Wikileaks: Good or Bad for Disclosure?

THE internet could become even more difficult for governments to regulate with a new website, Wikileaks, promising to provide a safe haven for whistleblowers to upload confidential documents.

--www.smh.com.au... 0.html?s_cid=rss_smh

Do people think that this will help or hurt disclosure? On the one hand, it could be a great tool for letting people with information feel that they can come forward securely. On the other, it could be a powerful tool for untraceable disinformation. The person on the other end of the screen could be someone in the government making up a crazy story as easily as it could be a legitimate whistleblower.

I just want to be on the record that I do not support disclosure of classified information unless that information clearly indicates a pattern of illegal activity, in which case I support its release as a matter of good government. I would hope, rather, that people could use it to contribute what they may know about the UFO phenomena that may not necessarily be classified.

[edit on 1/21/2007 by Togetic]

If I was working for the Gubmint, I'd set up Wikileaks to see who I could catch.

Sure, I'd tell you it was safe. But I'd sit back and reel you in like fish. Probably use it to find out where I needed to beef up security. If something I really didn't want to get out got posted, I'd nail the poster and modify the post.

Seriously, there's a wiki site and a "Help, I think my boss is Frankenstein" chat site on Intelink-S. The first chat site was sort of suicide to use, but they finally saw a little bit of light and the wiki is actually safe to post on as long as you are properly circumspect.

So the problem with wikileaks is that you can't really use the excuse that you just wanted to share or that you wanted to blow the whistle on the boss. Since there's Intelink websites at various classification levels, you can let fly on a secure channel that fits the topic. There isn't any NEED to do this and blow the project.

i dont think the government likes this idea, and dont think they set it up to catch people. why you ask?

because as of 5 min ago you cannot access the page due to "bandwith being exceeded"

www....__._/index.html

...i think the government didnt think that site was very nice....

Originally posted by TheRepublic
i dont think the government likes this idea, and dont think they set it up to catch people. why you ask?

because as of 5 min ago you cannot access the page due to "bandwith being exceeded"

www....__._/index.html

...i think the government didnt think that site was very nice....

Heh. So it's a perfect way to feed you crap as well as catch leakers.

I'll put it this way, I won't post on it. I get into enough crap posting on forums like this one. If I really feel like posting about an ongoing project I'll be doing it on Intelink.

As far as the conscience part of it goes, you know what you're getting into 99% of the time. It's hard to fathom a change of heart later.

There is a post somewhere on this already.

The thing with this is the only thing they can protect is who did what on there site. Take China (used in my previous example) if your lucky enough not to be behind the great firewall of China there is nothing stopping the the government instructing ISP's to redflag you if you visit that site, if they expect you (which is all thats needed in the US now) may upload information to the site there nothing stopping them taking you away in the middle of the night and arresting you as a terrorist or simply have you shot.

It turns out that there is another threat discussing this website. However, I am focusing specifically on whether this website could help UFO disclosure; the other threads discuss the subject more generally.

[edit on 1/21/2007 by Togetic]

Well, ok, let's talk about disclosure on things that might sort of relate, in a general sort of way.

Let's assume you are to work on a project that might be sort of similar, in a general sort of way. But something of that nature and scope. To begin with, you will have to have TS/SCI, with at least scope, and more probably lifestyle poly. That's for openers. There's other special pokings around they do in your life if it's a really unusual project. You're most likely not the sort to reveal something of this nature.

But let's say you were. There are other barricades. When you are added to a project that's very tightly held, you have a special meeting or two. First, if it's sort of real secret but not "UFO level", the project manager might dispense with the formalities, especially if you've worked with them before. But on something like this, you'll get the full meal deal.

So you will receive the "SCI project security indoctrination" lecture for openers. Then the briefing officer will "read you the riot act"... he'll go over the following (at least these) and maybe more if there are special rules governing your particular project.

Title 18, Section 793: Run your mouth, "gather info" or misplace critical documents and get up to 10 years, even if it's an accident

Section 794 "the biggie": If it results in a leak of information to a foreign national, and that leak contains data concerning military spacecraft, satellites, means of defense or retaliation against mass attack (i.e. if we had "shields" or "orbiting death rays"..this one's really loose and they can fit nearly anything into it), war plans, crypto, or any major weapon system they can just KILL your happy ass. Yes, that's right. As a civilian, if you do this, you can be executed without jury trial on the say so of a federal judge. This is because they may not be ABLE to empanel a jury of your peers, there may not be enough people cleared to hear the evidence. At any rate, this is one law that's easier on you if you are military. They can ALWAYS empanel a UCMJ court for a court martial but the civilian court may not bother.

794 also provides for summary execution if you reveal military plans, strength, troop disposition etc the nation then being in a state of war.

You never, ever want to egregiously violate 794. Ever. 794 expressly lists disclosure of military spacecraft as a trigger. And they do so separately from satellites. Let that be a hint to you.

Section 798: 10 more years for you if it's crypto or secure comm related

Section 952: blow something diplomatic and it's 10 more years

Title 50, section 783: more 10 year adders to pile on


The briefing officer will drone on and on for an hour, reading these word for word. Then you initial about 50 places that confirm he did this.

Having been bored and worried, you are then officially read onto the project in front of God and everybody, and you affirm several more times that you understand. Then you sign DD1847. Then you find out more about what you're getting into. If you have issues, you can generally back out then. It doesn't release you, ever. But you definitely get the option to eject with grace.

If you continue, there are usually about 50 more forms to fill out that are project specific, but sometimes it ends there. I can only imagine if there WERE a UFO project going on, or something related, you'd have a few more affirmations signed in blood, urine and what not. But DD1847 does the trick.

If such existed, and you HAD some sort of UFO data, and you were to post it on wikileaks, you would trigger a section 794 like you have never seen. The wiki publisher would probably be subject to 794 as your co-conspirator. There is a clause in 794 that makes anyone you reveal the info to as a co-conspirator subject to 794 without having signed the NDA. So by telling you the "UFO Troof", I would have possibly killed you. Even if they can't hit you with the co-conspirator brush, and I've been told more than once they will, there is still Title 50 which provides for punishment for those receiving classified info. It's only 10 years, but still, that's a long time.

So, in summary, the stuff you sign for projects that are sort of comparable (although not the same) are really punitive. There are real nasty bits of the US legal code wherein they can just pick you up, have a federal judge point at you and say "guilty" and they can carry you out back and perforate you.

I would not EVER disclose something of that nature, but if I ever felt like it, 794 would make me reconsider. That's why I don't think you'll ever see UFO engine plans or what have you on wikileaks, and if you do, it will be bogus.

More info here for now:
209.85.165.104...:8EjykL6chrkJ:www.__._/faq.html+wikileaks&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2

[edit on 21-1-2007 by Miah]

Interesting Mr. Bedlam.

One thing that I realized a while ago is that the "space command" radars and systems which track orbital (and other) objects must also be capable of giving nearly unequivocal demonstration of non-human-piloted craft, short of them landing on Times Square and walking outside.

A clear observation of non-ballistic (i.e. powered) acceleration *away* from Earth with simultaneous radar and optical (telescopic) observation incommensurate with an Earth launch would be pretty conclusive. And something clearly not available to anybody other than technologically advanced national powers.

The technology and systems which do this certainly fall in the category of "early warning systems" and "other means of defense or retaliation against large-scale attack" as discussed in the US code.

It is also interesting that that the description of "military spacecraft or satellites" does not specify "U.S. military".

It would not be out of the realm of possibility to convince a cleared judge that ET spacecraft ought to be assumed to be "military", in the absence of open diplomatic or commercial relations and legitimate transponder codes.




US Code 18 section 794 can be perused here.

www.law.cornell.edu...

As you say, I also have to wonder if you could be held for screwing around with "foreign diplomats" if you were keeping ET in your basement.

At any rate, 794 is the reason that you will occasionally see me drop into a thread and discourage people posting something like "If you have a clearance that gives you access to project "x", tell me about it", that is called "soliciting" and is one way you can be called a conspirator, should you get your wish.

I'm sure there are ways of phrasing it that would not be as dangerous. Janes and AvWeek get away with it somehow, unless they're doing it as part of a quid-pro-quo.