Los Alamos National Lab

OMB’s New Security Memo Suggests WikiLeaks Is Media

A number of outlets are reporting on the OMB memo requiring agencies to review their security procedures in response to WikiLeaks.

Now, this memo is explicitly a response to WikiLeaks. It’s a follow-up on a memo sent in November that names WikiLeaks.

On November 28, 2010, departments and agencies that handle classified national security information were directed to establish assessment teams to review their implementation of safeguarding procedures. (Office of Management and Budget, Memorandum M-11-06, “WikiLeaks – Mishandling of Classified Information,” November 28, 2010.)

And one of the questions it directs agencies to ask names WikiLeaks (and, in a sign of the government’s nimbleness, OpenLeaks) specifically.

Do you capture evidence of pre-employment and/or post-employment activities or participation in on-line media data mining sites like WikiLeaks or Open Leaks?

But the delay–almost six months between Bradley Manning’s arrest and the November memo, and another month until this memo, sort of reminds me of the roughly eight month delay between the time Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab tried to set his underwear on fire and the the time a bunch of grannies started getting groped at TSA security checkpoints.

Why the delay?

And from a document usability standpoint, this list of questions designed to help agencies identify weaknesses is a piece of shit. Trust me. No matter how good a bureaucrat is, asking them to use nine pages of nested bullets to improve a process is not going to work. This is simply not a credible process improvement effort.

I also wonder why it took WikiLeaks to initiate this effort. Just as an example, Los Alamos National Labs has been losing both storage media, computers, and BlackBerries going back a decade. You’d think the vulnerability of one of our nuclear labs would alert the government to our overall vulnerability to the loss of data via computer medium. Yet losing data to–presumably–our enemies did not trigger this kind of no-nonsense vulnerability assessment, WikiLeaks did.

The Russians and the Chinese are probably bummed that WikiLeaks will make it a teeny bit harder for them to spy on us.

All that said, Steven Aftergood makes one curious observation about the memo: this unusable list of nested bullets suggests that agencies should monitor employees’ contacts with the media.

Among other troubling questions, agencies are asked:  “Are all employees required to report their contacts with the media?”  This question seems out of place since there is no existing government-wide security requirement to report “contacts with the media.”  Rather, this is a security policy that is unique to some intelligence agencies, and is not to be found in any other military or civilian agencies. Its presence here seems to reflect the new “evolutionary pressure” on the government to adopt the stricter security policies of intelligence.

“I am not aware of any such requirement” to report on media contacts, a senior government security official told Secrecy News.  But he noted that the DNI was designated as Security Executive Agent for personnel security matters in the 2008 executive order 13467.  As a result, “I suspect that an IC requirement crept in” to the OMB memo.

I agree with Aftergood: it is troubling that an intelligence community requirement now seems to be applied to the federal workforce as a whole.

But isn’t this, at the same time, rather telling?

If a memo instituting new security reviews, explicitly written in response to WikiLeaks, institutes a policy of reviewing contacts with the media, doesn’t that suggest they consider WikiLeaks to be media?

Emptywheel Twitterverse
JimWhiteGNV @emptywheel I'm having Halloween nightmares that Muschamp somehow beats UGA and possibly even FSU to get yet another year here.
38sreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @kashhill Congrats on the new gig!
1mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @JimWhiteGNV If nothing else it's pre-consolation for what will prolly be a drubbing at the hands of ol' noodle arm.
2mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @JimWhiteGNV No no no. We hire coaches who do well in other places, only to experience failure here. Just ask RichRod.
2mreplyretweetfavorite
JimWhiteGNV @emptywheel Congratulations. I understand that the Wolvereenies are hiring both Foley and Muschamp tomorrow!
3mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel I believe I beat @JimWhiteGNV in "First University to Axe Their AD & Then Get Rid of Coach Too" contest. Collecting my winnings for losing
4mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz .@RKTlaw Right. Seriously, how often do DA's send grand juries to deliberate without draft indictment? But that appears to be McCulloch plan
5mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz RT @RKTlaw: @bmaz To summarize: "Usually we want an indictment. This time, not so much."
6mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel .@ddayen What better way to spice up the dynasty rematch of Bush v. Clinton than to throw in a Kennedy?
6mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @joshtpm @Will_Bunch @TPM ..appeal of such an administrative decision. The goal of keeping the offensive name may be a joke, but path is not
8mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @joshtpm @Will_Bunch @TPM I am not sure it was the best path here (for other reasons), but this is a very normal procedural vehicle for...
9mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz RT @yarbatman: @Ali_Gharib on why crisis in #US/#Israel relations was a long time coming. The reason? Bibi's boorish #Iran policy. http://…
12mreplyretweetfavorite
October 2014
S M T W T F S
« Sep    
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031