Tweet
Pentagon builds cyber army (US government photo in public domain & posted by Fort Meade)
Four days away from massive austerity that would result in cuts to the United States government, the Pentagon is suggesting the cuts would make it harder to fight cyber threats.
Posted by Secrecy News, Zachary J. Lemnios, the assistant secretary of defense for research and engineering, was asked by Sen. Rob Portman what would be the impact to “cybersecurity” if the cuts went through. Though Portman did not mention WikiLeaks, Lemnios responded:
Mr. LEMNIOS. The fiscal year 2013 budget includes significant funding for cybersecurity efforts across the government and includes both defense and non-defense, and classified and unclassified activities. At this stage, it would be premature to speculate on the specific impacts sequestration would likely have on cybersecurity activities. However, cuts under sequestration could hurt efforts to fight cyber threats, including four key efforts:
• Improving the security of our classified Federal networks and addressing WikiLeaks;
• Continuing the Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative (CNCI);
• Sustaining the National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace; and
• Initiating continuous monitoring of unclassified networks at all Federal agencies
According to Lemnios, the Pentagon fears national security leaks could result. Such fear reflects how expensive it is to maintain the secrecy state in government. In 2011, it cost government agencies $11.4 billion to “secure classified documents.” Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO) director John Fitzpatrick said, “The biggest agency in this area is the Defense Department, which accounts for 90 percent of the $11.4 billion spent on security classification activities last year. Its 2011 spending jumped $1.3 billion from 2010.”
The billion dollar increase likely included funding for programs instituted after WikiLeaks published previously classified information. It was reported in early May 2011 the Army would be monitoring soldiers “keystrokes, downloads and web searches on computers that soldiers use” in the aftermath of the release of documents. The Army would include tracking downloads to removable drives. It is unlikely this would fall by the wayside, however, this is this security does require personnel and resources. It is expensive to run a secrecy state (and participating in security can be a boondoggle for private contractors).
What makes this warning from the Pentagon about losing the ability to “address” WikiLeaks remarkable is not that programs could be cut or impaired. Recently, the White House released a strategy to protect trade secrets from theft or economic espionage.
WikiLeaks was named in the strategy. An executive summary explained, “Cyberspace provides relatively small-scale actors an opportunity to become players in economic espionage. Under-resourced governments or corporations could build relationships with hackers to develop customized malware or remote-access exploits to steal sensitive US economic or technology information, just as certain [foreign intelligence services] have already done.” It then proceeded to assert, “Similarly, political or social activists may use the tools of economic espionage against US companies, agencies, or other entities, with disgruntled insiders leaking information about corporate trade secrets or critical US technology to ‘hacktivist’ groups like WikiLeaks.”
As I wrote, the strategy made clear the White House does not consider WikiLeaks a media organization. It characterized it as a “self-styling whistleblowing” organization. The word “self-styled” indicated WikiLeaks is not a “whistleblowing organization” to White House officials.
In the strategy, the organization is listed under a description of hacktivists and even described as an example of a “hacktivist” organization. It is blatantly false and malicious because staffers of WikiLeaks are not known to have hacked into any businesses or organizations to obtain information. They are not even known to have solicited information from insiders. All information released has been the result of submissions from sources they are unable to identify because their submission system was setup to protect the identity of sources or the information has been personally handed over by a whistleblower.
I clearly stated WikiLeaks is a media organization and a publisher, not some “hacktivist” collective. WikiLeaks has a right to publish just like other news outlets, including those in the United States that are sometimes incredibly subservient to corporate interests or the US government.
Now, with this response from the Pentagon on what could be impacted, it becomes more apparent the government views WikiLeaks as a cyber-espionage actor and not a publisher. How else does one explain the fact that an official from the Pentagon mentioned WikiLeaks in a response to a question about the impact of the sequester on “cybersecurity”?
And, what does “address” mean? It has been two to three years since the leaks took place. The breach has been addressed with the Pentagon further clamping down on the flow of information within the military. “Address” means WikiLeaks is still considered a threat—an organization it believes will strike again—and they are fighting it to ensure it cannot get into its systems and release any secrets.
The problem is that is not what WikiLeaks does or will ever do. It does not go into government systems and pilfer classified information. Yet, the national security state promotes this falsehood about WikiLeaks to justify the expansion of cyber and secrecy powers.
12 Comments
I thought the Pentagon’s first rule of Wikileaks was “don’t talk about Wikileaks.”
Prosecutors said that they would have gone after the New York Times too, during some portion of the NDAA appeals court hearing. That is scary. They(DOD) were able to suppress My Lai massacre news stories from Vietnam, but they cannot control easily transmissible reports through the modern internet. All you have to do today to get your own grand jury, is report the war crimes reported to you from your anonymous sources.
Wikileaks is the Cleveland Plain Dealer (paper which reported My Lai) of 2013. What seems different today is that the boundary between DOJ and DOD seems to have disappeared and also the “independence of the PRESS” seems to have been seriously suppressed.The Pentagon should figure out how to commit fewer war crimes by improving their rules of engagement, instead of misusing the laws to go after journalists who are just doing their jobs.
Boohoo, I’ll totally have a sad that the Pentagon won’t be able to spend taxdollars to hide stuff from the taxpayers or protect companies that have an economic interest in hiding things from consumers…….Oh wait, no I won’t.
Here’s an idea, if it costs you billions of dollars to hide things from the people paying the bills then you’re hiding too much. There shouldn’t be that much classified info.
They hate us for our freedom of the press.
Because Wikileaks does not regurgitate White House press releases or employ CIA agents and Democratic/Republican party apparatchiks to pose as journalists (and instead publishes prime source material), the government of the United States will classify them as pseudo-terror-hacktivists, not a media organization.
I feel Pentagon’s pain, there will be less money to steal. Now that is really a reason for concern. Maybe they should come up with some projects that benefit the country, instead of thinking up new ways to reward military contractors. They will now have to reduce the price of hammers and toilet seats on B52s. How sad.
What a load. Tax dollars hard at work denying citizens of the Republic the right to know what dirty little deeds and secrets the Fascists are hiding. It has precious little, if anything, to do with real ‘national security’ and everything to do with keeping prying eyes off the ass-raping the Constitution is taking.
What cwaltz said.
WikiLeaks and Assange can wear this as a badge of honor they are now officially, Enemies Of The State.
Thank you KG … stay with it … needs to be seen and said.
Heads up Pentagon … WikiLeaks is not what ails you … playing HideyHole Politics/Games is what ails the Pentagon and its sidekick … the CIA.
Pentagon needs some big daylight doses and to lose about 1/2 – 2/3 its bulk while the CIA just gets shut down with its main intel pick up/analysis mission(s) combined into a small Pentagon DIA element.
No black ops/unknown/unseen CIA junk.
With DIA being conducted with a tight legal/money/non WH based/independent USian leash always in place on case by case basis with main goal to shut down case by case as needed and to change out all management teams case by case to keep the daylight shining on them and DIA. Nonstop.
With mandated Pentagon/DIA automatic daylight shines and shut downs anytime anything smells bad too long should such a thing still come about.
Pentagon/DIA has nothing to hide? good– nothing to show/expose then — simple and to the point.
It is plain to see Pentagon and CIA got too big/too costly and want to hide too much.
Make Pentagon small and junk the CIA. Two concepts that need to happen. On cost(s) basis alone.
Pentagon and CIA lost what the main and basic mission was about a long time ago.
It is way past time to tell Pentagon/CIA those who do the paying get to decide about who is staying … and not staying. That would be USians who employ Pentagon/CIA …doing some plain who is the boss politics.
Pentagon/CIA … times up …so pack it up… it is downsize/ quit the multiple hideyhole(s) BS time.
The media drum beat leading up to the invasion of Iraq has nothing, repeat, nothing, on the media drum beat about the fiscal cliff and, more recently, about the sequester.
Agency after agency has come forward to tell the media about how horrible things will be if the sequester takes effect. The propaganda putsch has been painfully obvious. It’s laughable.
As my mother once told me, if you don’t do things you are ashamed of, there is no need to hide them. Seems that might be a good rule of thumb for government as well as individuals.