CIA Officers Are Warming To Intellipedia 102
Hugh Pickens writes "The CIA is adopting Web 2.0 tools like collaborative wikis but not without a struggle in an agency with an ingrained culture of secrecy. 'We're still kind of in this early adoptive stage,' says Sean Dennehy, a CIA analyst and self-described 'evangelist' for Intellipedia, the US intelligence community's version of the popular user-curated online encyclopedia Wikipedia adding that 'trying to implement these tools in the intelligence community is basically like telling people that their parents raised them wrong. It is a huge cultural change.' Dennehy says Intellipedia, which runs on secure government intranets and is used by 16 US intelligence agencies, was started as a pilot project in 2005 and now has approximately 100,000 user accounts and gets about 4,000 edits a day. 'Some people have (supported it) but there's still a lot of other folks kind of sitting on the fence.' Dennehy says wikis are 'a challenge to our culture because we grew up in this kind of "need to know" culture and now we need a balance between "need to know" and "need to share."' A desire to compartamentalize information is another problem. 'Inevitably, every person, the first question we were asked is "How do I lock down a page?" or "How do I lock down a page so that just my five colleagues can access that?"' The growth of Intellipedia has so far largely been fueled by early adopters and enthusiasts says Chris Rasmussen, a social-software knowledge manager and trainer at the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency. 'We are struggling to take it to the next level.'"
Posting (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Posting to undo accidental mod
Uhh, yeah, except you're the first post. Unless I'm missing something, there was nothing here for you to moderate.
Re: (Score:2)
It was preemptive action. Like Iraq.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
> Posting to undo accidental mod
Let's think about that. You're the first post. Who did you mod?
This is mysterious. I'm guessing there's some steganographic message here about a sting axe and the Talmud.
Login information (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
I logged in as Obama using the password "MuslimNation"
Re: (Score:2)
What happens when it's hacked? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
This is probably just for non-sensitive information.
Presumably CIA employees know about things like watermarking [wikipedia.org], so they'd be stupid to copy and spread information.
Re:What happens when it's hacked? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Presumably CIA employees know about things like watermarking
That would be waterboarding
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
brb, there's some sort of noise in the a/c duct
Re: (Score:1)
Watch out for falling knives...
Intellipedia is not domestic... (Score:5, Informative)
You can't store information on American citizens in that kind of network. It's not a "database on 10's of thousands" of people. Think of it more as short useless summary articles on topics like Iraq, Afganistan, insurgent groups, etc. No domestic info at all, by design.
Additionally, Intellipedia is TS (well, there's a TS version that is used primarily, and a SECRET version that is not used nearly as much), but not SCI (meaning, none of the really high level intelligence. TOP SECRET is _fairly common_ access). If somebody is able to read Intellipedia as a spy, you've got much bigger problems that any information they would get from Intellipedia. A later post whined about compartmented information--there is NO compartmented information on Intellipedia.
Also, Chris Rasmussen is the genius who is trying to introduce twitter to the intelligence analysis community. Apparently he wants to reduce the productivity of intel even further!
Re: (Score:2)
I'm kind of hoping this is some billion dollar counter-intelligence initiative. All the "sensitive" information on this site will have just enough truth to be dangerously false.
Re:What happens when it's hacked? (Score:5, Informative)
Second, Intellipedia is separated by classification of the given network [wikipedia.org], and is not on a single network. So the data may be important, but does not necessarily constitute "exceptionally grave damage" [wikipedia.org] if leaked.
Third, it's a lot of data so unless a spy or mole was only taking certain entries it would be difficult to take all of it not only in one drive but at once.
Fourth, since the intelligence community is warming to it(yes, sometimes some of them are bumbling idiots), analysts have muddled the concept of Intellepidia, written reports and debated the subject with leadership. If it was such a terrible idea it would have gotten the axe by now. [wikipedia.org]
Fifth, stealing data from outside a classified DOD network is terribly hard. Having a clearance means that the DOD thinks a given person is trustworthy, so unless a person decides to become a spy there is no way it's getting out.
Also, Intellipedia covers a multitude of subjects, not just people.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Fifth, stealing data from outside a classified DOD network is terribly hard. Having a clearance means that the DOD thinks a given person is trustworthy, so unless a person decides to become a spy there is no way it's getting out.
That is the worst kind of hubris. Have you not been watching news over the past several weeks?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8086547.stm [bbc.co.uk]
Because I like BBC...
I think it's very dangerous to think that your data is safe simply because your data transport is deemed safe.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
No, what's prideful was the OP's 5th point saying how hard it was to steal from a classified network--has nothing to do with the security of yet another website on a classified intranet. I take the viewpoint that it's always better to be vigilant in terms of network security. just because the tubes are supposed to be secure and the users are supposed to be sure doesn't mean that's always true. FWIW, the creators and maintainers of Intellipedia seem to agree with this--Intellipedia is not allowed to contain
Re: (Score:2)
If I had further time I would have accounted for the possibility that an skilled person with physical access could easily reactivate USB access for a given terminal. Furthermore, I would have a
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Little bit of a non-sequitur there!
Caution and vigilance and keeping people educated about security issues is something that is smart for ANY job and ANY network. I like my banks to be careful with my information, for instance...doesn't mean that I don't use online banking.
While pithy, your comment is offtopic and nonsensical.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Uhh, I'm not sure if you missed a post or are looking at the thread out of order or something, but the only thing I replied to in this thread was:
Fifth, stealing data from outside a classified DOD network is terribly hard. Having a clearance means that the DOD thinks a given person is trustworthy, so unless a person decides to become a spy there is no way it's getting out.
You may be trying to make some greater overarching point out of that statement, but thats not what I was saying. Anything else you think I'm saying about sharing being bad (??) is purely in your imagination/interpretation I'm afraid...
I suppose it's asking too much to ask where you think I'm claiming anything else??
Re: (Score:2)
You're not Need to Share, not Need to Know guy, are you?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Nevermind, I was just curious... I thought I might have personally insulted you.
Re: (Score:2)
For starters, USB devices are no longer allowed on any DOD networks
So they were hit by the Windows "Autorun from USB" idiocy too? Serves them right...
Re:Intellipedia surfaces on a laptop... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's classified information on classified networks. We've been doing this for ages,
Sounds like it is classified information from many different programs on a single classified network, in a single database. We definitely have not been doing THAT for years.
Even if you want to sneaker-net information from one program's classified network to another program's classified network it requires a bunch of "security logistics." You might get lucky and after a year or two get all the security officers involved to come up with a plan to connect the networks of a handful of programs, as long as the
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Sounds like it is classified information from many different programs on a single classified network, in a single database.
No, it's two different wiki pages in two different classified networks that are not connected. Moving info from one to the other is no different than moving it in the past. Just like Wikipedia, it's a website on a network.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it's two different wiki pages in two different classified networks ... it's a website on a network.
Which is it? Different websites on different networks or a website on a network?
If its the former, then what's the improvement and why the reported worry that the first question from "everyone" is how do they control access?
Re:Intellipedia surfaces on a laptop... (Score:5, Insightful)
Thank you (and many others on these boards) for distributing the FUD.
As I hope we all have learned by now, information that is "compartmentalized" is far less valuable. Little bits of data from disparate sources can reveal patterns that those gathering the intelligence would miss.
And IMHO, paranoia about employees "stealing" information should not stand in the way of increasing the efficiency of intelligence gathering and analysis.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Its not simply FUD. Increased efficiency for data retrieval rubs both ways. If its easier to get data out of the system for the good guy, its easy to get data out of the system for the turn coat.
Yes, its probably a great idea to make a lot of intelligence data easier to access in general, and I'll assume the system fully logs all dat accesses and makes note of unnecessary information retrievals.
Paranoia justified in the spy business. (Score:2)
And IMHO, paranoia about employees "stealing" information should not stand in the way of increasing the efficiency of intelligence gathering and analysis.
This is the spy business we're talking about... imagine, if you will, if any of the following had access to the total USA "spy-o-pedia":
Harold Nicholson
Robert Philip Hanssen
Aldrich Ames
David Boone
Christopher Boyce
Thomas Cavanaugh
Lona Cohen
George Trofimoff
John Walker
Jerry Whitworth
I mean, there's plenty more...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Kind of Surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
It sounds like there's no way around their need for fine grained access control.
What would probably help would be to set it up so that if you were trying to edit an entry related to a topic and someone else already has their own version to give you a message saying "Another user already has an entry on this topic. Would you like to send a request to compare notes?"
Although I guess having the ability to check if something is in the namespace might be exploitable.
Maybe what they really need is Intellitwitter.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
CIA is about the last agency I'd suspect of trying this. I use Intellipedia at work
That's interesting. You apparently had no idea that CIA started, funded, and makes far more edits than any other intelligence organization? Maybe you should know a little more about the tools you use before spouting ridiculous comments.
People like you were one of the prime reasons I left intelligence. It was so damn tribal. You ever try taking a look at what agencies make the most changes to wikipedia--take a look at the specific updates by a couple agencies in specific (defense, satellites mostly). Those t
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Kind of Surprising (Score:5, Interesting)
See, that's the exact type of comment I'm talking about...you admit you didn't have a clue about how Intellipedia works or who has provided the most information to it, and then you go on a rant about CIA. I'm guessing you're defense from the words you use, because I've heard it all a thousand times before. Maybe time for some introspection in ALL parties of the IC. These kinds of pissing matches are riduclous and quite frankly DANGEROUS to national security and a waste of taxpayer money.
"CIA reputation in the IC" ... "they demand" ... "absolute worst" ... "not a single positive comment"
I absolutely stand by my tribal statement and I think you back it up pretty damn well. There's always a lot of jealousy, anger, and pettiness out there, and it frankly got unbearable. You just keep going propagating stories about how horrible CIA is and how everybody hates them (let me guess--you've worked in intel 1-3 years tops?) and then give yourself a big pat on the back for how you're improving work relations between IC agencies by hanging out on a chat channel and editing your intellipedia userpage.
Re:Kind of Surprising (Score:5, Funny)
And now I'm only semi-AC! :-P
Re: (Score:2)
Don't you mean, "Outed field-agent"?
Re: (Score:2)
Heh, I wish (in my experience the people out in the field were the ones who liked their jobs the best, and had to deal with the least politicking bullshit). They're technically not supposed to use internet boards at all. Intelligence/analysis/government employ was a terrible fit for me and I would not recommend it for most people. Can believe it or not (obviously)
Re:Kind of Surprising (Score:5, Interesting)
then give yourself a big pat on the back for how you're improving work relations between IC agencies by hanging out on a chat channel and editing your intellipedia userpage
OK, troll, I never said anything about a chat channel or what if anything I personally edit. Read my posts. Or better yet, get the aforementioned clue.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Like I said the IC needs some major introspection in ALL of its part. I quite frankly find your very obvious anger and loathing very unfortunate. When you go around trashing your fellow-IC mates, I absolutely do have a problem with that. Like I said--I quit, I didn't like the job and I didn't like the tribalism. I've never once claimed CIA is perfect on anything...far from it. The sorry bottom line is this...how many people work in the IC? I think that's technically classified and I don't really know, but l
Re: (Score:2)
When I talk about tribalism, it DOES go both ways, because your org has a certain reputation as well (if you're where I'm guessing you are)
1. You have no idea where I am. Guess all you want. And if you're trying to guess from my posts, you're probably wrong
2. My first post merely stated surprise that the CIA was coming on board. You then said some very nasty things accusing me of bitching. YOU are the one bitching. YOU are the one laying down hate and blaming everyone for all the problems in the world. YOU are the one who is disgruntled and clearly needs some closure or something. Leave me out of it.
So you're saying you DON'T use jabber chat and DON'T edit your iped userpage?
First of all, this is entirely irre
Re: (Score:2)
1. You have no idea where I am. Guess all you want. And if you're trying to guess from my posts, you're probably wrong
Ok, that's fine, I understand you can't/don't want to say (and I wouldn't ask) but hey, I had a what, 1/14 chance of getting it right? Probably more like 1/6 when you exclude the agencies who don't really care about CIA ;-) My friends I referenced were at DIA.
2. My first post merely stated surprise that the CIA was coming on board. You then said some very nasty things accusing me of bitching. YOU are the one bitching. YOU are the one laying down hate and blaming everyone for all the problems in the world. YOU are the one who is disgruntled and clearly needs some closure or something. Leave me out of it.
You're absolutely right that I'm bitching about the tribalism in the IC--100% true. What "hate" am I laying down and what "blame" am I laying down for all the problems in the world? I have been very, very specific. I think the agency-partisanship and t
Re: (Score:1)
This is awesome, let me know when the fight scene between you two is k?
How about some spoilers: will there be Bond references?
Ooh, I can't wait.
Re: (Score:2)
Heh yeah... it's (obviously) something I still feel passionately about.
Just really reinforced to me that I am not equipped to work for the government. Some good benefits yes, but sooo much hierarchy, inter-department, inter-agency sniping, politicking, not to mention the military vs civilian hierarchies which gave many agencies VERY different atmospheres.
I actually think that is part of the reason why some Intelligence people don't like cia ... did you know that there is a table of rank equivalence for GS p
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've worked at several places both in the Marine Corps and as a contractor, and they all suck in different ways
Heh, that sums it up fairly nicely.
Regards to the rest...it's all who you feel like rooting for in a particular day. One of my best friends at my job was former Marine intel, went through DIA and then to contracting at CIA (where he had been for a number of years). He was not a fan of DIA. OTOH, the friends I previously mentioned who worked at DIA said the exact same things about CIA. I guessed DIA because they seemed to hate the CIA the most.
I alluded to this in another post, but I think a LOT of the tens
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
My experience with Intellipedia is just a way to expose information about specific programs across multiple agencies, without too many program details. This is different than pages always being about specific places or specific people, this is about detailing various goings on in various compartamentalized environments.
There are always people within the various organizations and agencies that work on almost the exact same thing... but have no idea that they work on the exact same thing. Hell, there are peo
Implement ACL (Score:2)
It's actually kinda simple, you just modify wiki software in such a way that the page creator can specify default behavior of the page and add user accounts to the ACL of that page. It requires 1 custom column on the page data table for default behavior and 1 table to store the ACL info. The ACL table should have a composite key of page id, user name, access level.
The perfect slashdot answer (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The perfect slashdot answer (Score:5, Interesting)
Sort of. IMHO it does provide a good deal of service. Although the information is locked down, you still have the link relations, further more, you can find out who has which piece of information. Requesting for that information shouldn't be too hard. That's the whole advantage wiki provides the intelligence community. You can link different pieces of information and find relationships between them. So in the old school way, you don't really know who has what, so you run around and ask until you find out. Using wiki, you can follow a chain of leads via links until you hit a stop, then you send an e-mail, get access, and move on. I think "need to know" is a tried and true method as when ever there are leaks in the intelligence community people tend to end up in prison or disappear. ACL provides the perfect balance between "need to know" and "need to share"
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I love it (Score:3, Funny)
Well cited, very informative. I love it. Hey, what is with the helicopter over the hou0u8409ulksfd['OQ#([No Carrier]
Web 2.0? How about Web 0.2? (Score:2, Interesting)
Where do I get the gargoyle kit? (Score:2, Funny)
I'm still somewhat skeptical (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I dunno, a lot of small to medium sized business have used wikis to speed up documentation (though employees tend to document in-office jokes more than work related activities). Still it is great for getting QA their best practices.
IAAIU (Score:5, Interesting)
IAAIU - I Am An Intellipedia User.
It's not connected to the Internet, and it handles compartmentalized information quite well, thanks. It's actually been quite incredible watching it "grow up" over the past few years. It's also not plagued by the problems that most people associate with Wikis - astroturfing, self-made experts, anonymous contributions - and sure, you will have people with special "pet" pages, it is because they are, in fact, the acknowledged expert and have a vested interest in making sure that the information on the page is as correct as possible.
Imagine Wikipedia made entirely of subject matter experts who have verified credentials and identities. Yeah. It's rad.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Get off the fence and start sharing.
A lack of sharing is pretty clearly responsible for the success of the attacks on 9/11.
Which lead to ther budget DOUBLING.
Watching thousands of people die was very good for their expense accounts.
Re: (Score:1)
How quaint - someone who believes the CIA exists or has *ever* existed to protect American lives.
Don't ever lose that innocence, it's just all so warm and fuzzy to see someone so naive.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Using social sites to gather intelligence (Score:1)
OutputLogic [outputlogic.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Intellipedia (Score:2)
'Inevitably, every person, the first question we were asked is "How do I lock down a page?" or "How do I lock down a page so that just my five colleagues can access that?"'
Intellipedia: 3 million pages, all blacked out.
BTW, have they been sued by Intel for trademark infringement yet?
Found all the Intel people at Slashdot (Score:2)
Looking at the posts...seems we did "out" a lot of people who work in the intel community on Slashdot...
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Sticking our necks out? (Score:1)
I don't suppose it could stand up to a billion boxen botnet?
After reading the comments, it is obvious... (Score:1)