Information Warfare Article Index : Current 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics
Why Wikileaks Backfired
   Next Article → INDIA-PAKISTAN: The Big Revelations Are Embarrassing
December 6, 2010: Wikileaks obtained hundreds of thousands of secret American military and diplomatic documents from a U.S. soldier (PFC Bradley Manning) who worked in intelligence. As such, Manning had a security clearance and access to SIPRNet (Secret Internet Protocol Router Network). This was a private Department of Defense network established in 1991, using Internet technology and able to handle classified (secret) documents. But Manning got access to a computer with a writable CD drive, and was able to copy all those classified documents to a CD (marked as containing Lady Gaga tracks) and walk out of his workplace with it. The big error here was having PCs available with writable media (USB ports, diskettes, printers or writable CD drives). You need some PCs with these devices, but they should be few, and carefully monitored. Normally, you would not need to copy anything off SIPRNet. Most of the time, if you want to share something, it's with someone else on SIPRNet, so you can just email it to them, or tell them what it is so they can call it up themselves. A network like SIPRNet usually (in many corporations, and some government agencies) has software that monitors who accesses, and copies, documents, and reports any action that meets certain standards (of possibly being harmful). SIPRNet did not have these controls in place.

Diplomatic messages, at least some of the lower level classified stuff, was put on SIPRNet by a presidential directive that sought to get other departments sharing relevant data with military intelligence. This was to avoid the kind of bad communications that made possible the September 11, 2001 attacks. Before then, even though some American government agencies had prior information on the attackers, no one made the connection. Unless all this information is collected together to make it obvious what is going on, the attackers will go undetected until it is too late. As a result of the Manning leak, the State Department withdrew access to its material by SIPRNet.

In the last nine years, SIPRNet became extremely active, and what controls there were on the network were strained to the point that you could do just about anything. This sharing of information was very helpful in fighting Islamic terrorists. Yet, with 2.5 million troops and civilians having access to SIPRNet, there were very few leaks. All it takes is one person, though. For three years, Manning was a one man SIPRNet crime wave. He is now in jail, facing life in prison.

The leaked documents were meant (according to the Wikileaks leader) to embarrass the United States and expose American hypocrisy and underhanded operations, but the result was quite the opposite. The U.S. was shown trying to do what it said, publically, that it was trying to do. But many other nations were shown to be quite different in their private conversations, than in their public ones. Some of these leaders now claim that they were misquoted, or that Wikileaks documents were a fabrication. It was initially believed that the released documents would make foreign officials more reluctant about speaking frankly with American officials. Didn't happen. Those conversations take place mainly because everyone wants something from the United States, and unless you establish a relationship with American diplomats or officials, nothing will happen. Moreover, many foreign officials found the revelations useful, as the leaks got out into the open things (like Arab relationships with Iran and Israel) that could not be discussed openly at home. For the most part, Wikileaks confirmed what was already known, something the Wikileaks crew assumed could not be true.

 

Next Article → INDIA-PAKISTAN: The Big Revelations Are Embarrassing
  

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2
arodrig6       12/6/2010 11:16:08 AM
"It was initially believed that the released documents would make foreign officials more reluctant about speaking frankly with American officials. Didn't happen."
 
Perhaps "Hasn't happened."  would be a little more reasonable statement?  Its only been a few weeks since the leaks started appearing. There is no way to immediately tell what the long term effects on international diplomacy will be.
 
Quote    Reply

davidhughes       12/6/2010 11:49:23 AM
The most damaging (as opposed to embarrassing) long term effect will probably be the information on the commercial practises of American embassies. A classic is the revelation (confirmation would be a better word) of the fact that the US Embassy in Stockholm ensured that the US would not give permission for the Swedes to use the GE ASEA radar in the Gripen until just after (what a coincidence!) the result of the competion with the F-35 for the Norwegian fighter contract.
 
This kind of information (there are several other examples) is getting headline attention in various countries - though not it seems being mentioned here in North America.
 
Quote    Reply

Don Vandervelde    Off with their heads!   12/7/2010 2:39:13 AM
Ok, right, good drill. Now 'tis time to rid us of Bradley Manning and his superiors all the way up to Barak Osama herself including Assange(sp?).  I'm thinking in terms of a public boiling in oil or burning at the stake. I'll spring for the wood and kerosene, if someone will furnish the stake.
 
Quote    Reply

Pollik       12/7/2010 6:24:05 AM
If the leaks were so insignificant, and I agree that they were, why the hysterical backlash?

And can anyone explain why the focus seems to entirely on Assange rather than the person who created the original data CD (alleged to be PFC Bradley Manning) or the various news papers who released the information to the public at large?  Assange is only a middleman.
 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd    Enjoy   12/7/2010 12:59:45 PM
It seems that even the Huffington post can understand some of this, with a humorous twist . . .
--------------------
<<items deleted for brevity>>

So, what do I have to offer those who want to make those seemingly-obvious points online? Don't. Never try to argue with hero worship or fanaticism and all too frequently, that is what you will encounter. How else can one describe the mindset of a commenter on this blog who likened Assange to Jesus Christ in not-so-limited terms? Yep, that's when I stopped reading (and not for religious reasons).

For those who wish to continue defending Assange's competence and character until his legend's bitter end (and if this latest release is an indicator, he might be entering a downward spiral,) I have something more practical to offer.

Having heard all of them repeated ad nauseum all over the Internet this weekend, I would like to share with you my collection of ready-made pro-Assange arguments, gleaned from the web and condensed for quick review and easy regurgitation. That's right: I'm going to argue with myself for you. Or, argue with you, if you happen to agree with me, as confusing as that might sound.

Feel free to copy and paste for whatever use suits your needs. They're great for Internet comments, email arguments, letters to the editor or just plastering in layers all over your bedroom wall. I'm including every presentable angle I've encountered--except for Jesus, which I'm omitting in the spirit of the holidays--plus a couple tailored to fit the latest leak. You can even use 'em on me, I don't mind.

Here they are (go right ahead, use them all you want):

* Hey, no harm done! No one has died yet! (That we know of. Not that we really would, since that would also be classified for very good reasons). Everyone knows that if someone does something horrendously irresponsible or malicious and it puts another person's life in danger but no one dies publicly and immediately as a result, then it retroactively becomes totally okay to have done that thing. Also, since that fails to address a significant portion of the potential devastation caused by many of these particular leaks, I'd like to point out that loss of vital contacts through fear and intimidation is meaningless and will henceforth be ignored.

* American foreign policy kills a lot of people. Therefore, it is totally okay to facilitate the murders of a few people, so long as it sabotages American foreign policy. Hey, they do it in the Middle East all the time! I mean, someone has to kill people, right! I say it's the Taliban's turn.

* You probably missed the announcement, but every human being on planet Earth now has the authority to declare other human beings collateral damage in international conflicts without accountability to any elected body. For this, I am personally thankful, as I have always wanted this power but never really had the drive to join the military or enter public service, to earn it and learn through experience how to use it responsibly.

* I realize that a "reasonable person" might say that both a war and the reckless spread of classified information about innocent people related to the war can be simultaneously wrong, but in this case, it's actually one or the other because these leaks (though public opinion polls tell a very different story,) have totally turned the public against the wars. In fact, I'm pretty sure they ended them both.

[The above three work best together with just a little tweaking, but can be used as individual points.]

* This latest leak is an important, long-overdue revelation. It was very noble of WikiLeaks to have brought this horrible situation to light. To think that there are people out there actually manufacturing things like insulin and anthrax vaccines in relative safety! Thank God that now, finally, they're just a teensy bit more likely to get blown up!

* All of these locations were already known to some people and most were known to a lot. I mean, someone had to have put them there! I see no risk or malice in identifying them s

 
Quote    Reply

Photon       12/7/2010 4:53:58 PM
And can anyone explain why the focus seems to entirely on Assange rather than the person who created the original data CD (alleged to be PFC Bradley Manning) or the various news papers who released the information to the public at large?  Assange is only a middleman.
 
Assange makes for a fat headline, considering the rape charge on him.  By contrast, a nerd like Manning generally does not make a good headline material, even though he is the one who actually took the effort to copy tens of thousands of classified documents.  After a year or two, there will still be a plenty out there remembering the name Assange.  But Manning?  Much less so.
 
Quote    Reply

Reactive       12/7/2010 9:38:00 PM
Honestly I think the whole thing is overblown - look at the bottom line here, the information was placed in a location where it wasn't just possible, but probable that it would be leaked at some point - of course there are areas where leaks jeopardise national security - would I choose to leak this data myself? No. Am I interested to see what it contains? Yes?
 
Are you guys interested as American citizens to know that my nation, the UK, was made abundantly aware of the need to release megrahi (the lockerbie bomber, or at peast part of the team) or face ruinous sanctions from Libya? Yes, of course you are?
 
The problem with diplomacy is that it needs to remain, by its very definition secret - it needs to be kept from the public eye particularly when dealing with sensitive states whose values (as states) are very different to our own, libya, saudi arabia, china, etc.
 
IF this information was so important then it should clearly not have been accessible by over 2 million people - to my mind the biggest result of this, more so than a witch hunt should be a very urgent review of security measures - there's a hell of a lot more information yet to come - and perhaps, in all honesty, what it reveals most importantly is that actually, there are fewer surprises and "conspiracies" than many would like to believe - but the point remains that wikileaks is gonna leak - what would you expect it to do - this is the greatest scoop they've ever, and probably will ever have, humiliating (though not ruinous from a national security standpoint) for the US and many of its allies, but not as significant (yet) as is being made out - the idea that Assange etc should be flayed alive as traitors to freedom is regressive in my view - the truth is that the miracle thus far was really that none of this data had leaked sooner - out of 2.5 million people who had access to a lot of noforn and higher information it's placing a lot of trust in patriotism to assume that at least a few individuals would not want to abuse their positions?
 
That Manning leaked the data is not the surprising thing, given how accessible it was, that is the point that needs addressing, wikileaks is almost irrelevant, he could just have easily sent it to the PRC or dumped it over a torrent site where thousands could have viewed it without redaction?

In persecuting wikileaks or classifying them as "terrorists" you merely risk them releasing (without any redaction) the encryption keys for the data dump that was recently uploaded through torrents and other P2P networks and distributed throughout the internet - one suspects that they hold far more damaging material even than diplomatic correspondance, one can only hope there are SOME things that wikileaks would view as destructive to release (although the leak on critical national security locations does make me wonder) - as I said, it's not something I'd choose to do, but am I glad I will be able to browse through tens of thousands of cables and read at my leisure a treasure trove of information for one interested in geopolitics? Yes, yes I am.
 
One thing is certain - Wikileaks has a political agenda, you only have to recount "collateral murder" to see the heavy spin (I would argue, lies) imparted on the footage - there was clearly an RPG visible, as well as other small arms, yet these were purposefully left out of the analysis - the resultant sh*tstorm on social media sites largely recieved uncritical attention - that was the moment when I realised Wikileaks was heading for real trouble - they had lost impartiality - and as the admin who started this thread very astutely observes, the biggest revelation to the wikileaks/nwo conspiracy mindset is doubtless that there really is no conspiracy - that US foreign policy is generally in line with what one would logically expect - the truth is that they were undoubtably hoping to uncover some vast "hidden agenda", the lack of which, may in time actually work in favour of US interests, rather than against them - which is why, having accepted that the moment Manning (or others) decided to distribute restricted data to the wider world there was nothing that would have stopped it getting out - wikileaks was just the medium, all that persecuting or "destroying" wikileaks will do is inspire more people to become involved out of ideological defiance.
 
It's very interesting in any case - whatever one's position I doubt there'll be many of us who refuse to read about the data out of a sense of duty and patriotism, a good day for historians, but not worthy of the drama or attention it's been given.
 
R

 
Quote    Reply

Reactive       12/7/2010 10:01:39 PM
And Re: Warnerd's link.
 
Agree with the premise of the article but here's where I differ. 
 
I don't see a moral argument as particularly relevant - the point at which manning decided to send those data dumps to wikileaks was the point that their eventual release became inevitable - there's too many people involved and even Assange probably didn't have the authority within his own organisation to prevent them being made public, the honest truth is that had he decided to withhold the data someone else in wikileaks would have taken matters into their own hands.
 
They DO have an anti-US agenda, there's no two-ways about it, but rather than looking at this in terms of right and wrong look at it in terms of harsh practicalities - take away the moral arguments and you're left with the fact that you expect a snake to act like a snake, a jihadist to act like a jihadist, and so on. That's all there is to it, they release what they have because they believe that all information relating to states should be released.
 
Manning (or whoever else released this data) was the ultimate culprit - he could easily have uploaded those files to a torrent sharing site or whatever else - the truth of the matter is that the ultimate blame should fall both on him (manning) for betraying his position and nation, and far more importantly the lack of adequate security - focusing on wikileaks does nothing to address the security flaws, and is potentially aimed at directing criticism away from the DOD where it should rightfully also fall.
 
If you want to see an example of the weakness of Assange's philosophy you only have to look at a recent interview he did - the one question, politely and astutely worded by an ex british diplomat (and the only question that didnt lavish praise on him).
 
""

JAnthony
Julian.
I am a former British diplomat. In the course of my former duties I helped to coordinate multilateral action against a brutal regime in the Balkans, impose sanctions on a renegade state threatening ethnic cleansing, and negotiate a debt relief programme for an impoverished nation. None of this would have been possible without the security and secrecy of diplomatic correspondence, and the protection of that correspondence from publication under the laws of the UK and many other liberal and democratic states. An embassy which cannot securely offer advice or pass messages back to London is an embassy which cannot operate. Diplomacy cannot operate without discretion and the
protection of sources. This applies to the UK and the UN as much as the US.
In publishing this massive volume of correspondence, Wikileaks is not highlighting specific cases of wrongdoing but undermining the entire process of diplomacy. If you can publish US cables then you can publish UK telegrams and UN emails.
My question to you is: why should we not hold you personally responsible when next an international crisis goes unresolved because diplomats cannot function.


Julian Assange:
If you trim the vast editorial letter to the singular question actually asked, I would be happy to give it my attention.""

 
And that's more or less his response to any criticism, evasion - that's why I don't particularly like him, but as I said earlier, making this all about him is missing the point, both in terms of the wider "wikileaks" community, and in terms of the fundamental safeguards needed with sensitive data, he's not actually quite as important as is made out, but he is ideologically very clear in favour of disseminating any and all information, as a result you have to prevent him, and others like him from ever getting their hands on it in the first place.
 
R
 
 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd       12/8/2010 5:21:51 AM

And can anyone explain why the focus seems to entirely on Assange rather than the person who created the original data CD (alleged to be PFC Bradley Manning) or the various news papers who released the information to the public at large?  Assange is only a middleman.

Because Manning is lawyered up so there is nothing new to report (boring).  Meanwhile Assange is posting more documents and dodging a rape charge (salacious).
 
All the major news outlets have business models like the National Inquirer.  The are in the gossip business, not the business of reporting the news.
 
Quote    Reply

Tucci78    Missng a critically important point about all this   12/8/2010 8:42:06 AM
What the Manning escapade demonstrated is that SIPRNet has been made eminently susceptible to penetration and exploitation, and that almost certainly everything accessible on SIPRNet - including confidential international diplomatic exchanges and internal U.S. government memoranda - has long since been compromised. 
 
We have to assume that any and every hostile foreign national command entity has already gotten access to this stuff, do we not?
 
This being understood, to precisely whom has Wikileaks "betrayed" this information? 
 
What power hostile to the United States' government has been appraised by Wikileaks of this government's officers' intentions and actions?
 
 Simply the people of these United States.
 
 We, dear friends - us mere private citizens - are considered enemies of the government of this nation.
 
We're supposed to be kept ignorant of the machinations of our own elected and appointed government thugs.  You got that? We're the enemy, and the people who just got so spectacularly pantsed by Manning and Assange consider us to pose an even greater threat to their power and position than do their nominal enemies across the field of battle.
 
 Shall we give some consideration to this thought? The functionaries of the U.S. government have been doing stuff which they know - full well - that those of us in whose name its supposedly being done would refuse to allow.
 
Hell, we'd call for their prosecution.  Failing that remedy under the rule of law, we'd lynch them. 
 
So what has Wikileaks done?  I get the image of the floor of a kitchen in a lower East Side apartment in the middle of the night, when the lights are suddenly flicked on, and the cockroaches start to scuttle.  

Some mighty big cockroaches - big, prominent "bipartisan" cockroaches, too - are scuttling all over the place right now.  So do we just turn out the lights again and pretend that we've no longer got an infestation on our hands, or do we break out the Black Flag and start applying the requisite insecticide?
--
 
Quote    Reply
1 2