26 August 2010
A3 writes: You say that you do not vet the material, that you want the reader to make their own call. Concerning the Twin threat cable you released, not even you know whether or not it is real. How can you expect readers to make that decision? Your goal is to have government transparency, but if everything you submit is maybe true and maybe not true, then everything that you do just creates more confusion and fog. Please explain, but I don't see the point of having a library full of undiscernible truths and lies.
Cryptome: Yes, like Cryptome, libraries are packed with undiscernible truths and lies awaiting reader doubtful critique; in that they are more educative and trustworthy than authoritative sources. Authoritatives cannot be trusted, for their history has been one of self-serving, manipulation and exploitation of those they seduce with pretentious claims of extraordinary wisdom and devotion to the public. Instead, we are on our own to assess the validity of information by multiplicities of discourse and debate, disputation and persuasion.
Corollary: secrecy is crucial to authoritatives, hence nothing secret should be believed until independently checked by outsiders not in the pay loop. Secretkeepers are the most paranoid people in the world for they expect to be betrayed by their own kind and compelled to betray in turn. There may be as many fake secret documents leaked by authoritatives to disinform as real ones. The sources who leak may not know the difference in aid to legitimacy and provenance. Underground black markets for these branded knock-offs are booming thanks to cyber technology.
Uh, we librarians are weird due to dealing with searchers for truth, that is, authoritative porn, preferrably illicit like Wikileaks and the others best not bared.
A2 writes: Your comment: "Wikileaks had to be invented to advance cyberwar strategems and ploys, and, most of all, funding -- hence the synchronicity of WL and similar online formulations with the push for cyberwar funds, hackers, white-gray-black, premier beneficiaries.": Privately I've come to a very similar conclusion: i.e. the timing was too propitious. It has all the markers for an operation on many levels. The most salient component is the prophylactic nature of WL, thus pointing to its deep psychological component as if something ominous and far reaching is afoot ... but that's just my two cents.
25 August 2010
A2 writes: Grammatical errors are a classic authenticator in communiques of a certain type, but the type and frequency is what gives authenticity. In other words just because it's a marker for authenticity doesn't mean it is authentic, thus compounding its provenance; which is precisely the intent.
Cryptome: Yes. And there are reports that digital fonts can be marked to persist through formats -- typographers as cryptographers. Which is why the Wikileaks doctoring of the Afghan War Diary files damages their provenance, although it cloaks the source to some extent. Arrangements of words and sentences and headers can indicate source, but Wikileaks claims to take that into account. What comes of the cloaking of source likely renders the material unreliable, except -- always an exception -- the aggregation of files can be used to trace their source, but that too Wikileaks claims to obscure. And there's more yet to be tested. Digital fabrication is so easy and so easily marked that paper trails had to disappear so the new means and methods of marking and tracking could prevail. It is safe to assume there is no digital sanitization possible, only degrees of illusion. The motto of security wizards is to always expect failure, most often self-caused or by your most trusted associate. Thus the essential need to have a culprit ready to be blamed -- initiatives like Wikileaks had to be invented to advance cyberwar strategems and ploys, and, most of all, funding -- hence the synchronicity of WL and similar online formulations with the push for cyberwar funds, hackers, white-gray-black, premier beneficiaries. BTW, Top Secret is no longer top, merely a subterfuge to inspire low-level secret leakers to seed the information flow.
A writes: Question: Do you have confidence in this document? I noticed that it contains several grammar and spelling errors. Not what I would expect of an official document. Just an observation.
Cryptome: We do not vet material. Readers make the call. I saw the errors and know that they are common in the official documents, especially cables and spy reports. I'm told a deft forger always includes errors for credibility.
25 August 2010
Related:
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/89254.pdf
U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Handbook Volume 5 Handbook 3 -- TAGS/Terms Handbook
5 FAH-3 H-700
E.O. 12958, AS AMENDED, TELEGRAM CLASSIFICATION MARKING
[Excerpts]
STEP 1: Classification Level
The overall classification level is determined by the highest classification level of any of the telegram portions: C for Confidential, S for Secret, and TS for Top Secret. Place the overall telegram classification on the E.O. 12958 Line and on all subsequent pages, preferably at the top and bottom of each page. Remember to portion mark all portions of a classified telegram. Unclassified portions of a classified telegram must be marked (U). A portion is ordinarily defined as a paragraph but also includes subject lines, titles, subheadings, tables, or graphs.
STEP 3: Reason for Classification
Information may not be considered for classification unless it concerns one or more of the classification categories set forth in Section 1.4 of E.O. 12958, as amended. The reason(s) for classification must be shown with the “Classified by” information for originally classified documents only. Mark the number “1.4” plus the letter(s) that correspond to the pertinent classification category(ies) below:
1.4(a) military plans, weapons systems, or operations;
1.4(b) foreign government information*;
1.4(c ) intelligence activities, sources, or methods, or cryptology;
1.4(d) foreign relations or foreign activities of the United States, including confidential sources;
1.4(e) scientific, technological or economic matters relating to national security; which includes defense against transnational terrorism;
1.4(f) USG programs for safeguarding nuclear materials or facilities;
1.4(g) vulnerabilities or capabilities of systems, installations, infrastructures, projects or plans, or protection services relating to the national security, which includes defense against transnational terrorism; and
1.4(h) weapons of mass destruction.
* Telegrams containing foreign government information (FGI) shall be marked to indicate the source government and classification level. Example (UK-Secret). If the identity of the source government must be protected, the pertinent portions of the document should be marked “FGI” together with the classification. If the fact that information is foreign government information must be concealed, the markings described shall not be used and the document shall be marked as if it were wholly of U.S. origin.