Slashdot stories can be listened to in audio form via an RSS feed, as read by our own robotic overlord.

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government Data Storage Privacy The Internet United States News

CIA Details Its Wikipedia-Like Tools For Analysts 164

Posted by samzenpus
from the facebook-without-faces dept.
hhavensteincw writes "If you think selling Web 2.0 in your organization is hard, some early backers of a Wikipedia-like project at the Central Intelligence Agency were called traitors and told they 'would get someone killed' by their efforts. But Intellipedia — the CIA's version of Wikipedia — now is so heavily used by analysts that the agency is using it in its security briefings, according to two of the CIA employees who work on the project. Intellipedia has been expanded since it was first launched so that now it boasts its own YouTube-like channel for video and Flickr-like photo sharing as well as a wiki where workers can debate different intel information."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

CIA Details Its Wikipedia-Like Tools For Analysts

Comments Filter:
  • I guess (Score:5, Insightful)

    by travelmug (1304549) on Wednesday June 11, 2008 @07:04PM (#23756955)
    I don't see how this will improve the accuracy of the information. It will just help poor intel get passed more efficiently.
    • Re:I guess (Score:5, Funny)

      by moderatorrater (1095745) on Wednesday June 11, 2008 @07:08PM (#23757011)
      You can tell which intel is poor because it's got [citation needed] all over the place.
    • Re:I guess (Score:5, Insightful)

      by SirLurksAlot (1169039) on Wednesday June 11, 2008 @07:16PM (#23757119)

      Efficiency in dissemination is just as important as accuracy. Getting accurate information earlier to more people can save everyone a lot of trouble.

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Daniel Weis (1209058)
        However, getting inaccurate information earlier to more people can cause everyone a lot of trouble... It's not so clear cut and dry...
        • Re:I guess (Score:4, Insightful)

          by SirLurksAlot (1169039) on Wednesday June 11, 2008 @07:43PM (#23757403)

          True enough, but there are systems in place to mitigate the possibility of inaccurate information. Their wiki is based off of the Wikipedia engine, so they should still have the ability to provide citations (I guess in their case it would be where the intel came from and whether or not the source was reliable.). Edit histories, the ability to revert changes, they should have all of these features. At worst it would be as if the wiki didn't exist, and the intel would still be just as questionable (not that the wiki makes the intel any more credible, it would just be more centralized and up-to-date) as it might've been before.

          • by NateTech (50881)
            Yeah, in the world of information compartmentalization they're going to put citations on everything in the wiki. Sure they are. What planet are you on?
            • Ok, for one thing I said they have the ability to provide citations, not that they necessarily do or do not. Secondly, you don't seriously believe that they currently have all these files just sitting around with no notes about where the information came from do you? I have a hard time believing that they don't have some kind of documentation about about their intel, even if it is something along the lines of "Interrogated shady character A, who confessed to X, Y, and Z regarding topic B." All I'm saying

        • If a given piece of information can withstand the scrutiny of a larger number of eyeballs, that would increase the likelihood of finding errors, and the accuracy of the information would increase as well.

          You forget that the 'analyst's are analyzing - not just taking information at face value...

          Simplicity is not always good - particularly if founded upon false assumptions.
      • by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Wednesday June 11, 2008 @07:27PM (#23757255)
        If nobody knows the intelligence information, and nobody can put together a full picture, well then it is useless. For example while hindsight is always 20/20, it still looks as though the government had all the information to put together what was going to happen on 9/11. The problem was, there wasn't a good way of accessing and analyzing it. It wasn't like there was a report saying "Terrorists will hit the towers on this day," it was little fragments all over. Well, all those little fragments ended up doing no good. Nobody was ever able to put it together, and thus there was no warning that would have allowed prevention.

        Had there been efficient dissemination of the information, it is possible some analyst would have put it all together and then been able to generate a report that would be acted on.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510)

          Well, all those little fragments ended up doing no good.

          So, in response, we've spent billions and billions of dollars and lots of and lots of street cred gathering up MORE little fragments.
          While two hackers in the basement of the Farm put together a wiki for practically nothing.

          Those guys ARE traitors, it's not that they might get someone killed - they cut the military-industrial-complex out of the loop, preventing them from making more profits than the oil industry...

          • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

            Those guys ARE traitors, it's not that they might get someone killed - they cut the military-industrial-complex out of the loop, preventing them from making more profits than the oil industry.
            Pssst! The oil industry is part of the military-industrial-complex. But you didn't hear that from me.

          • When I tried to push wiki technology in my organization, I woke up in the parking lot with a bump on my head, the tires on my car slashed, and a fistful of a pinstripe tie. They got off lucky.
        • by TubeSteak (669689) on Wednesday June 11, 2008 @07:55PM (#23757511) Journal

          it still looks as though the government had all the information to put together what was going to happen on 9/11. The problem was, there wasn't a good way of accessing and analyzing it.
          No, I think this was the problem:

          "We've seen 23-year-olds [come into the agency] ... and within several months be indoctrinated to the existing culture. They want to fit in. All that creativity they had before they walked in the door is pushed aside.
          Decades of pissing contests got ingrained into their organization's culture and the new blood never even had a chance to make any incremental changes.

          It took a clusterfuck of epic proportions to change the way the alphabet agencies related to one another.
      • So CIA uses Wikidot? Why not. Let them do. The paper thing is not really a good idea.
    • Re:I guess (Score:5, Insightful)

      by dedazo (737510) on Wednesday June 11, 2008 @07:32PM (#23757297) Journal
      Think about it for a second. Intelligence is nothing more than putting lots of disparate little facts together into a semi-coherent view of a given situation. What better than a massive hyperlinked encyclopedia-like information repository for this?

      At the expense of sounding slightly ridiculous, imagine how much mileage they're going to get out of the "What links here" function!?

      If they use it correctly (and the weakest link here is the prompt input of information) then I can't see this not being anything but good.

      • What better than a massive hyperlinked encyclopedia-like information repository for this?

        I believe Mr. Cheney is quite satisfied with his man-sized office safe, thank you.

    • " at the Central Intelligence Agency were called traitors and told they "would get someone killed" by their efforts."
      Everytime the CIA fucks up, god kills a kitten :|
    • RTFA (Score:5, Informative)

      by fm6 (162816) on Wednesday June 11, 2008 @07:53PM (#23757491) Homepage Journal

      Dennehy noted that Intellipedia has several important distinctions from Wikipedia. First, Intellipedia is not limited to being an encyclopedia. Rather, users can create their own pages to be used within workgroups or teams so they can debate and collaborate around issues.

      "We are not typically dealing with facts," he noted. "We are dealing with puzzles and mysteries. Everyone in the community is working on something of vital national security importance. We want to get to the point in the intelligence community where everyone is contributing their knowledge to Intellipedia."
      In other words, they're using the wiki as a collaboration tool, not as a information aggregator. That's actually what Ward Cunningham had in mind when he invented the Wiki, and it's still the one thing Wikis really excell at. Sure, wikis are used for a lot of other stuff (like building reference books, a task at which they positively suck), but only because using them saves a lot of money.
      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        That's actually what Ward Cunningham had in mind when he invented the Wiki
        What is it with guys named 'Ward' and software written to support communications anyway?

        (Ward Christensen wrote Xmodem)

        • "Ward, you were a little hard on the beaver last night."

          "You're right, June. Why don't you go do some shopping and relax. I'll just stay here and pack fudge with the boys."
        • by mav[LAG] (31387)
          I take it you haven't heard of the Eric Conspiracy then?
    • by jrumney (197329)
      It puts poor intel out into the open, where other field agents can improve on it, rather than leaving the judgement over which intel to accept to higher ranking officers and politicians.
    • I'd imagine as long as it was kept *non* public, and there was some kinda tracking system to who edits what, this could be really useful. That way if people spam crap, you can find out who they are.

      But in general, it means people who might pick up bits and pieces of things here and there, and might usually even discard it seeing it as unimportant, will be more likely to potentially link that into other bits of information via this. Discussion and 'debates' over intel and the way it fits could also mean ever
      • "Anonymous edits are disabled for this article, because it is about a foreign leader's sexual habits."
    • by CAIMLAS (41445)
      It will also help people more effectively connect seemingly disjointed information into a coherent image. What might appear to just be an extraneous fact could prove useful in finding connections. I'd also argue that the bad intel would be easier to spot, because it would not mesh well with other information being gathered.
  • Oh Boy.... (Score:1, Funny)

    by Wiseblood1 (1135095)
    How long before a troll causes an international incident or snafu?
    • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

      by dedazo (737510)
      This is not exposed to teh intertubes my man. It runs on the CIA's internal secure network. It just happens to use Wikimedia as the engine.
      • Re:Oh Boy.... (Score:5, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 11, 2008 @07:51PM (#23757475)
        Actually, Intellipedia also is connected to SIPRnet for military use. You don't actually think that the DoD wouldn't be connected to all available intel links do you?

        It's actually a very good collaboration tool, as normally cross-department/cross-agency work is almost non-existant, and when the information does get passed along, it's too old to be useful. Also, things like streaming UAS feeds are often on there as well, as sometimes other agencies are better at imageint than the ones taking the pictures.

          - sF (...somewhere in Iraq.)
  • by Coopjust (872796) on Wednesday June 11, 2008 @07:05PM (#23756965)
    Having a collaborative tool that makes it easier to keep profiles up to date is better.

    The CIA also doesn't have to worry about vandalism- no one is going to blank a page and replace it to the word "penis" when every edit is tied to their name... plus, being in the CIA is serious work, so I'd imagine the maturity level is higher anyways.
    • by travelmug (1304549) on Wednesday June 11, 2008 @07:10PM (#23757051)
      Most of this collaboration is done over the SIPRNET and therefore not subject to vandalism.
    • by Robert1 (513674)
      It's good to see stories like this. Here's an example of the government making progress towards better security. I remember that one of their big challenges was how to get all the disparate agencies working together and sharing information.

      Choosing wikipedia as a model is a great idea. Its like someone in a meeting actually had some worthwhile input when they asked "how can we improve communication?" - "how about we use a modern tool that has essentially revolutionized how factual information is disseminate
    • by mangu (126918) on Wednesday June 11, 2008 @07:14PM (#23757091)

      no one is going to blank a page and replace it to the word "penis"

      I suppose double agents are more mature than that. For me, the whole wiki concept clashes with the need to know concept. It makes no sense for an organization like the CIA to make every information they have available to anyone inside the organization.


      If I were doing something like that, I would make sure to at least have every submission vetted by someone above the submitter in the hierarchy.

      • by SirLurksAlot (1169039) on Wednesday June 11, 2008 @07:26PM (#23757245)

        For me, the whole wiki concept clashes with the need to know concept. It makes no sense for an organization like the CIA to make every information they have available to anyone inside the organization.

        I'm sure it's still on a need-to-know basis. The article states that anyone with access to certain networks can read the wiki, but there is authorization involved with making edits. I'm also sure that their wiki follows their pre-existing rules about who can access what information, they're not going to suddenly dump a lot of top-secret information into a wiki that everyone has access to.

        • by glittalogik (837604) on Wednesday June 11, 2008 @08:34PM (#23757813)
          My company uses Confluence [atlassian.com] as an internal wiki for project and technical documentation. It's a piece of cake to create groups and assign fine-tuned privileges with regards to viewing, editing, commenting and destroying. I agree that an organisation with actual classified data is going to make damn sure the system they use can accommodate multiple clearance levels and 'need-to-know' groups.
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by gad_zuki! (70830)
          Its non-classified info anyway. Look at the top of this screenshot. [wikipedia.org]
          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by SirLurksAlot (1169039)

            Interesting. Of course, just because one article is marked as non-classified doesn't mean they all are. I also find it interesting that whoever took the screenshot is using Firefox and del.icio.us ;-) I guess I shouldn't be too surprised though given IE's security track record.

      • by dedazo (737510)

        For me, the whole wiki concept clashes with the need to know concept. It makes no sense for an organization like the CIA to make every information they have available to anyone inside the organization.

        You're right, but they might have adapted the Wikimedia PHP code to be able to restrict access based on authentication. I have no idea how, maybe they do it by namespace or something like that. But since they have the source they can certainly do it.

        I'd be surprised if there's total access over the whole t

      • by nbert (785663)
        My guess it that it's either restricted to those who really need to know or the articles are only open to those having proper authorization. Either way they will try to improve communication while keeping certified material on a need to know base. They are following the wiki model, but they will not disclose ultra-secret information to the general staff. If they implement ACL's they'll only state the obvious information on the lowest level. If you are on the top you might look up Bin Laden's current locatio
        • by Lehk228 (705449)
          If you are on the top you might look up Bin Laden's current location if it was known ;)

          6 feet under some cave in pakistan?

          if he was alive he would have released another video by now.
          • by Cylix (55374)
            Or they are waiting for their warrantied repair work to be completed.

            Those things take forever!

            Ol' bin should have saved his cash and just paid for the repairs flat out.
      • Actually "Wiki" comes from "wiki-wiki" which means "very quick" in the Hawaiian language. Ward Cunningham (the founder of the first wiki) chose this name.[1] [wikipedia.org]

        "What I Know Is" is only a backronym [wikipedia.org]
    • by ampathee (682788)
      Hey, internet is serious business!
    • by Kingrames (858416)
      You'd be surprised how many edits there are for the site that details the exploits of the terror group P.E.N.I.S. though...
      • I'll bet they've got the terrorist video from Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back in there somewhere...

        Jay: I am the master of the C.L.I.T.! Remember this fucking face, whenever you see C.L.I.T. you'll see this fucking face. I make that shit WORK! It does whatever the fuck I tell it to. No one rules the C.L.I.T like me. Not this little fuck, none of you little fucks out there. I AM THE C.L.I.T. COMMANDER! Remember that, commander of all C.L.I.T.s! When it comes down to business, this is what I do. I pinch it l
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by knutkracker (1089397)

      The CIA also doesn't have to worry about vandalism- no one is going to blank a page and replace it to the word "penis"
      But will they take a blank page and fill it with Iraqi WMD?
  • by commodoresloat (172735) * on Wednesday June 11, 2008 @07:11PM (#23757065)
    • (cur) (last) 11:57, 16 May 2008 IntelGuy (Talk | contribs) (46,528 bytes) (reverting per BLP. Please see [[WP:CIVIL]] and stop making personal attacks, jerk!)
    • (cur) (last) 11:46, 16 May 2008 CocaineImportAgent (Talk | contribs) (46,589 bytes) (revert; please stop censoring well-sourced material just because it is critical of your terrorist hero, douchebag!) (undo)
    • (cur) (last) 11:38, 16 May 2008 IntelGuy (Talk | contribs) (46,589 bytes) (revert per BLP--this text suggests sources say things they do not to cast a living person in a negative light. it is a textbook poorly sourced negative entry, which is a textbook BLP violation.) (undo)
    • (cur) (last) 11:35, 16 May 2008 Spook4Hire (Talk | contribs) (48,131 bytes) (change to "considered by many to be a terrorist" in order to address intelguy's BLP concerns) (undo)
    • (cur) (last) 11:33, 16 May 2008 CocaineImportAgent (Talk | contribs) (48,117 bytes) (rv no BLP violation has been substantiated in talk; this is notable criticism from notable organizations that IntelGuy is disruptively censoring. IntelGuy please see WP:DE!) (undo)
    • (cur) (last) 11:31, 16 May 2008 IntelGuy (Talk | contribs) (46,589 bytes) (revert BLP violation) (undo)
    • (cur) (last) 11:19, 16 May 2008 CocaineImportAgent (Talk | contribs) (48,117 bytes) (restore legitimate and well-sourced section on notable criticism) (undo)
    • (cur) (last) 11:01, 16 May 2008 IntelGuy (Talk | contribs) (46,528 bytes) (reverting per BLP. another 6 FBI references do not address my concerns. It still says "bin Ladin is considered a terrorist." There is still no consensus for this negative info in a Biography of Living Persons) (undo)
    • (cur) (last) 10:46, 16 May 2008 Spook4Hire (Talk | contribs) (47,990 bytes) (-->Allegations of Terrorism) (undo)
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 11, 2008 @07:12PM (#23757071)
    and a lot more detail [wikipedia.org]. The screenshot is the only place where the URL is listed (https://www.intelink.gov/wiki), and you'll need a username and password to get in. I'll leave that part up to you =)
    • by QuantumG (50515) * <qg@biodome.org> on Wednesday June 11, 2008 @07:26PM (#23757251) Homepage Journal
      That's what bugmenot is for.

    • by Robert1 (513674)
      Why is an internal intelligence network accessible from the internet? Is that like a 'lite' version of it or what?

      I could swear the CIA had laws about separating their network from the internet. I mean for obvious reasons!
      • by qzulla (600807)
        It is air gapped. Where did you see it is accessible from the internet in the article?

        The wikis are not open to the public.

        Maybe this was it. The entry is not accurate. Imagine that!

        Those networks are nowhere near the public networks.

        'Nuff said.

        qz
    • should a 'terrorist' gain access, they could change stuff to what they want... and if there really is a 'public' login page with no other restrictions than a uid/pwd, that's pretty damn weak already. and the government is notorious for having security problems, there's usually a story a month here on /. and i've seen more than a few on various militaries.

      of course, the CIA would expect this and maybe it's just a honeypot.

      i really don't know how people do this line of work without becoming obsessive-compul
    • by JeremyBanks (1036532) <jeremy@jeremybanks.ca> on Wednesday June 11, 2008 @08:07PM (#23757589)
      Well, this is interesting. Their login page doesn't escape anything when displaying your entered username back to you if it's invalid, so any HTML/Javascript could be injected. Try for yourself, enter this as the username:

      "><script>alert(document.cookie);</script><input type="hidden" "

      The requests are blocked if they don't have a valid request ID, so you don't seem to be able send people to the page and have it load a script that will steal their cookies or whatever, but it's still a little disturbing to see that even this much is possible.
      • by mobby_6kl (668092)
        I was going to mod you up, but it appears that all my mod points (I had four left) are now gone! That's a pretty interesting "coincidence", isn't it? And why is your post already at "Score: 1"? Did they already get to you? Hmmmm?

        CowboyNeal, we demand answers!
      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward
        I'll leave that up to you. I wouldn't want to get noticed for trying an injection attack on a .gov address.
      • You can inject HTML or JavaScript [mozilla.org] or CSS [mozilla.org] into any page without having to trick the remote server into doing it for you.
      • by Titoxd (1116095)
        Try this on Wikipedia itself [wikipedia.org]. If it is not a problem anymore, it probably means that it was fixed in a version that's newer than what the CIA is using. (Currently, all Wikimedia Foundation wikis run MediaWiki 1.13alpha [wikipedia.org], straight from the Subversion source control repo [wikimedia.org].) If it is still a problem, email security @at@ wikimedia.org and we'll try to deal with that ASAP.
      • You put that into intelink.gov? I hear Guantanamo is great this time of year.
    • hmm username/passwords isn't working maybe ill try 1234/pass, *knocking at door*, nothing to see here people.
    • by Jugalator (259273)
      Umm, and they get shovels if contributing well..

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Intellipedia_shovel.jpg [wikipedia.org]

      "I dig Intellipedia! It's wiki wiki, Baby"

      Ahem... :)
  • "This has enforced a degree of collegiality amongst colleagues," Dennehy noted. "Now when you see someone that makes an edit to a page you are contributing to, you can look back and see where this person works, where their interests lie, making us a community of analysts rather than a community of agencies."

    Yeah, right, 'collegiality'. That bit about seeing 'where a person works and where their interests lie' sounds a lot like a threat to me.

    Don't edit my Intellipedia article, college boy. I can kill

  • And make each other insane in an orgy of ever perpetuating intel paranoia.

    Their paranoia is, "If we cane make up these insane monstrous plots then others will too".
  • afraid it would get someone killed? Since when does the CIA care if they get someone killed. The CIA is probably directly responsible for several thousand deaths. let's not split any hairs here.
    • by chill (34294)
      It depends on who is killed. The correct statement would probably be more like "you're going to get one of our own killed". I do not believe the CIA subscribes to the philosophy that all life is of equal value.
  • by jesdynf (42915) on Wednesday June 11, 2008 @07:36PM (#23757351) Homepage
    One's run by a shadowy cabal not obviously accountable to any authority... ... do I have to spell this one out?
  • in this thread gets its very own link in intellipedia

    go for it!
  • Excellent, there's finally a page about me on a wiki!
  • by tripmine (1160123)
    The article makes it seem like Intellipedia is a CIA only thing. It's actually under the umbrella of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. It was designed so that all the intelligence agencies would know what the hell is going on, and coordinate to keep shit like 9/11 from happening.
    Like always, the mother of all wiki's [wikipedia.org] provides plenty of information on the subject. (and even a screenshot!)
  • Heh-- back in the day when I did some security work, I used to tell my friends in the skiff that something like this would be a great way to gather together information. It was early on then, and it wasn't CIA, so I guess I missed out.

    I do know that it's a great tool for an intranet-- especially when there are disparate sources from separated teams. The only common conduit they have is the common information. The best thing about a wiki as we all know-- and thank God the CIA gets this: is that file struc
  • Hmm.. (Score:4, Funny)

    by LighterShadeOfBlack (1011407) on Wednesday June 11, 2008 @08:03PM (#23757573) Homepage

    Intellipedia has been expanded since it was first launched so that now it boasts its own YouTube-like channel for video
    In unrelated news Rick Astley was arrested last night on suspicion of masterminding terrorist attacks against a number of US intelligence agencies.
  • All that needs said (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jollyreaper (513215) on Wednesday June 11, 2008 @08:05PM (#23757579)
    http://www.amazon.com/Legacy-Ashes-History-Tim-Weiner/dp/038551445X [amazon.com]

    Legacy of Ashes, listening to this in the car right now. Holy shit, the way the CIA operates, it reminds me of my time at a dot.com. Seriously. You have these unwarranted and outsized egos combined with dick-all knowledge of espionage and intelligence-gathering. The same pitiful fuck story that we've read about with Iraq is pretty much the way the CIA operated throughout its entire existence.

    Just reading about the idiots in charge is enough to make my teeth hurt. I worked for exactly the same sort of people at dot.coms but hey, ignorance and hubris don't get people killed in the dot.com world. In the spy world, having Soviet agents throughout your organization feeding secrets back home will get people killed. We sent in thousands of agents to infiltrate Soviet-occupied Europe, Korea, China, all of them killed because our organization was compromised. We parachute people in, the secret police are waiting for them on the ground. We get top-level moles in the USSR? Fucking American turncoats sell them out and they get the firing squad. And the CIA directors continue to lie to the President, not that presidents throughout the Cold War were going to disagree when they were told exactly what they asked to hear instead of what they needed to hear, etc etc.

    Our government is so fucking incompetent, it's almost like the Russians deserved to win. Our only saving grace was that the Soviet system was more hatefully backward and ignorant than the one we were running. Since the fall of the USSR, our government seems to be desperately seeking to close the stupidity gap.
    • by deniable (76198)
      Damn, I have to grab that out of the reading pile and have a look. I'm gonna have a corrupted stack and need to re-build it. (Better than the last stack overflow though.)
  • by copponex (13876) on Wednesday June 11, 2008 @08:07PM (#23757593) Homepage
    Iran has in the past contacted people who have also been monitored to have visited a nuclear facility in Pakistan. Recommend making diplomatic contact to get some more intel. (fieldofficerfred 8/23/99, imported from file)

    Anyone? Need some direction on this. (fieldofficerfred 9/8/00, imported from file)

    Hello? (fieldofficerfred 2/23/01, imported from file)

    We're listening. How can we make this suit our needs? (pwolfawitz, rrumsfeld, dcheney 9/10/01, imported from file)

    Saddam's a softer target. Hang on. (dcheney 10/25/02, imported from file)

    Saddam? Iran is refining uranium! With all due repsect, what the fuck are you guys thinking? (fieldofficerfred 11/26/02, imported from file)

    Don't question my authority to not know what I may or may not know that I know. You're fired. (rrumsfeld 1/8/03, imported from file)

    Hey, did you guys know Iran was refining uranium? (rrumsfeld (deprecated) 11/16/07)

    Iran has offered to accept the delivery of peaceful fissile material and a shutdown of their own refineries in exchange for guarantees from Europe that they won't allow the US to attack them. (gathered from the AP 5/2/08)

    Disregard that. We will not allow Europe to negotiate with extremists on the other side. Iran is the greatest threat to America and the known universe, second only to waxy buildup and auto erotic asphyxiation. (dcheney 5/4/08)

    Iran continues to refine uranium as they see it as their only diplomatic leverage and hope to prevent the United States from invading. (gathered from the AP 5/29/08)

    IRAN HAS NUKES. [citation needed] JESUS TOLD ME TO ATTACK AT DAWN!!!!!!!!1111 [citation needed] (gwbush 8/5/08)

    Mer mer mer attack at dawn, mer mer mer. (dcheney 8/5/08)

  •     CIAleakie - to post 'lost' secrets.

        Wikillyou - where assassins can discuss tricks of the trade.
  • by theurge14 (820596) on Wednesday June 11, 2008 @10:03PM (#23758653)
    Locations of WMD in Iraq

    This article is a stub. You can help Intellipedia by expanding it.

    • Locations of WMD in Iraq This article is a stub. You can help Intellipedia by expanding it.
      ....story links to Syria and Iran
  • When I worked at a TLA company in the '80s, there was a project to implement something like this. They spent a lot of money but the nut they couldn't crack wasn't technical. It was deciding who could see what information. That is, even within the CIA not everyone has access to all information. Just knowing that we know something is enough for someone to infer that we must have insider access. That sort of thing.

    I wonder if they have layers of data such that only people with certain clearances can see c
    • by goodmanj (234846)
      The problem is that a complicated, multilayered trust system makes it impossible to integrate and correlate information from various sources. If the sources mistrust each other, you'll never put two and two together.

      How high should you make internal barriers to free exchange of information? It comes down to a trade-off: are you more worried about missing an imminent threat, or are you more worried about the bad guys stealing your intel?

      Like many things in intel/military, I think this trade-off has shifted
      • Which means that the more impressive change is not the technology of Intelliwiki but what it says about the institutional change at Langley.

        I don't think the fear was only that the other guys would have a mole inside the organization. There is also the fear that the fact that we know something can get out accidently (press release, loose talk, etc.) and the other guys will know we have an asset. The leak could be something like the briefing papers left on the tube the other day in London where someone jus
  • From TFA:

    "We still call spies collaborators," he noted. "We're trying to encourage collaboration, but there is still a negative connotation with that word."

    This quote floored me. My god, does it explain a lot about 9/11 intelligence failures.
    • by Magada (741361) on Thursday June 12, 2008 @03:28AM (#23760723) Journal
      Oh, no... you don't ever mix your rags with your linens. Simple principle of espionage, been around since the world began.

      An agent, especially a covert one, needs to have a very clear sense of moral superiority over both enemies and his own sources/helpers (aka collaborators, spies, traitors, freelancers, what have you). If (s)he doesn't, (s)he might turn, be turned, or just abandon the game in disgust.

      The guy making that comment has (or affects) zero notion of field work.
  • Revert with extreme prejudice.

"Why should we subsidize intellectual curiosity?" -Ronald Reagan

Working...