself. I just find that claims that it always (or almost always) leads to greater liberty or happiness are faith-based rather than well-documented.” at which point I decided that we do not agree on the different terms being used for what level of protection our first amendment rights should give.

    It sounds to me (and please correct me if I’m wrong) that you believe that our first amendment rights do not have enough data behind them to back up the great entitlement they grant us, and that they should possibly be limited further then they are now pending data (first person shouting of ‘fire’ in a crowded theater, doctors releasing private information, out right spying one people in their homes.. but not of the retelling said speech). I would suggest that you fall into the non-absolutist category (since we have only determined two categories thus far) and that the other category declares that free speech should not be curtailed further. Any additional input on possible labels for the differing viewpoints (and loose definitions for those viewpoints) on this subject from anyone would be greatly appreciated.

• [Akrasiac]

  I’m actually kind of upset with you for this article, Cory; I think you dropped the ball on the analysis here.

  I agree with hymie that the inflammatory title has no merit. Not only that, this document appears to simply be a threat assessment, and I think it would be irresponsible for the intelligence community to *not* have investigated the potential risk of a site like Wikileaks. You say that “American spooks set out to destroy Wikileaks by intimidating its sources.” There is no evidence of this. The fact that this is an old document and Wikileaks is still up most likely means that counter-intelligence agencies *chose* not to act on it. Why would you immediately assume that they tried to take it down and failed? If you think they’re so big and scary, give them some credit, at least.

  Also, the document makes some seriously valid points. For example:

  “Anyone can post information to the Wikileaks.org Web site, and there is no editorial review or oversight to verify the accuracy of any information posted to the Web site. Persons accessing the Web site can form their own opinions regarding the accuracy of the information posted, and they are allowed to post comments. This raises the possibility that the Wikileaks.org Web site could be used to post fabricated information; to post misinformation, disinformation, and propaganda; or to conduct perception management and influence operations designed to convey a negative message to those who view or retrieve information from the Web site.”

  For all we know, because of Wikileaks’ interest in preserving anonymity, this document itself could be someone’s fabrication. I understand the desire to protect whistle-blowers’ anonymity in the interest of their personal safety, but because the sources are anonymous, how can we know that the information is accurate, or even go about attempting to verify it? I think the report is correct in saying that Wikileaks does present a potential risk for spreading misinformation and propaganda.

  I feel like your article should at least mention the issues that the document is raising, and if you’re going to make accusations about what the intelligence community did or did not do, you should actually provide some evidence. You seem awfully quick (in this article) to parrot this sort of reactionary and purely speculative finger-pointing, and very unwilling to acknowledge that maybe, just maybe, the US’s big scary government might have legitimate motivations for doing at least some of the things it does, and maybe, just maybe do the right thing (or not do the wrong thing) every once in awhile.

• [Anonymous]

  The US military is famous for coming us with plans to cover every possible contingency. What if we need to bring down Wikileaks? What if we’re invaded by Mexico? What if the Navy attacks the Air Force?

  It’s not the stacks of plans stuck on file somewhere, it’s the ones that are implemented you should be worried about.

  Then again, my captcha is “victim optimistic”

• [Anonymous]

  Hymie’s posts seem to indicate authoritarianism. Corporations have free speech, individuals working for the government or corporations don’t.

  You know: instead of one person, one vote he favors one dollar, one vote.

  I hope he’s at least a millionaire.

  • [Spoon]

    Is there actual support to the claim that Hymie suggested that corporations should have free speech but individuals shouldn’t (because I’ve never ever seen that argument from anyone… not even trolls)?

    I would claim that a large group of boingboingers should be able to get together, start a LLC and use it to fund the production and display of a two million dollar super bowl advert decrying the current copyright laws… And I have never ever heard of anyone suggesting that someone who can fund it solo should not be able to do that…. And we all know that there is no reasonable answer to why the descanting opinion should not be allowed to speak in the same way.

    • [Anonymous]

      Read Antinous’ analysis (including link), which is what I was referring to.

      I actually ignored his even-more-inflammatory ‘governments can hide anything they like’ rhetoric, which by definition supports the worst abuses of countries like China, North Korea, Myanmar, Zimbabwe, etc.

      Posting histories can be informative of allegiances. I wouldn’t be anonymous myself if my wii would let me.

      Rereading your own commentary, your allegiance to one dollar for one vote are even stronger, so I hope you’re even richer than he is, for your own sake.

• [Ugly Canuck]

  SSSHH!…it’s a secret!

• [hymie]

  What evidence do you have for the title of the article? The report discusses that exposing the leakers would discourage others from leaking. That’s self-evident and unremarkable. Neither is it unusual for anyone, whether individual, company, or government, to want to keep secrets secret. That’s part of their job. The report points out that leaks of information about armed forces men and material could be combined with geographical information systems and help opponents to coordinate attacks. That’s a very reasonable fear to have. But nothing in this report says that the US government actually plotted to destroy Wikileaks.

  • [Avram / Moderator]

    Neither is it unusual for anyone, whether individual, company, or government, to want to keep secrets secret. That’s part of their job.

    And part of a mobster’s job is defending his territory and roughing up people who don’t pay him protection money. Doesn’t make it right.

    • [hymie]

      It is not unethical to keep secrets. Moreover, the tenor of the article and of your response appears to be that it is wrong to do to Wikileaks what Wikileaks does to others. That’s not a very consistent point of view.

    • [Antinous / Moderator]

      What makes it particularly poignant is that Hymie has declared in another thread that he’s a First Amendment absolutist. ‘Absolute’ apparently now being a synonym for ‘relative’.

      • [hymie]

        What about my responses here make you believe that I am not a First Amendment absolutist? That the government keeps secrets is not an infringement of the right to speak. Neither is seeking to prevent leaks. And freedom of speech does not give people permission to leak when they are not permitted to do so as a condition of their employment.

        • [Avram / Moderator]

          Hymie, have you ever heard of the Pentagon Papers?

        • [Spoon]

          Do you really think that Hymie believes that employers should be able to [the most terrible thing you can think of] to an employee (and his or her family?) based on them giving out secrets (even unknowingly)? Or do you think Hymie is a reasonable human being who was just suggesting that there may be consequences to saying something you’ve agreed not to, or lying (which is also free speech)… like yelling fire in a crowded theater or publishing to wikileaks all the financial details (DOB, SSN, MMN, address, first, middle, last… etc etc) of everyone your employer does business with.

        • [Antinous / Moderator]

          I think that describing oneself as an absolutist and then spewing exceptions is a failure of language. Like most “First Amendment absolutists”, he supports free speech when he finds it convenient to do so.

        • [Spoon]

          Antinous, I haven’t read Hymie’s previous posts, so correct me if I’m wrong.

          What I think of as First Amendment absolutists would believe that if someone with super top secret clearance where to give away super top secret documents to a newspaper (or anyone else) the newspaper should not be subject to laws saying they cannot publish said documents, but the person who gave away said documents could still be in some serious trouble. Just as some random blogger/website would be fully able to continue publishing medical documents (despite HIPAA) that where leaked out to them (especially any tertiary parties that picked up on the news after it had been publish by the paper) but that the first hand responsible parties for the leak could be held accountable. To me first amendment non-absolutists would think that anyone publishing the top secret documents or medical records could be punishable by law (even some random 3rd grader who heard it on the nightly news and repeated it to classmates) and not just those who understood that they where held accountable for the non release of the ‘secret’ information… but please correct me if there is a more proper word to describe what I’m talking about.

        • [Spoon]

          Maybe a better privacy related argument would be:

          If a ‘sex tape’(not involving minors) where released on the internet, anyone hosting said sex tape should be considered free speech and immune to prosecution. But the person/persons illegally filming or releasing the ‘sex tape’ could be prosecuted. To me the non-absolutist could say a third party who publishes a copy of the sex tape even unknowing that it where against the wishes of the people being filmed could still be held in a court of law to have been acting illegally… But I have no description for the person who believes that ‘illegally’ taping said ‘sex tape’ against the wishes of those in the tape and then publishing them online should be legal… other then anarchist. I have a feeling we’re not on the same page as to the language here which is why I’m so interested, I’m really keen to knowing what label to use for people with the varying beliefs.

        • [Antinous / Moderator]

          The point of the First Amendment was to allow people to talk about things that the government wanted suppressed.

        • [hymie]

          No. The relevant portion of the amendment is “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech”. That does not mean that the government is not allowed to keep secrets, nor does it mean that one is permitted to leak documents after having accepted employment under the condition not to do so.

• [DEL]

  Hymie, don’t you think there is a difference between a gov’t attempting to prevent a leak and actively seeking to abridge the information leaked after the fact?

  Wikileaks is awesome, anonymous posting has several good points(prevents retaliation) but it has bad points(susceptibility to noise/false stories) and serious groups or persosn will use that information as a platform to delve rather than as an end-all-be-all gospel.

  Also, if you think wikileaks hasn’t already been under some type of anti-free speech attack, I’m truly surprised.

• [Anonymous]

  And you wonder why people plot to destroy the US government.

• [Anonymous]

  hymie: the BoingBoing title simply mirrors the title that Wikileaks gave their publication – but you are correct in that the article mentions nothing of the sort. It’s actually a rather well-written analysis of some of the issues that arise from such a web site, and is non-judgmental in its conclusions.

• [Akrasiac]

  @DEL: What attack are you referring to?

• [jfrancis]

  Why bother?

  From what I see, it’s not like anyone even cares when this kind of news comes out.

• [Ugly Canuck]

  RE: secrecy in general:

  If you can’t keep a secret,
  you’ll end up not knowing any secrets.

  • [Anonymous]

    Unless you can create new ones faster than they leak out.

    • [Ugly Canuck]

      If they are so easy to make then it’s no wonder that people give them away.

• [Lobster]

  You can’t expect them to just throw up their hands and say, “oops, you got us.” Of course governments are going to try to plug leaks.

• [Ugly Canuck]

  Yes indeed, knowledge is a dangerous thing.

• [Ugly Canuck]

  For your consideration:

  http://cryptome.org/0003/secrets-taxonomy.htm

  Thanx to Cryptome for link:

  http://www.cryptome.org/

  Well what do you know….