Is it information or Dis-Information? : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread


Here is something to think about when you read what I as well as others here contribute to this forum.

Where is the best place to hide information? Out in plain sight.

With that said, let me explain my thinking for a moment. I am used to secret clearances and the like from my history, and of those that are around me which currently hold them. I know that there are just some questions that I do not ask, for I shall never get the *real* answer. I have been told that certain military information for some (not all) projects out on the web is Dis-information. It is close, but not quite what is presented. But, from non-military sights, I can find more spot on information for said projects.

Can we not be seeing this same type of information from the .gov in regards to Y2k? What about all of those on this list that may hold the clearances? Can they tell the complete truth when asked a blunt question that would be in the grey area of their clearance? The answer to that question is NO.

Please remember that it isn't just .gov and .mil types that have these pieces of paper.

Sometimes I think they (.gov/.mil) may put both sides there for all to see and question.

-- (cannot-say@this.time), March 10, 1999


Ding, ding, ding, ding...

Y2Krackpot warning! Danger, Danger! Conspiracy ahead...

-- Mr. Not Paranoid (^, March 10, 1999.

No... no conspiracy. Just the facts.

With some of the posts that I have seen today, I wonder if it is dis-information that is being put out due to clearances. That is all.

-- (cannot-say@this.time), March 10, 1999.

Dear Cannot-Say,

I am completely ignorant when it comes to these spy tactics.

Which posts look suspicious to you?

Do you think a double agent would actually WANT us to prepare, and therefore hint as to mandatory shelters, etc.?

Or, just the opposite, the obvious attempt to placate and discourage preparation?

-- mabel (, March 10, 1999.

Dear Cannot-say,

Would you be a bit more specific as to which posts you are relating to please....

-- Carol (, March 10, 1999.

I wish that I could specify which posts that I am wondering about. But I cannot, due to the fact that I do not wish to call anyone a liar. I have no proof.

I know about "dis-information" practices due to my life. I never said that they were a spy.

Sometimes, you can only talk about so much before you cross the line and then threaten things like your own clearances or possibly life. I do NOT think that life would be questioned here, but the clearance is all to possible if things were spilled out in black and white.

Trust... but Verify

Sometimes it is almost impossible to verify all aspects of a situation, but you have to keep trying.

-- (cannot-say@this.time), March 10, 1999.


I think placate and discourage would sum it up nicely. But no, I am not thinking about the shelters or for people to prepare.

-- (cannot-say@this.time), March 10, 1999.

Dear Cannot Say,

Could you at least speculate as to what action is sought?

If I were in charge, maybe I would want the greatest number of people to prepare up to the limits of what the market could bear. Therefore, no grand public announcement to everyone to buy beans, but hints in these newsgroups to encourage just enough people, short of panic.

Please provide a little more of a clue as to what you are talking about.

-- mabel (, March 10, 1999.

O, ahhh Colonel Flag . . . so how do we know that your post calling into question information that could really be disinformation isn't in and of itself disinformation designed to keep us from trusting the information we've been discussing?

How's that for circular logic? By the way, most of us here are pretty good at sniffing out the red herrings. We're not as gullible as you, er ah we, look. Personally, I don't wholly trust it even if it seems to be verified.

military intelligence = oxy moron

-- David (, March 10, 1999.

And what does this have to do with mudwrestling????

-- King of Spain (, March 10, 1999.

Interesting thought, cannot say. I know what you mean. I don't give total answers to questions because I don't when I've crossed the line. People who know too much about classified info must be careful in what they say. I'm sure the DoD gives (apparently) conflicting info because if they get too far into their vulnerabilities, they will invite attacks. Where to draw the line in giving out info is a hazy question.

-- Maria (, March 10, 1999.

Only Troll Maria could understand the "question" being asked. Hooboy.

-- King of Spain (, March 10, 1999.

David, First, you do not know if I am or am not trying to plant disinformation. I never said anything about military intelligence.

I will say that I am NOT speaking about any post that says to prepare. I will say that I am talking about posts about risks. You have brains, figure it out from there

-- (cannot-say@this.time), March 10, 1999.

Your highness, I do not presume to understand more than you. But your highness you are the most intelligent ruler in the land. Does the queen know how you spend your free time? Since that question presumes you are married, let me ask, do you intend to find a future queen at these events?

Please your highness, allow this subject to explain one case in point. It has been stated on many threads that most do not believe or understand how the military mission critical systems decrease in numbers. This number may be taken by intelligence in other countries to complete the royal military picture. And being a king, you know that giving your enemy any info about your military is a dangerous activity. Further, the royal military does not need to inform any royal subject of the number of critical systems it possesses. What difference does it make to the royal subjects? All they need to know is that the royal military is progressing through the remediation process. Clearances are not enough to obtain info; a royal subject must also have "need-to-know".

-- Maria (, March 10, 1999.


I am glad that you understand what I am saying. However, I wasn't talking military at all, but your point is very valid.

I remember seeing an example of how the military system number went down. It refered to some were found out to be subroutines. I almost fell out of my seat when I read that. Since when is a subroutine considered mission critical? Another question along those lines would be... how can they find a subroutine when they are doing directories of executables?

Glow in the dark?

-- (cannot-say@this.time), March 10, 1999.

Dear cannotsay:

Consider the humble linkedit map. These may be subroutines.

unregenerate Hippy

-- nopenodope (z@z.z), March 10, 1999.

What is the point of this thread? It's double talk, and nothing but rhetoric. Cannot-say@this time is nobody trying to be somebody.

-- gotyou (, March 10, 1999.

OK, so I am to assume you're talking about your exchanges with Robert and Ken re: nuclear power plants. With so many threads, I had to do a little digging since you've chosen to be so obtuse about this.

You questioned them about the potential for Y2K nuclear risks based on your background and expertise (which appears not to be in the nuclear or power generation industry). They answered you based on their background and expertise (which is rooted in the industry in question). I suppose you don't accept their responses perhaps because something doesn't quite add up in your estimation or because their explanations don't line up with your brother-in-law's. Whatever the reason, that's cool. It's a free web -- so far. All's I can say is if you have facts to back up your allegations, then spill'em. They won't take offense if you directly question their expertise or statements. You can even agree to disagree.

Personally, I see no reason to question their motives or information. Robert, in particular, has been hanging around this forum for a long time and his contributions have been much appreciated. I recognize that his confidence in the nuclear power industry stems not from a desire to mislead or placate, but from a personal pride in the quality of his work and in the overall competence of the industry in which he works. I find the same thing in my neighbor who's a retired NASA engineer. That man loves and respects NASA and the work he did there.

-- David (, March 10, 1999.

So what's the big secret, we let Chinese people into our nuclear research facilities and allow them to steal top secret information and your concerned about posting something on this thread? GIVE ME A BREAK!

-- wastingourtime (, March 10, 1999.

cannot say,

I think I understand you point very well.

Is our government capable of and would they probably (in the current situation) use dis-information tactics?

That's the question as I formulate it.

The answer is so readily apparent to me from reading the history of our nation that I had considered the question academic.

-- Greybear

- Got Answers?

-- Greybear (, March 11, 1999.


Glad that you know someone who worked for NASA. I respect them always. I worked at the Cape for a few years. May have helped send a few up into orbit. :)

On the subject of nukes... when the work the work great. When they have problems..... oops.

-- (cannot-say@this.time), March 11, 1999.

OOPS... meant to type:

When they work, they work great.

-- (cannot-say@this.time), March 11, 1999.

Understood can't say, but you're claiming that the assurances being posted on this forum regarding the safety of our nuclear plants are not only false, but deliberately misleading.

So let's bring your concerns into the open so that they can be discussed. You should be able to discuss scientific principles and facts without compromising your anonymity.

-- David (, March 11, 1999.


Ditto on check and verify.

Most anything said on this forum CAN be cross-checked.

That said, over time and from the start, Ive learned to respect Robert A. Cooks remarks ... highly.

Now ...

For what it's worth, I've dug up several references to information v.s. "intended" disinformation and the internet on the part of the dot govs and mil's.

See, for the importance of information ...

1995-07-14 President to CIA Staff and Intelligence Community
July 14, 1995 res/I2R?urn:pdi://

... I want to work with you to maintain the information and the intelligence advantage we have, and to meet the demands of a new era. Today our government is deluged with more and more information from more and more sources. What once was secret can now be available to anybody with cable TV or access to the Internet. It moves around the world at record speed. And in order to justify spending billions of dollars in this kind of environment on intelligence and to maintain our edge, you have to deliver timely, unique information that focuses on real threats to the security of our people on the basis of information not otherwise available.

That means we have to rethink what we collect and how we organize the intelligence community to collect it. We must be selective. We can't possibly have in a world with so many diverse threats and tight budgets the resources to collect everything. You need and deserve clear priorities from me and our national security team.

... Earlier this year I set out in a presidential decision directive what we most want you to focus on -- priorities that will remain under constant review, but still are clear enough at the present time. First, the intelligence needs of our military during an operation. ...

And, for an interesting read ...

1995-04-17 Executive Order on Classified National Security Info

This order prescribes a uniform system for classifying, safeguarding, and declassifying national security information. Our democratic principles require that the American people be informed of the activities of their Government. Also, our Nation's progress depends on the free flow of information. Nevertheless, throughout our history, the national interest has required that certain information be maintained in confidence in order to protect our citizens, our democratic institutions, and our participation within the community of nations. Protecting information critical to our Nation's security remains a priority. In recent years, however, dramatic changes have altered, although not eliminated, the national security threats that we confront. These changes provide a greater opportunity to emphasize our commitment to open Government. ... res/I2R?urn:pdi://

See also, for the importance of dis-information ...


by Vice Admiral Jerry O. Tuttle, USN (Ret.), Member of the NIUSR Executive Board, and Extreme Information Infrastructure Oversight Panel. (XII)., President of MANTECH Systems Engineering Corp. Senior VP of MANTECH International Corporation planforsurge.html

... The utility of the global Internet should be viewed as a major asset over and above being an information artery. It should be monitored and those interested in transnational activities and information identified and exploited, including "chumming", and information pertaining to essential elements of information for transnational threats harvested. The Internet should be used for perception management, creating the illusions of grander and diversions of nefarious actors to pseudo-information domains. "World citizens" should be rewarded for information leading to transnational threat perpetrators. ...

And ...


Prepared by
Mr. Charles Swett
Assistant for Strategic Assessment

Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict (Policy Planning) 17 July 1995


The political process is moving onto the Internet. Both within the United States and internationally, individuals, interest groups, and even nations are using the Internet to find each other, discuss the issues, and further their political goals. The Internet has also played an important role in recent conflicts. As a result, overseas segments of the Internet can be a useful tool for DoD, both for gathering and for disseminating information. By monitoring public message traffic and alternative news source s from around the world, early warning of impending significant developments could be developed, in advance of more traditional means of indications and warning. Commentary placed on the Internet by observers on the scene of low-intensity conflicts overse as could be useful to U.S. policymaking. During larger scale conflicts, when other conventional channels are disrupted, the Internet can be the only available means of communication into and out of the affected areas. Internet messages originating within regions under authoritarian control could provide other useful intelligence. Public messages conveying information about the intent of overseas groups prone to disrupting U.S. military operations can provide important counterintelligence. The Internet could also be used offensively as an additional medium in psychological operations campaigns and to help achieve unconventional warfare objectives. Used creatively as an integral asset, the Internet can facilitate many DoD operations and activities.

For the rest of the story ... swett.html

As a counter-note ...

On the importance of too much information, see that the military, et. al. is also in a flurry of re-examining their web-sites and web policies ...

FEBRUARY 11, 1999 . . . 16:47 EST
DOD, intell community study Web access


The Defense Department is planning a new round of World Wide Web site security reviews in light of continuing concerns that the large volume of information available to the public on the Internet poses a significant risk to DOD operations, a senior DOD official said today.

According to Maj. Gen. John Campbell, vice director of the Defense Information Systems Agency and commander of the newly established Joint Task Force for Computer Network Defense, a recent exercise focusing on the problem of data aggregation revealed that even nonintelligence professionals could easily glean sensitive information from the large volume of data available on DOD's Web sites. "It was scary how successful [the exercise] was," Campbell said. ...

"... We're very seriously looking at the data aggregation problem," ... "you still have to balance access with control..." More ...

And ...

FEBRUARY 26, 1999 . . . 11:59 EST
Cohen approves group to scour DOD Web sites


To check the sensitivity of information on Defense Department World Wide Web sites, Defense Secretary William Cohen yesterday approved the creation of a 22-member military reserve unit to scour DOD Web sites for security breaches. ...

The new team of cyberwarriors ... known as the Joint Web Risk Assessment Cell (JWRAC) ... will be staffed by two full-time reservists and 20 drilling reserve members from the Army Reserve, the Army National Guard, the Naval Reserve, the Marine Corps Reserve, the Air National Guard and the Air Force Reserve.

... "Technology has extended America's reach around the world, and it has extended the reach of those who seek to threaten Americans at home," Cohen said. "The JWRAC will help us defend against those who would turn our technological superiority against us." More ...

And ...

Special Report: Federal Web-Masters

A tangled web

Agencies' failure to develop a stronger job role for federal Webmasters threatens the development of a digital government.

... The consequences for DOD and civilian agencies could be dire, he said. Information posted on Web sites can compromise the privacy of individuals or the safety of U.S. troops.

"We are not in the corporate sector; our information affects life and death," Collin said. "We see even greater fragmentation of Web development at many agencies and people managing Web sites with insufficient training in security, content control and compliance with information deployment policy. It's time for us to formalize an information security dissemination process that, if handled carelessly, could pose tremendous intelligence threats to our national security." ... 99.html

Information or dis, works both ways.

Discernment, always helps cut the mustard so-to-speak.


-- Diane J. Squire (, March 11, 1999.

Sheesh! Bold Off

-- Diane J. Squire (, March 11, 1999.

Q: What do you want??!!!
A: Information, Number 6. We want information.
Q: I am not a number, I am a free man!!!!!

From the '60s classic TV show, "The Prisoner".

-- King of Spain (, March 11, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ