Slashdot Mirror


CIA Launches WTF To Investigate Wikileaks

krou writes "In an effort to investigate the impact of the leaked diplomatic cables, the CIA have launched the Wikileaks Task Force, commonly referred to at CIA headquarters as 'WTF.' 'The Washington Post said the panel was being led by the CIA's counter-intelligence centre, although it has drawn in two dozen members from departments across the agency.' Although the agency has not seen much of its own information leaked in the cables, some revelations (such as spying at the UN) originated from direct requests by the CIA. The Guardian notes that, 'WTF is more commonly associated with the Facebook and Twitter profiles of teenagers than secret agency committees. Given that its expanded version is usually an expression of extreme disbelief, perhaps the term is apt for the CIA's investigation.'"

34 of 402 comments (clear)

  1. This is what they should start doing by devxo · · Score: 5, Funny

    Personally I'm waiting for CIA to also launch an task force called NWO, just to have some fun with conspiracy theories.

    1. Re:This is what they should start doing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Or how about powerful american politicians forming an organisation calling for US global dominion? And call it something like "project for the new american century"? That would really wind up those conspiracy jerks. http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

    2. Re:This is what they should start doing by khallow · · Score: 4, Informative

      Powerful american politicians? It was a group of pundits, none of whom have ever held public office.

      Some of their more famous writings had input from and were signed by genuine powerful US politicians who ended up serving in the G. W. Bush administration, such as Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz.

    3. Re:This is what they should start doing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      The will probably do that under the Langley Meeting of Affiliated Organizations (LMAO).

    4. Re:This is what they should start doing by serutan · · Score: 4, Funny

      This will complement some of their other programs:
      Operation Masked Government
      Locate Open Leaks
      Reduce Our Federal Loopholes

    5. Re:This is what they should start doing by flappinbooger · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's "funny" how there's all this FCC internet regulation, WTF investigation, and renewed vigor with "net neutrality" crap now that wikileaks has dropped the massive turd on the white house front door.

      Before it was really just whining about lack of sales tax on internet sales, and spam, but now that the dirty laundry is embarrassing powers that be, they are flexing their muscles and lashing out at "the internet".

      --
      Flappinbooger isn't my real name
  2. I'm confused by The+Creator · · Score: 5, Funny

    "CIA's counter-intelligence centre"

    I can't decide if this is redundant or an oxymoron.

    --

    FRA: STFU GTFO
    1. Re:I'm confused by by+(1706743) · · Score: 5, Funny

      "CIA's counter-intelligence centre"

      I can't decide if this is redundant or an oxymoron.

      You know, intelligence about marble top counters, hardwood counters, laminate counters, etc.

    2. Re:I'm confused by gadzook33 · · Score: 5, Informative

      There actually is a company in the Langley area called Counter Intelligence that does this. You occasionally see their van driving around.

  3. WTF stands for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Welcome To Facebook, of course!

  4. WTF? by mcvos · · Score: 4, Insightful

    But seriously, this sounds like a much more sensible approach than many other US responses we've seen so far.

  5. Idiots by santax · · Score: 4, Insightful

    First they give 3 million people access to this information and then they complain at a guy that has nothing to do with it. Given the way the US threats people I am sure that the poor soldier who has been in isolation for months has gotten 'an offer he can't refuse' to sign a fake testimony against Assange. The weirdest part about this all is that half the population seems to believe the threat of terrorism is coming from some Muslims living in the desert. Totally blind for the real terrorism we face everyday, put in place by the so called government. Don't believe? Start a blog, become a journalist or try to get on an airplane without having some dick take a look at your dick, or even worse, your 5-y/o dick. Terrorism from Muslims can be a threat, however, the only terrorism I actually witness everyday is from white guys in suits.

    1. Re:Idiots by santax · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah I'm sure they have chat-logs. Found those probably next to the WMD's in Iraq.

    2. Re:Idiots by mrsteveman1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They have chat logs implicating Assange in aiding Bradley Manning with submitting the documents. The law is pretty clear about these things. We'll just have to wait for his trial.

      That isn't the same thing as assisting someone in stealing classified information.

    3. Re:Idiots by Knuckles · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Testimony? They don't need testimony. They have chat logs implicating Assange in aiding Bradley Manning with submitting the documents. The law is pretty clear about these things. We'll just have to wait for his trial.

      If you mean this, then what they have are chat logs of Manning telling Lamo that Assange helped him with the upload to WL. Read the article. This is very different to Assange helping Manning to *obtain* the documents, and while IANAL it appears that helping to publish secret documents as such is not a crime. And Assange claims not to have any contact with Manning.

      A trial may bring some light into it, but as far as the Manning case shows it appears that the US military prefers to torture its soldiers instead of shedding light by a speedy trial. And Assange is neither a US citizen nor is he located in the US, so I still fail to see why he should be subject to US laws.

      --
      "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
    4. Re:Idiots by BobMcD · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Should a drug mule go unpunished because he didn't KNOW he was carrying drugs?

      Yep.

      Should an accomplice in a murder go unpunished because he didn't KNOW that his partner would kill someone.

      Yep.

      Do you see what I'm getting at?

      Sure I do. You're getting at 'vengeance' - same as the CIA.

      Wikileaks doesn't have to KNOW what they were receiving to be guilty of collusion. Does it really matter though?

      Ergo the 'vengeance'. It doesn't really matter if any crimes were committed, they must be made to pay. I get it, I really do.

      It's likely that there wont be any direct evidence linking Assange and Wikileaks to Manning, just circumstantial evidence and testimony. It's very unlikely he'll even face extradition to the US.

      I suppose time will tell. They put that Canadian kid in Gitmo for, what, seven years because they thought someone threw a grenade from his general direction.

    5. Re:Idiots by DavidTC · · Score: 4, Informative

      In what universe is that 'the question'?

      The law doesn't say anything close to what you seem to think it says.

      People not only have a first amendment right to speak, they have a first amendment right to be spoken to, and they have the right to aid others in speaking to them. (Yes, the courts have actually upheld this, when the government attempted to get sneaky and assert people have the right to say whatever they want, but the government could arrest people for listening.)

      Manning waived his rights when he got clearance, and he has, rightly, been arrested. (And then, wrongly, illegally held in solitary confinement for no reason whatsoever, probably to get him to make up something about Assange that they can arrest him on.)

      Assange did not waive any of his rights, he has a first amendment right to be told things, and cannot be punished for helping people tell him things, even if that person was breaking the law at the time.

      Any speech between two people is constitutionally protected. Just because one person has waived that protection does not mean the other person is somehow committing a crime if he 'helps' the conversation somehow. That is flatly absurd...he has a constitutional right to have that conversation, period, even if the other person does not. (Moreover, the idea of speech that becomes criminal based on the legal status of another person is absurdity ascendant. How is anyone else supposed to know they waived their speech rights?)

      There is, of course, a distinction between helping the conversation, and inciting the original crime, but Assange did not do the latter.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  6. Daily updates? by OzPeter · · Score: 5, Funny

    Will there also be a website where you can get Daily WTF updates? This could be interesting. Add some crappy user commenting software are you are all set for a fun time.

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    1. Re:Daily updates? by jgtg32a · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I considered the "Woosh" but I felt like mixing it up a bit

  7. Re:Really? People are surprised? by beakerMeep · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Not surprised, but did they aid in obtaining them? I got the impression they aided in publishing, but that Manning obtained them all on his own.

    --
    meep
  8. Well... by d3vpsaux · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm waiting for Operation OMGWTFBBQ myself... Oh My, Government Wikileaks Task Force Better Be Quick!

  9. Federal Acronym Research Team by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Brought to you by the Federal Acronym Research Team ;)

  10. Re:Really? People are surprised? by Charliemopps · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The only organization that aided Bradley Manning in obtaining classified documents was U.S. army intelligence. He was sitting in Bagdad browsing diplomatic cables from every embassy in the world, none of which had anything to do with the type of intelligence he was supposed to be gathering. There was no hacking involved.

    Bradley Manning:
    “I would come in with music on a CD-RW labeled with something like ‘Lady Gaga,’ erase the music then write a compressed split file,” he wrote. “No one suspected a thing and, odds are, they never will.” “I listened and lip-synced to Lady Gaga’s ‘Telephone’ while exfiltrating possibly the largest data spillage in American history,” he added later. ”Weak servers, weak logging, weak physical security, weak counter-intelligence, inattentive signal analysis … a perfect storm.”

    The US military basically left a $100 bill laying on the bar while they went to the bathroom and some lowly PFC found it and did what anyone would have in his situation. Now they are trying to pretend like this worldwide network of thieves dropped in like ninjas and snatched it from their 3ft thick titanium safe.

    Think for a second on what Mr. Mannings goal was... informing the public. Now think of how easily it would be for a foreign security agency or even a terrorist sympathizer to achieve the same level of clearance. Their goals would be far less noble, and far less public. They'd most likely never get caught. Bradley Manning has probably done more to help secure the US Militarys network than any idiot at the CIA that doesn't even know what the acronym WTF stands for.

  11. Re:Really? People are surprised? by aeroelastic · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I don't understand what you're getting at. First you say :

    An organization aids a person in obtaining classified documents

    then you say

    He had nothing to do with actually getting them

    Which are contradictory. You also said

    They have chat logs implicating Assange in aiding Bradley Manning with submitting the documents. The law is pretty clear about these things

    which clearly isn't true. The law here is very murky, and "aiding in submitting documents" probably isn't a crime. If there was a clear crime comitted here, we'd have heard specifically what it is by now.

    --
    "It doesn't take a rocket scientist" -I guess I should leave then
  12. Some suggestions by Chrisq · · Score: 4, Funny
    I could make some more suggestions:

    GBT - Google Background Task-force (to look into the background data from wifi snooping)

    WANK - Wide Area Network Keeper (protect infrastructure from DDOS)

    SHIT - Secure Homeland IT (initiative against cyber warfare)

  13. How it really happened by AgentSmith · · Score: 5, Funny

    We fade in on a low lit smoky government war room.
    Many high ranking CIA operatives are seated around a circular table.

    Task force chairman: Gentlemen, we have our network completely set. Operatives are in place and the funding is acquired.
                                              All we need now is . . .a name.

    [CIA Director walks in]

    Director: Well Hey Howdy boys! What are we all up against this time?!

    Task force chairman: Director, we just learned about the release of numerous secret diplomat cables from a website called Wikileaks.

    Director: WHAT THE F@$K?!! NEOTHEONENSFWBBQ?!!

    Task for chairman: Hmmmm. . . WTF. W. . .T . . .F . . .That's it! Gentlemen, we have our name! Congratulations, Director!

    [Cheers go out. Scotch is poured and toasts are made.
    Screen fades to black.]

    [Fade in on Julian Assange sitting in a British pub. A CIA operative, a couple MI5 operatives with some British Bobbies come
    walking in the door.]

    MI5 Operative: Julian Assange?

    Julian: Yes?

    MI5: You are being held for extradition to Sweden under allegations of rape. Please come with us.

    Julian: WTF?!

    CIA Operative: [Takes off sunglasses] Exactly.

    [Fade to black. Cue Credits. Roll End Theme]

  14. How much more ridiculous does this have to get by Phoenix666 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    before the American people hit the reset button on the country? The government is obviously completely out of control. We have the TSA fondling children and strip-searching innocent citizens who simply want to travel from point A to point B. We have a Congress and Whitehouse who simply can't be bothered to do anything to help the Middle Class, preferring instead to concentrate even more wealth and power in the hands of the ultra-rich, ultra-connected, unaccountable, and demonstrably incompetent (eg. tax breaks for the wealthy and net neutrality). And thanks to Wikileaks the illusion that the government knows what it's doing has been shattered.

    It's almost like those in power are betting each other they can screw the American people indefinitely, unapologetically, right in front of them and no one will do anything. And amazingly, the most heavily armed populace in the world is letting them get away with it.

    Is there no steel left in the American soul?

    --
    Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
  15. Wait, wait, wait. by FreonTrip · · Score: 5, Informative

    Look at the signatories on this page, and tell me with a straight face that none of them have held public office.

  16. Re:Really? People are surprised? by DrXym · · Score: 4, Insightful
    What's more incredible is that no one noticed this. I've worked in places where you just know there are triggers on certain tables, that queries are logged, that you can and probably would trip alarms of you did something prohibited such as looking up celeb details, or someone's medical records without authorisation.

    It beggars belief that any intel officer could do the equivalent to "select * from reports" and nobody batted an eyelid. If he had to search a database, he should be required to enter search criteria. Results should be limited. His search should be logged. Unusual or suspicious searches should flagged for immediate attention. Even the text of the reports could even tagged in obvious and less obvious ways so if they did leak that the culprit could be forensically identified.

    So while we can debate about the ethics of what wikileaks is doing, the reality is that the fault for all the leaks lays fairly and squarely at the feet of the US governments sloppy security. If Bradly Manning was doing it then who else was? I wonder if China, Russia, Iran etc. have had to feign surprise at these leaks. Perhaps they've long owned their own copies.

  17. Re:Really? People are surprised? by BobMcD · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't think it is so much that we 'slashtards', as you so lovingly refer to such a wide group of people whom you'll probably never even meet, simply disagree. Rather, I think it is that you're without a point. You say:

    Assange provided Manning with locations and instructions on how to submit the documents...

    This is only a crime if using Wikileaks is a crime. As far as I know, it is not. Until they had the documents, there was no legal reason to believe that they were in fact classified. Manning could have been deceiving them, etc. Wikileaks is designed to receive files, so aiding someone in that task is within the scope of helping someone use their website. This is a thought crime, at best.

    ...to Wikileaks instead of submitting them like everyone else and waiting for Wikileaks to sift through the submissions, and the timeline from when Manning had the documents to when Wikileaks released them supports this claim.

    And giving him special treatment is what sort of crime, exactly?

    Maybe, maybe, maybe if Assange and Wikileaks were under the jurisdiction of American law then MAYBE you'd have a nitpicky point. As they're not, you don't. There's no international consensus that helping someone use a website and giving someone priority status are crimes. These points alone are no more or less significant than the entire overall process of receiving the documents and publishing them.

    Molehill, meet mirror. Mountain is over there.

  18. Re:The fine line.. by BobMcD · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yes I understand that our government has to be transparent. There are however, methods to get information in the properway. Using the law, one can subpena the governemet, private industry, and individuals. Using legal ways information can be forced to be released.

    Except that this isn't actually true because there's no one to enforce these rules and laws. There's zero oversight. Consider the cases of Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman. In the former case they attempted to make a young woman a war hero against her will. They fabricated a 'Rambo from West Virginia' story out of whole cloth, and tried to force her to go along with it. In the latter case they assassinated a dissenter before his scheduled visit with Noam Chomsky, falsified the coroner's report, burned his uniform and his diary, then lied to the family. In these two cases we had people on the inside telling us the truth and STILL the military lied about it. What of the myriad other situations where there's nobody brave enough to tell the truth?

    Maybe Wikileaks is not the answer, but someone needs to do something, so at least in this way I support them. Stop the lies, end the secrets. Let's move together into a new era of being decent human beings.

  19. Re:Led by the CIA Universal Network Team by smartr · · Score: 4, Informative

    If you go by what Daniel Ellsberg said (I think this was a democracy now interview), Wikileaks actually sent the information they were going to leak to the Pentagon, so as to have the "targets of terrorism" redacted. The Pentagon refused to cooperate in this manner. Exactly what party is responsible for keeping this information safe?

  20. Re:Really? People are surprised? by DavidTC · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It doesn't matter what is 'considered' the leak.

    The US has no Official Secrets act. It is perfectly legal for anyone to tell classified information to anyone else as long as they have not sign documents stating they will not do that.

    Basically, all punishment for leaking classified information is contractual. Mannings agreed to it, and hence he be punished.

    No one else did, certainly no one at Wikileaks, and hence the government cannot do anything^W^W^W will instead torture Manning until he claims Assange 'incited' Manning to or something so they can extradite Assange from the country where they've got him held on a bogus rape charge now. (Whereupon the charge will magically go away.)

    The game is really obvious, people. Really REALLY fucking obvious.

    I'm just a little baffled that the CIA is openly admitting the government is trying to figure out ways to charge Assange with a crime. (Since when does the CIA investigate crime? When they need to invent a crime, that's when. The FBI and whatnot have moral objections to framing people, the CIA does it all the time.)

    --
    If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?