Canadian general warns that Wikipedia postings may be aiding the Taliban
From the Toronto Star, February 15, 2008. (I am not making this up). Allan Woods, "Military Issues Web Warning"
"Brig.-Gen Peter Atkinson... warned that seemingly innocuous photos, videos and news reports can be the source for as much as 80% of the intelligence that insurgents routinely gather on operations.... "Wikipedia is among the most dangerous of the public-access websites, he said.... 'Due to its collaborative content contribution, anybody can add to the content, providing a compilation of details on a specific incident, like the descriptions of a casualty, photos, locations, and news articles contributed by several sources,' Atkinson told reporters." BW: To check this out, I searched on Canadian, Taliban and 2008, and found nothing currently revelatory, even in the article, "War in Afghanistan (2001-present)". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29 I do not have the time, inclination or resources to search the history of every article to see who revealed what, when, where, why, or how. As an influential essay on Wikipedia says, "Wikipedia is not a newspaper." Therefore, I wonder if there will be much operational reporting on it that lasts more than a short while. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_newspaper YMMV. Barry Wellman _______________________________________________________________________ S.D. Clark Professor of Sociology, FRSC NetLab Director Centre for Urban & Community Studies University of Toronto 455 Spadina Avenue Room 418 Toronto Canada M5S 2G8 http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman fax:+1-416-978-7162 Updating history: http://chass.utoronto.ca/oldnew/cybertimes.php Elvis wouldn't be singing "Return to Sender" these days _______________________________________________________________________
I have no idea of what the readers think of war on this list. I do know that AOIR rejected a conference panel on cyber security a few years back. Not that I think we must visit the war for discussions. I am still wondering about the only complete stranger stranger who tried to add me as a friend on facebook who apparently was a student in Florida who wore Arabic traditional clothing. I do not even know if this would be normal in Florida. I wear traditional Baltic clothing some times. I am also still slightly concerned with photos I upload that have apparently having changed according to dream weaver (my web mastering software), after I have read more in depth about secret writing that is done by hiding in the computer code that digital photos are made of. The photos when rendered do not show the flaw but the code will reveal the message. Wikipedia as security threat... never heard of that before but I have read that US libraries took city water maps out of circulation after 911 so there are precedences to this sort of statement. I edit information about my neigbourhood on wikipedia and I am concerned with being identified by that. That is just the beginning of course because actually I live in a fairly safe world generally safe from bombs and guns. Peter who goes back to reading Cyberfeminisim in a Norther Light On 15-Feb-08, at 8:19 PM, Barry Wellman wrote:
From the Toronto Star, February 15, 2008. (I am not making this up). Allan Woods, "Military Issues Web Warning"
"Brig.-Gen Peter Atkinson... warned that seemingly innocuous photos, videos and news reports can be the source for as much as 80% of the intelligence that insurgents routinely gather on operations....
"Wikipedia is among the most dangerous of the public-access websites, he said.... 'Due to its collaborative content contribution, anybody can add to the content, providing a compilation of details on a specific incident, like the descriptions of a casualty, photos, locations, and news articles contributed by several sources,' Atkinson told reporters."
BW: To check this out, I searched on Canadian, Taliban and 2008, and found nothing currently revelatory, even in the article, "War in Afghanistan (2001-present)". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80% 93present%29
I do not have the time, inclination or resources to search the history of every article to see who revealed what, when, where, why, or how.
As an influential essay on Wikipedia says, "Wikipedia is not a newspaper." Therefore, I wonder if there will be much operational reporting on it that lasts more than a short while. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_newspaper
YMMV.
Barry Wellman
______________________________________________________________________ _
S.D. Clark Professor of Sociology, FRSC NetLab Director Centre for Urban & Community Studies University of Toronto 455 Spadina Avenue Room 418 Toronto Canada M5S 2G8 http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman fax:+1-416-978-7162 Updating history: http://chass.utoronto.ca/oldnew/cybertimes.php Elvis wouldn't be singing "Return to Sender" these days
______________________________________________________________________ _
_______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http:// listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
Subject: Re: [Air-L] Canadian general warns that Wikipedia postings may be aiding the Taliban Oh but wait, I thought Second Life was a terrorist threat according to IARPA: http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2209187/agency-warns-second-life (note the line: "the CIA already has a presence in Second Life which it uses for meetings & training" lol - sure!) Anyone else seeing a trend here? Moral panic? Media hype? Revisiting old hype & fears from internet days gone by? t No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.4/1277 - Release Date: 13/02/2008 8:00 PM
I was at a conference on open source intelligence put on last summer by the office of the Director of National Intelligence in the US, and several people from various branches of the intelligence services noted that they were actively seeking virtual ethnographers to work with in understanding how to make better use of virtual worlds. I was a little surprised to hear this, but it seems to grow out of the Army's active use of what they are calling "Human Terrain Teams"--anthropologists and other social scientists embedded in military units. This raises obvious ethical dilemmas. While I don't know if the CIA is meeting in Second Life, I'm hardly as dismissive as Tracy is below. Given that people in the intelligence industry routinely keep blogs and participate on Wikipedia (when they are not adding to the secure Intellipedia, the CIA's secure(r) version of Wikipedia), it doesn't strike me as all that odd that they--like other organizations--might try forms of training in Second Life. Those being sent into Iraq by the US military currently train in Arabic using a system built on the (ironically) Unreal engine, I believe, so Second Life seems like an obvious way to develop training exercises. Although I have no direct experience of this, it also seems very likely to me that many people that would be of interest to a national intelligence force would meet in second life. Sure: including terrorists. I've run into white supremacists (or at least those playing at being white supremacists) in Second Life, and given the terrorist threat of White Nationalists and other hate groups in the US, I can see why you would want to keep an eye on this. Hate groups of all types have made effective use of the internet for recruiting in the past, and despite Second Life's restrictions on hate speech, I would be shocked if they didn't make use of Second Life in this way. Yes, ill-informed statements about new technology can lead to reporting that fuels hyperbolic fear. On the other hand, I would be very disappointed in government agencies charged with gathering knowledge that ignored--as they largely have in the past--open repositories of information. Yes, open information can be used by the enemy as well, but the solution to this problem is to become at least as expert as they are in exploiting that resource. - Alex On Feb 16, 2008 10:07 AM, T. Kennedy <tkennedy@netwomen.ca> wrote:
Subject: Re: [Air-L] Canadian general warns that Wikipedia postings may be aiding the Taliban
Oh but wait, I thought Second Life was a terrorist threat according to IARPA:
http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2209187/agency-warns-second-life
(note the line: "the CIA already has a presence in Second Life which it uses for meetings & training" lol - sure!)
Anyone else seeing a trend here? Moral panic? Media hype? Revisiting old hype & fears from internet days gone by?
t
-- -- // // This email is // [X] assumed public and may be blogged / forwarded. // [ ] assumed to be private, please ask before redistributing. // // Alexander C. Halavais // Social Architect // http://alex.halavais.net //
Oh I'm not dismissive - I am sure that meetings & training are not the only things the CIA is doing in SL - that's why the comment. My beef is when media sources situate technology (whatever it may be) as being 'bad' - channelling fear to the masses - especially those with little knowledge or experience of new technologies (also reminds me of MySpace & teens hype). I have several news feed for SL & virtual worlds and I'm just struck by the number of articles in the last two-three weeks about threats & dangers of virtual worlds (terrorism at the top of the list - that and virtual dating & cheating). I can't help thinking if this somehow connected to the US elections this year.... t No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.4/1277 - Release Date: 13/02/2008 8:00 PM
Sounds very much like the WW2 "loose lips sink ships" dramatization. I would imagine that the blogsphere (due to it's 'collaborative' and 'public-access' features) would also be high up on Brig.Gen Atkinson's list of websites. I think the military has been very successful monitoring and censoring soldier's contributions to their private blogs. However, I don't know how concerned (and held responsible) the civilian public should be about contributing to either blogs or wikis. To better problematize the potentially dangerous use of Web content, looking at it as an issue information-source/flow would be better. If the government/military is concerned about sensitive information being leaked through blogs and wikis, get to it at the source -- whether it's being taken from soldiers' blogs, flikr sites, or if journalists on the field covering war are giving out too much information, etc. But, if the public is only aggregating content that is already and rightfully public, I don't think it should be censored at all. The potential contributions of wikis and blogs to inform and fuel discourse is vital for today's networked public -- particularly about issues such as the 'War on Terror'. Muzammil Hussain mmhussain@wisc.edu School of Journalism and Mass Communication University of Wisconsin-Madison On Feb 15, 2008 7:19 PM, Barry Wellman <wellman@chass.utoronto.ca> wrote:
From the Toronto Star, February 15, 2008. (I am not making this up). Allan Woods, "Military Issues Web Warning"
"Brig.-Gen Peter Atkinson... warned that seemingly innocuous photos, videos and news reports can be the source for as much as 80% of the intelligence that insurgents routinely gather on operations....
"Wikipedia is among the most dangerous of the public-access websites, he said.... 'Due to its collaborative content contribution, anybody can add to the content, providing a compilation of details on a specific incident, like the descriptions of a casualty, photos, locations, and news articles contributed by several sources,' Atkinson told reporters."
BW: To check this out, I searched on Canadian, Taliban and 2008, and found nothing currently revelatory, even in the article, "War in Afghanistan (2001-present)". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29
I do not have the time, inclination or resources to search the history of every article to see who revealed what, when, where, why, or how.
As an influential essay on Wikipedia says, "Wikipedia is not a newspaper." Therefore, I wonder if there will be much operational reporting on it that lasts more than a short while. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_newspaper
YMMV.
Barry Wellman _______________________________________________________________________
S.D. Clark Professor of Sociology, FRSC NetLab Director Centre for Urban & Community Studies University of Toronto 455 Spadina Avenue Room 418 Toronto Canada M5S 2G8 http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman<http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/%7Ewellman> fax:+1-416-978-7162 Updating history: http://chass.utoronto.ca/oldnew/cybertimes.php Elvis wouldn't be singing "Return to Sender" these days _______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
participants (5)
-
Alex Halavais -
Barry Wellman -
Muzammil Hussain -
Peter Timusk -
T. Kennedy