Cory Doctorow at 10:26 AM March 15, 2010

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?

Monday March 01, 2010

On the heels of the leak of various country positions on ACTA transparency, today an even bigger leak has hit the Internet.  A new European Union document prepared several weeks ago canvasses the Internet and Civil Enforcement chapters, disclosing in complete detail the proposals from the U.S., the counter-proposals from the EU, Japan, and other ACTA participants.  The 44-page document also highlights specific concerns of individual countries on a wide range of issues including ISP liability, anti-circumvention rules, and the scope of the treaty.  This is probably the most significant leak to-date since it goes even beyond the transparency debate by including specific country positions and proposals. The document highlights significant disagreement on a range of issues.  For example, on the issue of anti-circumvention legislation and access controls, the U.S. wants it included per the DCMA, but many other countries, including the EU, Japan, and New Zealand do not, noting that the WIPO Internet treaties do not require it. A brief summary of the key findings are posted here, but much more study is needed.

Intel 45nm quad core chip: apparently, not to be found in the much-expected Apple tablet

With Apple having neatly stolen some of the thunder with the carefully-leaked-to-the-Wall-Street-Journal story (we'll explain why later) on Monday about the upcoming "iTablet" (suggest a better name, please), more details seem to be dribbling out about the device Apple is expected to launch on Wednesday 27 January.

First, Scott Moritz at TheStreet has a story saying that the ...device won't be powered by an Intel processor. Shock! Horror? Well, no, because as Jack Schofield pointed out, nor are the iPod or iPod Touch or iPhone: they all have ARM processors inside.

Except that Moritz, quoting Ashok Kumar, an analyst with Northeast Securities, says it will be powered by a PA Semi chip. Who? PA Semi is the company that Apple bought two years ago - which we wrote about in August 2008: the PA Semi team has ARM experience and Apple has an ARM compatibility licence that would let it create ARM-alike chips but with its own power consumption and other tweaks. So it could be that the device will show off the benefits of the PA Semi acquisition.

Next: Apple has acquired Quattro Wireless, a mobile advertising specialist:

"We have built our business by enabling advertisers to reach the right consumers across the mobile web and in applications. We remain focused on delivering more engaging, relevant and useful ads to mobile devices, and improving the measurement and execution of digital campaigns. Together with Apple, we look forward to developing exciting new opportunities in the future that will benefit our customers. "

Make of that what you will.

Throwaway link: John Brownlee at Cult of Mac reporting someone saying they overheard someone who works for Apple saying the device has a "steep learning curve". Well, maybe a 3D interface would fit the bill?

Finally, John Martellaro, a former Apple insider, explains about how Apple does leaks.

He explains:

"Often Apple has a need to let information out, unofficially. The company has been doing that for years, and it helps preserve Apple's consistent, official reputation for never talking about unreleased products. I know, because when I was a Senior Marketing Manager at Apple, I was instructed to do some controlled leaks.

"The way it works is that a senior exec will come in and say, 'We need to release this specific information. John, do you have a trusted friend at a major outlet? If so, call him/her and have a conversation. Idly mention this information and suggest that if it were published, that would be nice. No e-mails!'

"The communication is always done in person or on the phone. Never via e-mail. That's so that if there's ever any dispute about what transpired, there's no paper trail to contradict either party's version of the story. Both sides can maintain plausible deniability and simply claim a misunderstanding. That protects Apple and the publication.

"In the case of yesterday's story, Walt Mossberg was bypassed so that Mr. Mossberg would remain above the fray, above reproach. Also, two journalists at the WSJ were involved. That way, each one could point the finger at the other and claim, 'I thought he told me to run with this story! Sorry.'"

It's been pointed out that the last time one of the journalists in the Monday leak story wrote about Apple, it was with the surprisingly accurate - yet totally without named sources - story about Steve Jobs having had a liver transplant. Which was later, of course, completely confirmed as correct.

And why might Apple have wanted to leak those sort-of details about the iTablet? Martellaro suggests:

* "to light a fire under a recalcitrant partner"

* "to float the idea of the US$1,000 price point and gauge reaction"

* "to panic/confuse a potential competitor about whom Apple had some knowledge"

* "to whet analyst and observer expectations to make sure the right kind and number of people show up at the (presumed) January 26 event. Apple hates empty seats and demands SRO at these events."

I don't know what SRO is in the last one. But on point three, note that Microsoft's Steve Ballmer was being rumoured to announce, or at least suggest, a tablet/slate with HP in his CES opening speech tonight. Consider that spiked, Steve.

By Andrew Gilligan
Published: 9:58PM GMT 21 Nov 2009

British Prime Minister Tony Blair (R) with US Secretary of State Colin Powell outside 10 Downing Street Photo: PA

Tony Blair is accused of presiding over 'significant shortcomings? at all levels Photo: REUTERS

Tony Blair addressing British troops in Basra after the invasion Photo: PA

On the eve of the Chilcot inquiry into Britain’s involvement in the 2003 invasion and its aftermath, The Sunday Telegraph has obtained hundreds of pages of secret Government reports on “lessons learnt” which shed new light on “significant shortcomings” at all levels.

They include full transcripts of extraordinarily frank classified interviews in which British Army commanders vent their frustration and anger with ministers and Whitehall officials.

The reports disclose that:

Tony Blair, the former prime minister, misled MPs and the public throughout 2002 when he claimed that Britain’s objective was “disarmament, not regime change” and that there had been no planning for military action. In fact, British military planning for a full invasion and regime change began in February 2002.

The need to conceal this from Parliament and all but “very small numbers” of officials “constrained” the planning process. The result was a “rushed”operation “lacking in coherence and resources” which caused “significant risk” to troops and “critical failure” in the post-war period.

Operations were so under-resourced that some troops went into action with only five bullets each. Others had to deploy to war on civilian airlines, taking their equipment as hand luggage. Some troops had weapons confiscated by airport security.

Commanders reported that the Army’s main radio system “tended to drop out at around noon each day because of the heat”. One described the supply chain as “absolutely appalling”, saying: “I know for a fact that there was one container full of skis in the desert.”

The Foreign Office unit to plan for postwar Iraq was set up only in late February, 2003, three weeks before the war started.

The plans “contained no detail once Baghdad had fallen”, causing a “notable loss of momentum” which was exploited by insurgents. Field commanders raged at Whitehall’s “appalling” and “horrifying” lack of support for reconstruction, with one top officer saying that the Government “missed a golden opportunity” to win Iraqi support. Another commander said: “It was not unlike 1750s colonialism where the military had to do everything ourselves.”

The documents emerge two days before public hearings begin in the Iraq Inquiry, the tribunal appointed under Sir John Chilcot, a former Whitehall civil servant, to “identify lessons that can be learnt from the Iraq conflict”.

Senior military officers and relatives of the dead have warned Sir John against a “whitewash”.

The documents consist of dozens of “post-operational reports” written by commanders at all levels, plus two sharply-worded “overall lessons learnt” papers – on the war phase and on the occupation – compiled by the Army centrally.

The analysis of the war phase describes it as a “significant military success” but one achieved against a “third-rate army”. It identifies a long list of “significant” weaknesses and notes: “A more capable enemy would probably have punished these shortcomings severely.”

The analysis of the occupation describes British reconstruction plans as “nugatory” and “hopelessly optimistic”.

It says that coalition forces were “ill-prepared and equipped to deal with the problems in the first 100 days” of the occupation, which turned out to be “the defining stage of the campaign”. It condemns the almost complete absence of contingency planning as a potential breach of Geneva Convention obligations to safeguard civilians.

The leaked documents bring into question statements that Mr Blair made to Parliament in the build up to the invasion. On July 16 2002, amid growing media speculation about Britain’s future role in Iraq, Mr Blair was asked: “Are we then preparing for possible military action in Iraq?” He replied: “No.”

Introducing the now notorious dossier on Iraq’s supposed weapons of mass destruction, on Sept 24, 2002, Mr Blair told MPs: “In respect of any military options, we are not at the stage of deciding those options but, of course, it is important — should we get to that point — that we have the fullest possible discussion of those options.”

In fact, according to the documents, “formation-level planning for a [British] deployment [to Iraq] took place from February 2002”.

The documents also quote Maj Gen Graeme Lamb, the director of special forces during the Iraq war, as saying: “I had been working the war up since early 2002.”

The leaked material also includes sheaves of classified verbatim transcripts of one-to-one interviews with commanders recently returned from Iraq – many critical of the Whitehall failings that were becoming clear. At least four commanders use the same word – “appalling” – to describe the performance of the Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence.

Documents describe the “inability to restore security early during the occupation” as the “critical failure” of the deployment and attack the “absence of UK political direction” after the war ended.

One quotes a senior British officer as saying: “The UK Government, which spent millions of pounds on resourcing the security line of operations, spent virtually none on the economic one, on which security depended.”

Many of the documents leaked to The Sunday Telegraph deal with key questions for Sir John Chilcot and his committee, such as whether planning was adequate, troops properly equipped and the occupation mishandled, and will almost certainly be seen by the inquiry.

However, it is not clear whether they will be published by it.

By Tom Chivers
Published: 2:47PM BST 05 Oct 2009

The MoD document appeared on the website Wikileaks

The Defence Manual of Security is intended to help MoD, armed forces and intelligence personnel maintain information security in the face of hackers, journalists, foreign spies and others.

But the 2,400-page restricted document has found its way on to Wikileaks, a website that publishes anonymous leaks of sensitive information from organisations including governments, corporations and religions.

Known in the services as Joint Services Protocol 440 (JSP 440), it was published in 2001. As Wikileaks notes, it is the document that is used as justification for the monitoring of certain websites, including Wikileaks itself.

Under the section “Leaks of Official Information", it says: "Leaks usually take the form of reports in the public media which appear to involve the unauthorised disclosure of official information (whether protectively marked or not) that causes political harm or embarrassment to either the UK Government or the Department concerned…

"The threat [of leakage] is less likely to arise from positive acts of counter-espionage, than from leakage of information through disaffected members of staff, or as a result of the attentions of an investigative journalist, or simply by accident or carelessness."

The document is particularly keen to avoid the attentions of journalists, noting them as "threats" alongside foreign intelligence services, criminals, terrorist groups and disaffected staff.

As far as traditional espionage and intelligence threats go, the document singles out the Chinese as having "a voracious appetite for all kinds of information; political, military, commercial, scientific and technical."

However, it is "very different to the portrayal of 'Moscow Rules' in the novels of John Le Carre". The Chinese agencies do not "run agents", but instead "make friends", as befits intelligence officers in the Facebook era.

Wikileaks was also behind the memorable leaks of the British National Party membership list, the operating procedures at Guantanamo Bay and the secret workings of the Church of Scientology.

Matthew Single outside Nottingham magistrates court. Photograph: Rui Vieira/PA

A former member of the British National party was fined £200 today after he admitted leaking the names and details of thousands of party members online.

Matthew Single, appearing before Nottingham magistrates, admitted revealing the names, addresses and occupations of around 12,000 members on a blog. Charges against his wife, Sadie Graham-Single, were dropped.

District judge John Stobart ordered 37-year-old Single to pay an additional £100 towards the costs of the prosecution.

"Anything that is posted on the internet has the effect of opening a Pandora's box," he said.

"What you put on the internet can never be taken from it, and while there may be some members in this organisation who do not deserve to be protected by the law, they should be able to expect that officers within the organisation will not abuse the information provided to them."

He said the law "exists to save people from such revenge attacks", adding: "It came as a surprise to me, as it will to many members of the party, that to do something as foolish and as criminally dangerous as you did will only incur a financial penalty.

"It comes as no surprise to me that somebody to do with an organisation that prides itself on Britishness is in fact living off the British people on jobseekers' allowance, and that is why the fine is so low as to be ridiculous."

Police officers, teachers, church figures and lawyers were among those revealed to be BNP members, with some complaining that the leaks had exposed them to the risk of dismissal from their jobs or disciplinary action.

More than 160 complaints were made to police after attacks on BNP members and their property, it was revealed in court. White powder, purported to be anthrax, was put through people's letterboxes, swastikas were daubed on doors and there was an arson attack on one member's vehicle, officers said.

John Walker, a BNP spokesman, said some party members were considering bringing civil cases against Single and his wife.

"It's an absolute disgrace. As far as I'm concerned, it should have been a custodial sentence," Walker said.

"There have been some real victims in this case. People had their homes attacked and some people have lost their jobs."

Speaking outside the court, Detective Sergeant Chris Reynolds said he was disappointed with the outcome of the investigation, believed to have cost about £50,000.

"It's taken a great deal of work to get the case to court," he said. "There was pretty serious stuff after what happened. People were fearful for their safety."

The list of names was leaked on the web in November 2008. Information disclosed included contact details such as mobile phone numbers and the names and ages of children in a family membership.

Some of those named complained that they had been mistakenly included on the list after having asked for information about the party. Others said they were no longer members.

The BNP called the leak "malevolent and spiteful" but said the list was out of date and included the names of members only up to 2007.

The party called police and obtained a high court injunction to stop the list being published, but was forced to admit it was relying on the Human Rights Act – which it opposes – to protect members' privacy.

Police charged Single, who was living in Nottingham at the time of the leak, under the Data The BNP leader, Nick Griffin, claimed at the time to know the identity of a person who had leaked the information, saying it was a hardline senior employee who disagreed with the direction of the party and had left it in 2007.

The leak revealed bitter party infighting. It emerged that Griffin and his deputy, Simon Darby, had taken court action against six disgruntled former members, including Single and his wife, a BNP councillor on Broxtowe Borough Council, in 2007. In December that year, an internal dispute led to the resignation or expulsion of 60 local and national BNP officials.

Single, who trained BNP members in security, was part of a group of rebels who had been calling for the expulsion of three other senior officials – John Walker, the national treasurer, his deputy, Dave Hannam, and Mark Collett, the director of publicity, whom the rebels accused of bringing the BNP into disrepute. When the rebel leaders were sacked by Griffin, a large number of party officials resigned in support or were expelled.