State Department Spent $1.2 Billion On An Asset Monitoring System... That Ignores All Non-Windows Equipment

from the julian-assange-agrees dept

We just wrote about a GAO report showing how the Defense Department is somewhat incompetent at dealing with online threats. Of course, it's not clear that anyone else in the government is any better. The GAO is back with yet another report, dinging the State Department for its dreadful computer security monitoring program. In this case, it's talking about threats to the State Department's network, rather than to third parties. And while the State Department spent a whopping $1.2 billion of taxpayer money on a fancy computer system, called iPost, to monitor everything, it turns out that it only works on Windows machines:

But the iPost service only covers computers that use Microsoft's Windows operating system, not other assets such as the roughly 5,000 routers and switches along State's network, non-Windows operating systems, firewalls, mainframes, databases and intrusion detection devices, GAO auditors said.

I mean, this is the kind of stuff that makes you shake your head in disbelief. Somewhere in the process of building a $1.2 billion system, no one thought to point out that there are more computer assets than those that run Microsoft Windows? Really? Someone seriously deserves to be fired.

Also, for the Windows computers where you can install it, it appears that the system barely works.

For instance, iPost tools did not always scan computers when scheduled, or they created false positives that had to be analyzed and explained. One scanner vendor failed to update its technology to detect the latest, most common vulnerabilities. And tools manufactured by different suppliers produced disparate scores that staff then had to interpret and modify.

Apparently, all of this is leading to confusion where people don't even know who's responsible for what.

So can someone explain why the federal government is coming down so hard on Bradley Manning, rather than taking some of that energy and focusing on securing the State Department's computers? Honestly, from the sound of things, you have to imagine that lots of people (including tons of foreign spies) long ago broke into State Department computers and had access to all of this info, based on reports like this. If anything, it makes you wonder if the Wikileaks leak may help get the State Department to better secure things.

Filed Under: computers, state department

ACLU Drags The State Department To Court For Its Failure To Declassify Publicly Available Documents

from the joseph-heller's-coffin-clocked-at-over-7,200-rpm dept

Of all the spectacle surrounding the Wikileaks/Cablegate situation, nothing has proven to be more bizarre than the U.S. government's actions and policies concerning the continued classification of the leaked cables. One of its first efforts was its patented "escalating response", in which it first blocked off the Wikileaks site, followed by any site with the word Wikileaks in the title and, when this didn't seem to be burying its employees' heads in the sand quickly enough, it reached out to various security firms to see if they could build some sort of Wikileaks filtering system for its computers.

Things turned even more surreal when lawyers for Guantanamo detainees were not allowed to view leaked documents that had been published online by various news services. When is public information not truly "public?" Well, when it's "classified," of course. Had the principles not been currently fighting a legal battle in a U.S. court, they could have joined the rest of the U.S. (and the world) in reading and using these leaked documents.

In the business world, if a document is considered secret, it's commonly accepted that if it becomes public by other means, those with a contractual obligation not to discuss are now free from their obligations. This makes sense. Pretending that documents that are publicly available for all and which have been widely discussed in the press are not "public" doesn't make sense.

With a recently filed lawsuit against the State Department, the ACLU hopes to bring this legal catch-22 to its illogical conclusion and make publicly published documents officially public. Andy Greenberg (Forbes) explains the ACLU's rationale:

Given that all those memos have already been covered by the news media, why bother to declassify them anyway? "The point is to expose the legal fiction that the secrecy system rests on," says Ben Wizner, a staff attorney for the ACLU. "The government uses this formality of secrecy to avoid having to answer for real violations of the law."

Wizner says that keeping the documents classified makes them much more difficult to use in courts, for instance, and allows the government to avoid confirming their authenticity.

The files that WikiLeaks released on Guantanamo detainees in April, for example, can’t be used by the defense lawyers for those prisoners unless they’re viewed in a secure government facility. “Government employees can’t read the New York Times. When I go to court in a real lawsuit seeking to get compensation for a victim’s ordeal and hold people liable, I can’t use this information,” Wizner says.

This should prove to be an alternately infuriating and entertaining case. There's going to be a whole lot of circular reasoning in play, all of it under the pretense of protecting state secrets that everyone already knows. The sad part is that taxpayers will be footing the bill for the government's last-ditch attempt to close several barn doors, while warily keeping an eye on all the free-roaming horses.

Filed Under: cables, classifications, state department, wikileaks
Companies: aclu, wikileaks

Mixed Messages: US Talks Of Cleaning Up 'Rogue' Internet... While Underwriting Censorship-Proof Shadow Internet

from the follow-along dept

It appears the US government is giving out mixed messages these days. On the one hand, we keep hearing about the need for laws to stop "rogue sites," to punish Wikileaks, and to shut down online black markets and alternative currencies like Bitcoin... but then you have President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton constantly praising the importance of internet freedom.

To make matters even more confusing, the NY Times now reports that the State Department has been funding the creation of various tools and services to help dissidents route around online censorship:

The effort includes secretive projects to create independent cellphone networks inside foreign countries, as well as one operation out of a spy novel in a fifth-floor shop on L Street in Washington, where a group of young entrepreneurs who look as if they could be in a garage band are fitting deceptively innocent-looking hardware into a prototype “Internet in a suitcase.”

Financed with a $2 million State Department grant, the suitcase could be secreted across a border and quickly set up to allow wireless communication over a wide area with a link to the global Internet.

The article also discusses "stealth" networks being deployed in various other countries as well. It's a fascinating article, and while I'm not sure that these projects are really quite as interesting (or, in some cases, workable) as the article and the project cheerleaders suggest, it is certainly nice to see the US government supporting such projects. It just seems pretty odd that it's doing it at the same time as it's supporting efforts to censor other forms of internet communication at home. Of course, all that needs to happen then is for people to use the same "stealth" technology here at home as well...

Filed Under: censorproof, censorship, state department, us government

Hillary Clinton: We Want Journalism Innovation That Makes Info Easier To Share... Unless It's Wikileaks

from the tone-deaf dept

Jeff Sonderman points us to the odd statement put out by Hilary Clinton and the State Department for World Press Freedom Day, in which she praises the internet for making info easier to share and for holding governments accountable:

We have all witnessed the power that this surge in connectivity can have in shaping society and holding governments accountable. New media empowers individuals around the world to share information and express opinions in ways unimaginable just ten years ago.

Even as we celebrate innovations that make information easier to share, we are reminded that in many places around the world, journalists are still targeted for harassment and abuse, and are sometimes killed. Today, we remember that journalism is a calling of everyday heroes. We must continue to stand up for those who speak out in perilous circumstances as they pursue, record, and report the truth.

And yet, all of this is occurring at the same time that the State Department has continued to condemn Wikileaks and has supported the treatment of folks like Bradley Manning. He doesn't qualify as someone who decided to "speak out in perilous circumstances" as he tried to "pursue, record and report the truth?"

Filed Under: freedom, hillary clinton, journalism, press, state department, wikileaks
Companies: wikileaks

Even Mainstream Reporters Now Mocking US Bogus 'Transparency' On Human Rights Issues Concerning Bradley Manning

from the forthright-means-we-can't-discuss-it dept

A number of folks have picked up on the near total lack of self-recognition by the US federal government in response to its annual release of a State Department report condemning China's human rights record. Now, there's no doubt that China has a dreadful human rights record, and it deserves to be called out. But, it comes at the same time that the US government appears to be moving down a similar path: promoting plans to censor the internet, avoiding due process, stonewalling journalists and trying to avoid the 4th Amendment entirely. Not surprisingly, these actions within the US make it easy for China to condemn the report and point out how the US is hypocritical. It has allowed China to release it's own "Human Rights Record of the United States in 2010" mocking the US's report.

Now, I think it's clear that the Chinese government's level of abuse is significantly higher than the US governments. I don't think anyone is seriously arguing otherwise. But just the fact that the US fails on so many of the facets it dings other countries for certainly looks really hypocritical, kills off any moral high ground the US might have, and makes it easy for others to totally dismiss US complaints about human rights violations elsewhere.

In other words: the US's weak record on human rights completely and totally undermines its claims of caring about human rights elsewhere.

Of course, historically, many in the press were willing to mostly ignore the US's own human rights issues, but it seems that more and more are recognizing problems here. Reporters from both the Associated Press and Reuters (Matthew Lee and Arshad Mohammed) -- about as mainstream press as you can get -- did a nice job challenging State Department spokesperson Mark Toner on these issues, noting that just as the US has condemned China and played up its own role in being "transparent," it's denying the UN access to Bradley Manning in the UN's investigation over whether or not Manning is being tortured.

LEE: Can you explain why, if the United States is proud of its human rights record, that the UN special rapporteur has complained that you're not allowing him independent access to Bradley Manning?

TONER: We've been in contact with the UN special rapporteur. We've had conversations with you in terms of access to --

LEE: With me?

TONER: I'm sorry. We've had conversations with the special rapporteur. We've discussed Bradley Manning's case with him. But in terms of visits to PFC Manning, that's something for the Department of Defense.

LEE: And the ICRC with the same problem? You are -- the State Department is the direct contact with the ICRC. At least it was for the Guantanamo inmates. Have you had any contact with them?

TONER: I'm not aware. I don't know. I’d have to look into that. But in terms of the UN special rapporteur, we've had conversations with him. We have ongoing conversations with him. But in terms of access to Manning, that's something for the Department of Defense.

MOHAMMED: If you welcome scrutiny, where's the harm?

TONER: I said we're having conversations with him. We’re trying to work with him to meet his needs. But I don't understand the question.

MOHAMMED: Well, you said you welcome scrutiny from outsiders of the United States human rights record --

TONER: Right. We do.

MOHAMMED: -- that you feel that it speaks to the strength of the U.S. system. So why does it take very lengthy conversations to agree to let a UN special rapporteur have access to an inmate?

TONER: Well, again, for the specific visitation requests, that's something that Department of Defense would best answer. But look, we've been very clear that there's a legal process underway. We've been forthright, I think, in talking about Private -- PFC Manning's situation. We are in conversations, ongoing conversations with the special rapporteur. We have nothing to hide. But in terms of an actual visit to Manning, that's something that DOD would handle.

LEE: Well, but you have conveyed messages from DOD back to the UN on this?

TONER: Well, no. We're just -- look, we're aware of his requests. We're working with him.

LEE: Can -- you said you've been forthright in your discussions of his treatment. It seems to me that the only person who was forthright in discussions of his treatment resigned several days after making those comments. What -- can you explain what you mean by you've been forthright in terms of his treatment?

TONER: He is being held in legal detention. There's a legal process underway, so I'm not going to discuss in any more detail than what I -- beyond what I've just said because there's a legal process underway.

LEE: So that's what you mean by forthright?

TONER: I can't discuss -- I can't discuss his treatment.

LEE: Being forthright is saying nothing because there's a legal process underway; is that correct?

TONER: That's not correct at all. And we've -- we continue to talk to the special rapporteur about his case.

LEE: Well, okay. So if you've been -- what do you talk to him about?

TONER: I'm not going to talk about --

LEE: He says, "I'd like to visit him and I need to do it privately," and you say, "No," and that's --

TONER: I'm not going to talk about the substance of those conversations. I'd just say we feel we've been --

LEE: Well, then I don't understand how you can say that you're being forthright about it if you refuse to talk about it. And if you don't talk about it, at least -- forget about what the actual conditions of his treatment are, but if you're not prepared to talk about your conversations with the special rapporteur, that's being even less than not being forthright because you're not telling us what you told him.

TONER: But you understand the legal constraints that I'm operating under because this is an ongoing legal process.

LEE: Right. But --

TONER: He is being held --

LEE: I understand that you're put in a difficult position where you say that you're willing, as Arshad noted when the -- that you're -- you don't understand why China is so upset because the U.S. is willing to open up its human rights situation to all kinds of scrutiny --

TONER: And, Matt --

LEE: And then the first example that anyone raises, you're not.

Basically, it appears the State Department believes that as long as it says "there's an ongoing legal process," it doesn't need to answer anything or be forthright or transparent at all. So, it just handed China and anyone else the perfect blueprint. Any time someone accuses China of not being forthright, it just needs to say there's an "ongoing legal process."

Are the feds so tone deaf and shortsighted that they don't recognize what they're doing?

You might also notice, in the midst of this, there's a reference by Lee to "the only person who was forthright in discussions of his treatment resigned several days after making those comments," which is an obvious reference to Toner's predecessor, PJ Crowley who was forced out of his job after stating the obvious: that Manning's treatment is counterproductive to US interests. Earlier in the conversation, Toner had claimed that part of the US's strong record on human rights was that you could criticize the government's actions without fear of recrimination. The reference to Crowley suggests that everyone recognizes that's not true.

Again, before anyone brings it up, no one is saying that the US is as bad as China when it comes to human rights. But the US loses pretty much all of its credibility on the subject with many of its recent actions.

Filed Under: bradley manning, china, human rights, state department, us government

Administration Forces PJ Crowley Out Of The State Dept. After He Admits That Manning Is Being Mistreated

from the what-happened-to-dissent? dept

When President Obama was campaigning and elected, one of the things he frequently talked about was how he was influenced by Doris Kearns Goodwin's book, Team of Rivals, and how President Lincoln brought together may dissenting voices into his cabinet. There were, clearly, political reasons for doing so, but part of the benefit was that it allowed voices of dissent to be heard. However, in practice, it's appearing that President Obama has no real interest in allowing the same thing to occur in his administration, and that's really unfortunate.

On Friday, we wrote about the quite surprising news that State Department spokesperson PJ Crowley had admitted that he felt Bradley Manning was being mistreated in prison. Crowley specifically called it "ridiculous and counterproductive and stupid," despite also saying he believed that Manning clearly belonged in jail, and that the leaks were harmful. When President Obama was asked about this later, he gave a very weak answer about how he had asked the Defense Department, and they assured him everything was fine:

"I have actually asked the Pentagon whether or not the procedures that have been taken in terms of his confinement are appropriate and are meeting our basic standards. They assured me that they are."

Of course, that might just raise serious questions about what the DoD thinks is "appropriate" and what those basic standards are.

But, even more troubling is the report that Crowley has resigned from the State Department, with lots of folks saying this was due to direct pressure from the administration for him to fall on his sword.

Whether or not you believe that Manning's treatment is reasonable, this should trouble you. For a President who claimed he wanted to hear dissent from the people around him, to then force someone out for offering just that kind of dissent suggests someone focusing on remaining in their own bubble, rather than actually listening to concerns of people.

Filed Under: barack obama, bradley manning, pj crowley, state department, treatment, wikileaks

Odd Timing: As State Department Condemns Wikileaks, It's Promoting A Movie Celebrating Daniel Ellsberg & The Pentagon Papers

from the mass-confusion dept

Last month, we noted the hilarious timing in which the State Department announced it was hosting world press freedom day, at the same time it was screaming about the evils of the press in revealing the leaked State Department cables. It appears that the State Department still hasn't quite figured out how to be consistent on these issues. As it continues to slam Wikileaks... it's also promoting a new documentary celebrating Daniel Ellsberg for leaking the Pentagon Papers:

Amid its struggle to contain damage from the WikiLeaks revelations, the State Department announced Saturday that "The Most Dangerous Man in America: Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers" has been selected as one of 18 films that will tour the world this year as part of its "American Documentary Showcase" program.

Ellsberg, whom the film portrays as a whistleblower of conscience, has been a champion of Pfc. Bradley E. Manning, the alleged leaker of the documents who is currently jailed. He has also spoken in defence of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who may also face charges for publishing classified information.

I'd argue that the left-hand at the State Department isn't talking to the right-hand very much, but perhaps that's just because of the new policies put in place to keep all State Department communications more secret to avoid future leaks.

Filed Under: culture, daniel ellsberg, documentary, movies, state department, wikileaks
Companies: wikileaks

State Department Spending Millions To 'Train' Foreign Judges About 'Intellectual Property'

from the who-writes-the-curriculum dept

The State Department has put out a press release announcing that it has approved spending $3.36 million next year to "train" foreign judges and other law enforcement officials about "intellectual property." There are 15 different projects, which all come down to various training programs for judges, police, law enforcement in how to kowtow to American industry in dealing with infringement of copyrights, trademarks and patents. Given the way our government seems to think that whatever the industry says is accurate -- no matter how many times it's been disproved -- you have to imagine that any "training" is going to be laughably one-sided. For example, I note that one of the projects is:

Latin American Online Piracy $142,944
Training for judges from Peru, Chile, Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay on combating digital/online copyright piracy crimes.

Except, last I checked, those countries had their own copyright laws, and didn't need to obey US specific laws. In the case of Brazil, for example, it's been contemplating new copyright laws that would be much more respectful of fair use and the public domain. Yet, given the way the State Department has acted in the past on these issues, why do I get the feeling that "fair use" isn't a part of the training campaign?

Filed Under: intellectual property, judges, law enforcement, state department

State Department, Once Again, Asks Wikileaks To 'Return' Leaked Cables

from the that's-not-how-digital-works dept

Earlier this year, we all had a good laugh over the demand from the Pentagon that Wikileaks "return" the leaked documents it held. Lots of people pointed out that they were digital copies. You don't "return" stuff that's digital. All this demand did was make the Pentagon look totally clueless about how digital information works. It looks like the PR geniuses at the State Department have decided to do the same thing. They've put out a demand that Wikileaks "return" the remaining diplomatic cables in its possession.

Once again, this just makes the State Department look clueless, out of date and confused about the internet. First of all, you don't "return" digital documents. But, more importantly, Wikileaks has already shown that it has no intention of doing any such thing -- and making such a request just looks silly by the State Department. It's foot stamping rather than doing anything productive. Given the State Department's ridiculous PR over this whole Wikileaks thing, is it really any wonder why those old attempts by the US government to hire PR people to convince the people we were invading that it was for their own good turned out so disastrously bad?

Filed Under: digital, documents, state department, wikileaks
Companies: wikileaks

Someone Should Tell The State Dept That The State Dept Is Hosting World Press Freedom Day

from the left-hand-meet-right-hand dept

Apparently all of the folks with an ounce of PR sense in the State Department were busy responding to Wikileaks issues. That's about the only explanation I can come up with for why the State Department still decided to push forward with its announcement that it will be hosting UNESCO's 'World Press Freedom Day' next May, right as it's been attacking Wikileaks left and right for showing how a free press really works. Of course, the other possibility is that whoever put out the press release actually hoped it meant freedom from the press for a day...

Of course, it gets even more ridiculous as you read the details of the press release:

The United States places technology and innovation at the forefront of its diplomatic and development efforts. New media has empowered citizens around the world to report on their circumstances, express opinions on world events, and exchange information in environments sometimes hostile to such exercises of individuals' right to freedom of expression. At the same time, we are concerned about the determination of some governments to censor and silence individuals, and to restrict the free flow of information. We mark events such as World Press Freedom Day in the context of our enduring commitment to support and expand press freedom and the free flow of information in this digital age.

Yes, "some governments"... like the US as it attempts to stifle Wikileaks. At the very least, this suggests a State Department that appears to be entirely tone deaf to the concerns over its response to Wikileaks.

Filed Under: free speech, irony, press freedom, state department