Slashdot Mirror


Feds Plan 'Fog of Disinformation' To Track Information Leaks

skipkent tips a story at Wired's Danger Room, according to which "Pentagon-funded researchers have come up with a new plan for busting leakers: Spot them by how they search, and then entice the secret-spillers with decoy documents that will give them away. Computer scientists call it it 'Fog Computing' — a play on today's cloud computing craze. And in a recent paper for Darpa, the Pentagon's premiere research arm, researchers say they've built 'a prototype for automatically generating and distributing believable misinformation and then tracking access and attempted misuse of it. We call this "disinformation technology."'"

44 of 263 comments (clear)

  1. aka... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Counterintelligence. Same game, new enemy. It worries me when the enemies start to become ourselves. It may be foreshadowing what's to come.

    1. Re:aka... by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I figure it would send a message to the leakers. That is, be careful what you leak, we may just find you.

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
    2. Re:aka... by demachina · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'm curious how they are going to flood their own people with a "fog of disinformation" and not cause chaos. The information has to be believable but false, and once its out there how do they stop their own people from acting on it as though it is accurate?

      Maybe if they have someone who is already a suspect and target it only at them they can contain the self inflicted damage, but if they start to dessimate information on any scale the self inflicted damage they could outweigh the damage the leakers do.

      If someone is already a suspect I doubt they really need this tactic to nail them.

      Once it becomes a wide spread suspicion that there is intentional disinformation in the system, wouldn't everyone stop trusting all the information.

      Of course after the "missile gap, WMD's in Iraq and reading some of the stuff that came out of the State department and DOD through Wikileaks the quality of their information is already pretty shitty. Maybe this is just a way to thrown in the towel on intelligence and information gathering and admit its all garbage so they should just make it all up, because its cheaper.

      A possible ulterior motive is they actually want to flood leakers with disinformation, and in turn flood news channels with misinformation, so they can mislead and bombard the public with propaganda but have plausible deniability that thats what they are doing.

      --
      @de_machina
    3. Re:aka... by zill · · Score: 4, Funny

      and I first thought this would have been more effective if they hadn't announced it.

      This is actually all fake. They pretended there was a disinformation campaign when there wasn't so that the enemies would think there is a disinformation campaign going on.

      Of course if this were true there is no way such a secret will be revealed in a random /. comment.



      Unless, of course, said /. comment is also part of the disinformation campaign







      ...or maybe that's just what they want you to think.

    4. Re:aka... by icebike · · Score: 3, Informative

      Meh. Just be sure to grab someone elses copy and leak that. They;ll trace it back to the other person, not you.

      Well then they would get the original leaker wouldn't they? That is the point.

      There is nothing new here, other than the apparent plan to plug leaks in government, (or should I say inconvenient government leaks).

      Copies of physical documents of sensitive information have often contained minor typos or subtle wording changes in critical and likely to be leaked passages. Churchill ordered this during WWII to see which of his subordinates was leaking.

      IBM applied for a patent on this process in the digital world back in 2009.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    5. Re:aka... by networkBoy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      We do that where I work. Certain documents are trade secret, and we want to make sure they don't become trade secrete(tions).
      if you get a copy of the document, it will have some very simple alterations (extra space here or there, couple more pixels per row in tables, etc.) This is along with the more normal markings that it was checked out to you etc.
      If the document leaks they can scan it in to the computer and it will calculate who the doc belonged to.
      Yes you can compare multiple copies, but this requires collaboration, which raises the bar.
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    6. Re:aka... by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 2

      No entrapment is when you actively encourage someone to commit a crime. Giving somebody opportunity is not the same thing. One of the purposes here is also to get foreign governments to doubt the veracity of whatever information their agents dig up. It's already suspect but if the foreign governments alsoknow the Pentagon is actively generating disinformation for them to "find" they'll be doubly doubtful.

    7. Re:aka... by rtb61 · · Score: 2

      It's already old tech, it's called creating a honey pot, nothing new here. When you create honey pots, you announce them, much the same as a mine field, it helps to keep away amateurs so that you can focus on professionals. This is of course similar to the reason professionals give away their hacking tools free, so that they can hide their attacks behind hundreds even thousands of amateurs.

      Taking into account the cost of computer equipment, any network where security is a real issue should be running a parallel and interleaved honey pot network, to draw in attacks, so that those attacks can be analysed and evidence produced for further prosecution. With a honey pot network, unlike a regular network, you know exactly what state it should be in and exactly what data should be entering or leaving, making any attack readily visible, the weak point in your network should always be a honey pot and they should be every where possible. An extension of the idea is that police, should be able to place honey pot networks in private enterprise, where an attack has occurred or where they suspect an attack will be likely to be a step ahead of attackers, especially foreign governments. There should be hundreds of thousands of honey pot network minefields scattered all over the place.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    8. Re:aka... by lowieken · · Score: 2

      That's an old tactic used in political negotiations very often. It's very popular in scenarios where you don't trust al your negotiation partners. This makes it especially common in countries with coalition (multi-party) governments for example.

    9. Re:aka... by bryan1945 · · Score: 2

      How are they creating circumstances that facilitate leakage. Classified docs are not meant to be leaked. Saying that some docs may be altered so they can be tracked back to the source is not entrapment. You know if you leak something you could be tracked. This is the opposite of entrapment.
      If a cop says that the bartender just left $100 on the bar, and you go steal it, you're an idiot.

      --
      Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
  2. Better yet. by AftanGustur · · Score: 2

    All they really need is to alter a few words in sentences depending on who is accessing the document.

    --
    echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
    1. Re:Better yet. by stephanruby · · Score: 3, Insightful

      All they really need is to alter a few words in sentences depending on who is accessing the document.

      What you're talking about is a simple form of watermarking. What they're talking about, since they're calling it "disinformation", is much more than that.

      Now only the 4-star generals will know which spy plane blueprints are real, and which diplomatic cables are true, so no information will be actionable until it first gets reviewed and validated by a 4-star general first.

    2. Re:Better yet. by capnchicken · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That sounds scalable. /sarcasm

      The big thing all these leaks really proves is that there are too many secrets and the US govt's clearance and need to know mechanisms are wholly broken. Some info really does need to be secret, but instead of vetting everything its just way easier to sweep it all under the its a secret rug and call it a day.

      Just another pentagon project to treat the symptoms and totally disregard the main cause.

      --
      A libertarian shat on my carpet once. Claimed the free market would sort it out. -Ford Prefect(8777)
    3. Re:Better yet. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      All they really need is to alter a few words in sentences depending on who is accessing the document.

      Of course. This doesn't seem all that new of an idea. It sounds like it might be someone trying to make more out of this story than is really there.

      Seeding a document so it can be traced to who's leaking it is not a new idea at all. If you know someone is giving away secrets, and there's only three people working in your office, it's pretty obvious that the way to find the leaker is to give them three different stories (even slightly different) and see which version ends up getting out.

      There are significant concerns about the overuse and misuse of domestic surveillance. Lots of really good journalists following this story in places like the New Yorker, Atlantic and many other respected outlets. But there also seems to be a growing number of journo-bloggers who are coming up with stories like "Police are surreptitiously following suspects now!" trying to break what is essentially a pretty ho-hum story.

      It's another version of something that's been done forever, but is news because now it's being done on the Internet. Here, let me give an example from this story:

      And in a recent paper for Darpa, the Pentagon's premiere research arm, researchers say they've built 'a prototype for automatically generating and distributing believable misinformation

      Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes are laughing.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  3. Government Already Operates in a Fog by Gunfighter · · Score: 5, Insightful

    With the discombobulated nature of the believable information and misinformation, who will be tracking the differences to make sure an intelligence report doesn't result in a military course of action against a non-existent foe (or something similar)?

    Translation: What could possibly go wrong?

    --
    -- Stu

    /. ID under 2,000. I feel old now.
    1. Re:Government Already Operates in a Fog by Kaenneth · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Iraq?

    2. Re:Government Already Operates in a Fog by girlintraining · · Score: 4, Funny

      Translation: What could possibly go wrong?

      So... FOX News was the prototype for this?

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
  4. disinformation all the time by harvey+the+nerd · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The bottom line is that you can't believe *anything* any government official says.

    1. Re:disinformation all the time by dkleinsc · · Score: 2

      Just because they don't have ties to the government doesn't mean they won't lie to you (or that they are not just idiots).

      Why should I believe that?

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  5. An interesting study in modern ethics by TorrentFox · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Is it still right to punish those who in good faith believe there is a pressing need to leak certain information? Entrapment aside, this really will have the most damaging chilling effect yet known in the information age. First no whistleblower protection for gov. employees, and now an active campaign to make sure fucked people stay fucked. Proud to be an American!

    1. Re:An interesting study in modern ethics by lgw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, it is right - for those who sign a contract saying that they will go to jail if they reveal a given secret, it is right for them to go to jail if they then reveal that secret. It really is that simple.

      This isn't about "whistleblowers", who see non-secret but embarassing imformation about their employers and reveal that in a damaging way. This is about state secrets. And history shows: if your government can't keep any secrets, it will be replaced by one that can (often quite violently replaced). Just as you may regret the need for national defense, you'll end up with a government that has some, one way or another.

      We're a democracy. We have oversight of state secrets by our elected leaders, and good ones will legally "out" secrets they don't think should be secret (this happened quite recently, with a congressman reading into the congressional record a court-sealed document related to Fast and Furious). Yes, the system has flaws, all systems do, but it's certainly a workable one.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    2. Re:An interesting study in modern ethics by sjames · · Score: 2

      It is about whistleblowers when every bit of information is marked classified just in case it might turn out to be embarrassing later.

    3. Re:An interesting study in modern ethics by dark12222000 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Funny enough you mention that they are bound by Contract.

      You see, in all of these contracts (and usually verbatim in government contracts), the duty of the secret keeper is forfeit if the information contained is either illegal, or (in America) goes against "the will" of the people.

      In another words, if you bind me via contract to not disclose that you're going to nuke New York, and I tell someone, then I have *not* violated my contract (either the contract is invalid in the first place as it violates established law, or my duty to the law/my fellow citizens surpasses my contracted duty).

      In these cases, most of these people ARE whistleblowers. The information they release has been released because the whistleblower feels it either violates established law or that it goes against the will of the people.

    4. Re:An interesting study in modern ethics by colinnwn · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And history shows: if your government can't keep any secrets, it will be replaced by one that can (often quite violently replaced).

      Does history show this? I'm generally curious. My guess is that most governments can't keep secrets well, and even the ones that are particularly bad and have also failed, have other more significant causes of the failure.

    5. Re:An interesting study in modern ethics by vux984 · · Score: 2

      And history shows...

      History also shows that over reaching laws with a narrower "intent" tend to frequently get used used in over reaching ways when its convenient for those in power.

      This isn't about "whistleblowers",

      Then why not protect them? Where is the language that explicitly limits the scope to just what you think it is actually intended to be used for?

    6. Re:An interesting study in modern ethics by lgw · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In another words, if you bind me via contract to not disclose that you're going to nuke New York, and I tell someone, then I have *not* violated my contract (either the contract is invalid in the first place as it violates established law, or my duty to the law/my fellow citizens surpasses my contracted duty).

      Your sense of the importance of the information you wish to leak does not give you the legal right to leak it - in a very practical sense, you rarely have the context to be certain of such things, unless you're very senior in which case you will some legal avenue to bring the information to the attention of the right people. Now, if you really feel your sense of duty is more important than the law, leak away, and go to jail morally righteous. If enough people in out democracy agree with your judgement, someone will pardon you.

      whistleblower feels it either violates established law or that it goes against the will of the people.

      I'm sorry, but what the whistleblower "feels" goes against the "will of the people" is so much bullshit. There are elected leaders whose actual job is to judge that, and who have legal oversight over secret programs, and who represent the will of the people as best humanity can figure out how to make that happen. Those congresscritters have legal ways to fix these problems.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    7. Re:An interesting study in modern ethics by vux984 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Leaking of Secret/classified information is separate from ordinary whistleblowers working for the government. It's a bright-line distinction: each document is Secret, or not.

      The bright-line distinction is not whether or not something is marked secret. Its whether some thing is right or wrong.

      I don't give a shit how many times they stamp the word Top Secret on something. If its not something we should be doing then it needs to be outed. The US doesn't need secret prisons. And the mis-treatment of prisoners in them is a crime not a "secret".

      So am I, but the right system is to police that through oversight committies with appropriate clearance to review the information in the first place, who aren't in anyone's chain of comman except the voters. And we have those.

      Sometimes we have them. And sometimes they work. But there is no reason not to have other checks in the system... like protecting a whistleblower who is reporting on the criminal activity of the state.

  6. Or, And This is Just a Thought... by CanHasDIY · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Stop doing shit you don't want the People to know about.

    Cue the state-owned lapdogs prattling on about the dangers of military secrets becoming public knowledge, in spite of the fact that all the fallout from leaked documents thus far has been political, and in no way put any of our troops at risk.

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    1. Re:Or, And This is Just a Thought... by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2

      "and in no way put any of our troops at risk."

      false. Of course you seem to think there is no association of the troops from politics. When documents where released that showed the US's role in maintaining peace in the mid-east, it put several countries into a corner and forced their hand.; which led to an extending campaign in which soldiers died.

      Bull.

      Shit.

      If not, produce some examples. Otherwise, STFU.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    2. Re:Or, And This is Just a Thought... by HeckRuler · · Score: 2

      it put several countries into a corner and forced their hand.; which led to an extending campaign in which soldiers died.

      Wut?
      OR, taken another way, it put the USA in a corner and forced our hand. The one where we finally GTFO and RAMP DOWN these stupid campaigns. SAVING soldiers lives.

      See how easy that is to spin?

      But no, go ahead, give us some examples of what information was leaked, that caused either Iraq or Afghanistan to "force their hand", which somehow forced us to extend our military campaigns. Please, reason it out. Explain it to us. Because we're obviously not seeing how that could possibly be.

      Some documents should remain hidden.

      Absolutely, which is why Wikileaks takes so damn long scouring the material and releases it in batches

      Should we publish the data on when we move missiles? which truck is the decoy?

      After it's already happened? Sure, who gives a shit which truck is the decoy after the goods are safe. If they can analyze the frequency of our missile movements to predict where the next one will be, we ALREADY HAVE PROBLEMS.

    3. Re:Or, And This is Just a Thought... by Lunzo · · Score: 2

      To prove the GP wrong, all the parent post had to do was provide one specific case where troops were put at risk due to leaked documents. Because the parent waffled in generalities, he doesn't have that one counter-example that would have proved his point.

  7. How... by Dahamma · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...is anyone going to tell this disinformation apart from the disinformation that makes up the majority of mainstream news today, anyway?

  8. As a taxpayer... by Lendrick · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Deliberately creating and circulating misniformation seems like an unethical use of my tax money, much like propaganda campaigns.

  9. The *new* foggy logic. by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 2

    where some bright fellow in the government mistakes a real document for a false one, or vice versa, and makes a decision about some silly thing like national defense based on misinformation.

    But of course, that will never happen.

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
  10. Tom Clancy calls this a "canary trap" by Thagg · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's a pretty common idea, really. Wikipedia entry.

    --
    I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
    1. Re:Tom Clancy calls this a "canary trap" by Trepidity · · Score: 2

      Even the MPAA has done this for years, and they aren't known for being cutting-edge technologists.

  11. Great, now... by Hatta · · Score: 3, Informative

    Put the same sort of effort into discovering and prosecuting those who classify documents to avoid embarassment, rather than ensure national security. This group is far larger, and far more dangerous than any group of whistleblowers.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  12. I am Moredoc by DontBlameCanada · · Score: 3, Funny

    The Enabler of Disinformation Services! You may know my brother, Mordac the Preventer of Information Services.

  13. Re:Should rename to derpa by GT66 · · Score: 2

    "I am stunned that they AREN'T doing this. It is a VERY SIMPLE technique to figure out who is blabbing." It is a simple technique. And when have you seen a government even successfully do that much? One movie script or an occasional encyclopedia set is one thing. Given the sheer volume of information generated by our increasingly paranoid and secretive government AND the need to share this information across many agencies, let me predict that total chaos will be arriving shortly. Whatever feeble productivity our government has been able to produce by sheer force of $$$ will now be completely negated as even the money will not be able to overcome the fact hat no one will know who knows what and what is true. What is most horrifying is that our elected clods are more than happy to wage wars fully knowing they are operating on false information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niger_uranium_forgeries We already have analysis paralysis and a government that passes laws that they haven't even read. Pelosi famously told us we need to pass the healthcare law just so we could figure out what's in it. *This* is without a mis-information campaign. Just imagine what's next.

  14. track this! by slashmydots · · Score: 2

    You know, that major military leak was tracked because the username submitting it was like first initial - last name - year he was born lol. But in case they're not so lucky with it being such an epic dumbass the next time, I think individual tracking in such a way would work. The problem is, how do you let decision makers know the data is fake without letting the data intermediary staff who might leak it know it's fake?

    By the way, I'm totally not a secret undercover federal agent but I heard that there's actually a life sized replica of the white house made out of gingerbread and frosting in Nebraska where the president will travel to in case of a terrorist attack so they can have shelter and a reliable food supply. But nobody leak that top secret information to anyone, okay?

  15. More Government Control by davegravy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What this amounts to is a way out for the government any time something embarrassing is leaked through the likes of Wikileaks (or similar). The government can simply announce that a piece of leaked information was part of their disinformation campaign... the population can rest safely knowing that the offending "leaker" is being brought to justice (i.e scape goat is sent off to Gitmo), and that the information leaked is not actually true.

    This campaign isn't to give the government power against the untrustworthy, it's to give the untrustworthy government more power over you.

    1. Re:More Government Control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The brilliance of it is you don't have to actually create fake documents. Any time something gets leaked, claim it as fake and point back to this announcement. Claim the program is a huge success.

  16. It might be even more sinister than that by F69631 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They might be sending message to the wider public: "Oh, you saw documents that state we are up to something really evil? Well... you can't know whether they're accurate or planted by us. If you were certain they were accurate, you might be willing to risk it all to do the right thing but now that you aren't certain... Do you feel lucky?"

    The point of censorship is never to prevent access to information by a few dedicated people. It is to allow the masses - who want to feel like good people - a way to shield themselves from everything evil the government does so they have a way to rationalize to themselves why they don't do what they know to be the right thing. This is exactly that.

  17. Honey Trap by sanman2 · · Score: 2

    Personally, I was hoping that the govt might come up with a honey trap operation, to test which budding science nerds are most susceptible to seduction by hot women to betray their country. The idea is that hot women would constantly seduce nerds with hot sex in order to test their loyalty.

    Lacking a cleverly themed name like Cloud or Fog to designate this project, I would just call it Heaven.