CIA, FBI Push Social Networking for Spies

node7 writes "The FBI, NSA, and CIA are jointly supporting a newly created 'MySpace' for the intelligence community. Named 'A-Space,' the site will contain highly classified material, so naturally, it won't be available to the public. From CNN: '[Michael Wertheimer, assistant deputy director of national intelligence for analysis] demonstrated the program to CNN to show how analysts will use it to collaborate. "One perfect example is if Osama bin Laden comes out with a new video. How is that video obtained? Where are the very sensitive secret sources we may have to put into a context that's not apparent to the rest of the world?" Wertheimer said. "In the past, whoever captured that video or captured information about the video kept it in-house. It's highly classified because it has so very short a shelf life. That information is considered critical to our understanding."'"

Hacker Target

[Sparton]

Couldn't this become a huge target for hackers/terrorists/people with nothing better to do to try and find out classified secrets? Somehow I think that putting this sort of information on the web (and I don't care how you think you can lock it down) isn't a smart idea.

Good idea?

[ceoyoyo]

I was under the impression that the identity of the sources of information in the intelligence world were very carefully guarded to protect those sources. Even some of the information is often not distributed because it might give clues to the identity of the source.

Myspace for spies doesn't sound like anything a self respecting (non-suicidal) spy would want anything to do with.

Analysts, on the other hand, talking about things they see on TV, might love it.

Re:Hacker Target

[snl2587]

This could also be a giant honeypot to try and catch intruders. Or not. Not like many of us will see this anyway (unless it all ends up on Wikileaks).

High Value Target or Honeypot

[sehlat]

This will go one of two ways: it will either be the highest-value target for enemy spy agencies in history ("Your enemy's information, delivered" to paraphrase AT&T) or it will end up as a nothing-really-here honeypot.

Re:Hacker Target

[Nursie]

It's always cute when people have such faith in their government/military/intelligence institutions.

In the real world, they do take a bit more care than most, but somebody will screw up sooner or later.

Re:Hacker Target

[IanHurst]

Yeah, leaks still happen. But the parent is basically right. Access to these systems in the real world tends to be limited to (1) people who really are supposed to get it or (2) people doing state-level espionage.

If getting in was even a little easier than that, we'd have a lot more information than we do.

Re:Interesting

[kramer2718]

I am concerned about the civil liberties implications of this wiki (or whatever they're calling it). There is quite a great risk that information gathered for foreign intelligence purposes could be used against US citizens in unrelated investigations.

This illustrates the biggest problem with the US intelligence agency/law enforecement: the schizophrenic nature of the FBI. The FBI has several mandates:

1. Counter intelligence
2. Pursuit of terrorists
3. Pursuit of organized crime
4. Pursuit of other serious federal crimes
5. Assistance to local law enforcement agencies

Because of the constitution, those roles have different civil liberties requirements. You have to get warrants to gather evidence to pursue crimes inside the US, but not to pursue terrorists abroad plotting to attack the US or other countries' spies trying to steal US military secrets.

The 9/11 commission recommended breaking the FBI up into a federal law enforcement agency and a counter intelligence/counter terrorism agency. That way, the counter intelligence work would be hindered less by the trappings of domestic law enforcement and the domestic law enforcement would be less likely to violate the liberties of American citizens. The Bush Administration and Congress have ignored this suggestion.

If the FBI were split--as it properly should be--then, I would have no problem with this A space. As it is, I have reservations.

Re:Applications?

[freakdiablo]

How do you know they don't? They could have some interspy network/blog where theres news on the latest terrorist threats, wars, conspiracy, etc.

Re:Interesting

[wronskyMan]

If all LE and intel agencies were granted access to the same wiki, info could flow from the LE to intel agencies just fine. LE agencies could also read the intel provided by the CIA, etc; however, if they attempted to introduce this in court, it would most likely not work because: 1. The information would still be classified. While the govt has taken measures to allow classified evidence to be introduced in criminal trials in the terror/espionage arena, getting clearances for the attorneys/jurors/etc and other logistics would most likely not make it profitable in the case of some drug dealer from Detroit. In addition, the LE agencies may face resistance from the intel side seeking to protect their sources - if they were reluctant previously to share with the FBI, they would be even less likely to want judges and lawyers to see it. 2. Defense lawyers are very good at finding holes in the chain of evidence; if the first link in the chain of a scanned invoice, for example, is "Agent Schmuckatelli printed it off a G-14 classified wiki", the goverment would be hard pressed to explain how it was obtained from the defendant.

Re:Interesting

[tenchiken]

Given that the information is classified, to do so would break federal law.

I agree with your analysis, but can you imagine anything more scary to the tin foil crowd here?"

US created agency for domestic spying" ZOMG, Bush is coming to eat you.

Re:Hacker Target

[KGIII]

Because nothing of that nature should ever be exposed to the public internet, should have no way to connect to the protocols that we even have available. I am all for keeping some information open but, as an example, I don't think we have an intrinsic right to get a copy of the latest and greatest fighter jet simply because we're tax paying citizens.

I figure putting it on secure servers in a format that can't be accessed via any technology that we have available is the best/added layer way to ensure a greater level of security. I don't think it should use TCP/IP, I don't think it should even be readable in any format with any software (perhaps even hadware) that we have available to us as private citizens.

I simply don't want the security of state secrets to be trivial, I want as great a chance as possible of preventing security incidents. Whilst some information should be available to any citizen who wants to know I would say that, if this project is actually effective and does what it is supposed to do, this information is not the kind that needs to be shared.

Honeypot

[Weaselmancer]

Maybe it's just because I'm a sick bastard, but I'd leave a single access point open to this network on the internet. Protect the living hell out of it, so only the leet could get in. And then make it a honeypot, not connecting to anything real.

But instead hosting video of alien autopsies, fake Apollo moon landing movie sets, documents about how the CIA shot JFK, letters from the Bavarian Illuminati ordering the war in Iraq...stuff like that.