US wants Twitter details of Wikileaks activists

Originally posted by brill

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by brill

 

Agreed. I think many thought the same, myself included how could a simple private have access to such material.

I've read that none of the leaked material was highly classified and that seems correct by what I have seen so far..
It doesn't seem to show any secrets, more so mere comments made by individuals..
No secret plans or black ops stuff..

I heard it was ALL available on the US intranet with little security clearance..

Have I heard wrong?? Is there any Top Secret stuff to be seen.??

They have only scratched the surface as far as releases go so anything is possible. I think when the US state department goes on the offensive to warn other countries about what is forthcoming speaks volumes. For the most part it does seem petty, more of an embarrassment versus anything of substance. I guess we will have to wait and see but I also think back to what Manning said to Lamo and that the content could re shape our world. Hard to say.

brill

The information leaked regarding State Department communications would be very segregated from the eyes of a private. Do you really think that the Army would allow a private to view such things? Security clearances are a matter of trust, you cannot apply for a security clearance high enough to view those types of things as a private. To believe so is insanity, to be softspoken.

Also keep in mind that all leaks are being run through the very government the organization (Wikileaks) proclaims to expose for redactions as well as entire censorship of entire documents. That alone would assume that what has been leaked is just a fraction of what is truely being held.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Before anyone makes the argument the government will just fabric ate the info, keep in mind the government is required to turn over all evidence collected to the defense team so they can review and challenege it.

Peaople are so quick to dismiss Government action that they forget not everything is a conpisracy.

Under the Patriot Act and similar legislation, the defense does not have the right to view the evidence presented against the accused if it is deemed a threat to national security and in this case that will most assuredly be so. It is also going to be a military proceeding first, and therefore any information regarding the case will more or less be kept "in-house".

Originally posted by sbctinfantry
The information leaked regarding State Department communications would be very segregated from the eyes of a private. Do you really think that the Army would allow a private to view such things? Security clearances are a matter of trust, you cannot apply for a security clearance high enough to view those types of things as a private. To believe so is insanity, to be softspoken.

Well lets look at the facts. Regardless of what you or I believe the cables are leaked and are being displayed to the world, that is an undeniable fact. The validity of those cables is not in question given the state departments response and immediate damage control. I made it clear earlier that I doubt Manning would have direct access. The military can have all sorts of clearances and measures in place but that didn't appear to prevent this incident one bit. As to the magnitude of the content and my comment on Manning's overview, I do not know I wasn't there. The only way we will know if what he said was true is to wait for all the cables to be released and draw some conclusions at that time. Manning could be just flapping his gums and getting his 15 minutes worth in but we do not have all the information.

brill

Originally posted by brill
I made it clear earlier that I doubt Manning would have direct access. The military can have all sorts of clearances and measures in place but that didn't appear to prevent this incident one bit.

I know we are mostly in agreement, but I would like to hammer home one key point. I am former military, with an active security clearance. I am telling you, based on personal experience and the testimony of close friends in every field of intelligence, that in order to view this information digitally you must do these things at least:

1) Insert a CAC (RFID) Card ID Badge into a computer.

2) Once inserted, you must enter a very specific pin number that is changed periodically.

3) You have now able to LOG ON to windows and reach the desktop, if there are no further security measures.

4) You are unable to copy any classified materials onto ANYTHING except a hard-drive, or a network drive.

The rest of the redundant countermeasures I cannot legally discuss, and those are only for materials at my security clearance. When the story first broke about a "Lady Gaga" cd being burned, I found it more comical than anything at first.

One more fun fact, since 2007, it is an on the spot correction and UCMJ punishable offense to carry a thumb-drive, external hard-drive, RW CD/DVD or any other storage device in areas where classified materials are handled. The US Army, for it is all I can speak for which is fine since this private was a member, has already anticipated this type of data theft and implemented very good countermeasures as of four years ago. What do we know about things the government plans against? I smell fish.

According to my last tweet from Wikileaks, it's too late to unfollow (not that I would) and not only does the govt want a list of the followers but dates and IP addresses.

IP addresses!!

Originally posted by Whisper67
According to my last tweet from Wikileaks, it's too late to unfollow (not that I would) and not only does the govt want a list of the followers but dates and IP addresses.

IP addresses!!

Reminiscent of how they caught Wilson in 1984, isn't it? What poetry.

reply to post by soficrow

In comparison, here's another screenshot - Jesse Kelly, placed an ad that read:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f011cb6fa7fc.png[/atsimg]

Got that?

Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office

Shoot a fully automatic M16


Palin's actions incited murder. That's conspiracy.

Assange, Wikileaks and their supporters did NOTHING that even approaches Palin's conduct.

While I'm inclined to agree with you (Palin's conduct has been reprehensible and irresponsible) she does have the freedom of speech to express her opinions as she wants, same as most of those others over at Fox News who have been saying things that border on a call to murder elected officials. If they want to draw bullseyes on some people and say things like "exercise your 2nd amendment right on this person right here" - and that person then turns up shot dead - it seems to me they share a responsibility for that person's death. If that gunman was inspired by Palin, or Michelle Bachman, or Beck, I'd think they'd be looking at some serious legal issues from the victims families. Then again, this is America, the elite don't face justice in this country.

Manning isn't quite in that situation, while I think it was admirable he leaked incriminating information showing just how corrupt our government (along with a host of others) are, he failed to leak them anonymously. Being in the military, he is subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, a far different set of rules than civilians are held too. Unfortunately, he can't escape what he did. His one hope is the government collapses before he rots in prison.

I'm still disgusted by the government's response to this whole Wikileaks debacle. Instead of addressing the issues raised by the leaked cables, they took a page from Stalin's playbook and are silencing the rabble. I see a lot of questions raised about the validity of charging a foreign citizens with espionage, but we have done that in the past (Russian spies come to mind). I'm guessing the government tactic is to see if Assange was material to the act of leaking these cables, as opposed to just publicizing them after the fact. As far as I know, Assange didn't actually plot with Manning to steal the cables.

reply to post by sbctinfantry


I assure you that when I was a private, I had a top secret clearance. That's way beyond what these documents were for the most part.

What's a "Diplomatic Cable"? And why is the State Department still using them?

...For many years the term cable referred to the formal telegrams that consular staffers would send across the oceans and around the world in Morse code. Employees on the other end would decipher the pulses coming through their headphones or decode printed sheets of dots and dashes. (As recently as the Cuban Missile Crisis, American and Soviet diplomats were sending urgent messages via Western Union.) But in more recent times, the cable started to function almost exactly like an e-mail, and as of 2008, the State Department handles both modes of communication with the same Microsoft Outlook-based computer system.

So what's the difference between a modern-day cable and an e-mail? It has more to do with content than method of delivery. Both travel from computer to computer, but e-mails are reserved for person-to-person messages that are not intended for, or not of interest to, anyone but the addressees. Cables, on the other hand, usually contain more important information that's meant to be accessible to other diplomatic and military staff with the appropriate security clearance. As such, every electronic message that's classified as a cable is uploaded into a database for permanent storage. When drafting a cable, a sender can specify where the information should be saved, depending on its sensitivity. (Confidential messages, for example, end up in a networked database called ClassNet.) Put simply, if you want to send a personal note to Hillary Clinton about the agenda for next week's meeting, you'd use an e-mail. If you're transmitting an assessment of the Afghan elections, you'd send a cable.

This distinction isn't always very clear. Ever since State Department employees got e-mail access in the 1990s and early 2000s, higher-ups have worried that important information will end up in e-mails that eventually get deleted. The new messaging software is intended, in part, to address this hole in the record-keeping system by allowing senders or recipients of regular e-mail to note (by checking a box) that their message is to be maintained in a long-term database as a FOIA record. Naturally, this capability makes the system for sending cables redundant, and in fact people inside the department have noted that there's little functional difference between the two. The developers responsible for the new communications program even proposed eliminating the "cable" classification altogether. But Foggy Bottom old-timers objected, arguing that to get rid of cables would be an abandonment of a grand diplomatic tradition.

I think the only reason people question how Manning had access to these cables is so they can imply the cables were actually planted by the CIA.

Originally posted by hadriana
reply to post by sbctinfantry

 

I assure you that when I was a private, I had a top secret clearance. That's way beyond what these documents were for the most part.

When one gains a TS, they are briefed to not disclose that they have ever had a TS, so as to not be the target of identity theft. Congratulations, you are either lying or unintelligent.

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
..how Manning had access to these cables is so they can imply the cables were actually planted by the CIA.

I think you should do a little more research on what it takes to aquire a clearance, who can have it, what scope each allows, and you will see how absurd it is to think that any superior would allow a private access to such documents in digital format. I want to emphasize digital format because it is more commonplace to see large stacks of printed documents lying around and thus are harder to maintain in areas such as his field of expertise, than it would be for him to be granted real access to them.

reply to post by sbctinfantry


I too had a top-secret clearance, I was a missle tech (MK52) in the Navy, I had to get one in order to access the missle room. We had to have a "classified" or even a "secret" level just to read some of the tech manuals we had. What difference does it make? None of the cables were classified "top secret" - and even if they were, privates and low-ranking petty officers can be granted them, if it's part of the job. For me, that was 20 years ago, I don't care if it's taboo to mention it, my ship was scrapped long ago and they can come arrest me.

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
reply to post by sbctinfantry

 

I too had a top-secret clearance, I was a missle tech (MK52) in the Navy, I had to get one in order to access the missle room. We had to have a "classified" or even a "secret" level just to read some of the tech manuals we had. What difference does it make? None of the cables were classified "top secret" - and even if they were, privates and low-ranking petty officers can be granted them, if it's part of the job. For me, that was 20 years ago, I don't care if it's taboo to mention it, my ship was scrapped long ago and they can come arrest me.

Ship, being navy. This private was in the US Army, and that is my territory. You know, even though you were merely a seaman, that you are not given access to state department communications because you want to. Though you may want to believe that the range and scope of information he leaked was all gathered by him and burned to a data disc, you are folly to not admit the absurdity that he would have access to such a range and scope of information outside his job description. Give me a break.

Edit: Yes, I made a Navy poke. Don't take it personal, it's just the way things are.

reply to post by sbctinfantry


No problem, I realize not everyone has the mental acumen to be a member of the Navy, at least there is the Army - I mean I'd hate to see a bunch of high-school drop outs wandering the streets....


But as you say, I'm sure there are all manner of variety of TS clearances, I wouldn't pretend to know all of them. At the same time, according to the slate article, the cables were stored digitally and accessible to Manning, all he really needed was a little time to copy them or forward them. This is the military were talking about - Army Intelligence.

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
reply to post by sbctinfantry

 

No problem, I realize not everyone has the mental acumen to be a member of the Navy, at least there is the Army - I mean I'd hate to see a bunch of high-school drop outs wandering the streets....

But as you say, I'm sure there are all manner of variety of TS clearances, I wouldn't pretend to know all of them. At the same time, according to the slate article, the cables were stored digitally and accessible to Manning, all he really needed was a little time to copy them or forward them. This is the military were talking about - Army Intelligence.

Haha, well played sir. I qualified for nuclear weapons in the Navy and Air Force, but chose to be a grunt. Thought the majority of the Army is less than intelligent, I have found that the contemporary infantryman is far from the knuckledragger ideal some would assume. Some of the smartest men I have met in my lifetime are infantrymen! To that you would surely say I should get out more! Indeed I should!

Back to the topic at hand...

I used to laugh at the implied paradox of Army Intelligence until I was introduced to more inner circles. I was astounded at the level of data collection and methods of doing so. I now have a similar stance on things like that presumed pardox of Army Intelligence as I do Alien contact. It's a convienient and convincing way to avert any possible prying eyes, and replace them with laughter.

Originally posted by sbctinfantry

Originally posted by brill
I made it clear earlier that I doubt Manning would have direct access. The military can have all sorts of clearances and measures in place but that didn't appear to prevent this incident one bit.

1) Insert a CAC (RFID) Card ID Badge into a computer.

2) Once inserted, you must enter a very specific pin number that is changed periodically.

3) You have now able to LOG ON to windows and reach the desktop, if there are no further security measures.

4) You are unable to copy any classified materials onto ANYTHING except a hard-drive, or a network drive.

The rest of the redundant countermeasures I cannot legally discuss, and those are only for materials at my security clearance. When the story first broke about a "Lady Gaga" cd being burned, I found it more comical than anything at first.

One more fun fact, since 2007, it is an on the spot correction and UCMJ punishable offense to carry a thumb-drive, external hard-drive, RW CD/DVD or any other storage device in areas where classified materials are handled. The US Army, for it is all I can speak for which is fine since this private was a member, has already anticipated this type of data theft and implemented very good countermeasures as of four years ago. What do we know about things the government plans against? I smell fish.

If this is the case HOW did Manning get the files out and did anyone from wikileaks HELP him in any way at all.

If someone from Wikileaks gave him any technical support, Told him how to bypass security or even give him money to help get the information out.

Before i went in the navy I had a intern position on a navy research base and held a top secret clearance.
in the navy I was one of only two electrician allowed into the Crypto room on the ship to do electrician work the other was a EM senior chief.
After i got out of the Navy i went to work at the Navy research base as a federal security officer while going to collage.

What i believe is that Manning is talking to investigators and has told them the people at Wikileaks gave him technical help and now the government is looking for corroborating evidence to build a case for espionage against people at Wikileaks.
If they gave Manning ANY help in stealing copies of the secret docs the government will have a airtight case.

codes.lp.findlaw.com...

Wikileaks would only be safe if all they did was received the documents.
They would be protected under the First Amendment protections.
IF they helped Manning in ANY way get the documents out then its espionage and the First Amendment no longer applies.

Originally posted by ANNED
Wikileaks would only be safe if all they did was received the documents.
They would be protected under the First Amendment protections.
IF they helped Manning in ANY way get the documents out then its espionage and the First Amendment no longer applies.

Absolutely correct, and I concur.

Well now we see who is the dictator on the world, and that is the USA. If Iran was to do this, the US would shoot them down in flames and crie Human rights violations.

Actually it is a violations of other citizens Human and Privacy laws in othe countries for the US Government to see thier private details. Just goes to show the US is the biggest human rights violator.

I certainly hope those members whom have visited twitter and supported wikileaks, challenge this ruling in thier own countries.

reply to post by sbctinfantry


It's not anarchy, it's not just mindless rebellion, there is a motive, to end corruption, to end war. But the powers that be don't want it that way. Sure international relationships will be damaged, and rightly so, I'm sure it'll make them think about further corruption.

reply to post by brill


If the 2 people you named are voluntarily cooperating with the FEderal Investigation, a subpoena is not required, since those 2 people can just give them access to the info.

Its not different than have a search warrant for a person house. If LEO shows up, makes contact with the owner, and asks if they can search the house, and they are given consent, no warrant is needed.

The only times they are used is when they need access to the information, and the person does not want to cooperate (which is their right).

so again, its not a conpisracy... The chances of the FBI calling up Assange and getting verbal consent and cooperation to see his twitter information is slim to none. In addition, a subpoena can provide information for a certain time period, where voluntary consent could be limited.