Ŀ
This is a verbatim [typos and all] forward of a forward, which should be of  
wide interest. To cut to the chase, the document that is the focus of this   
article is at our site at                                                    
                                                                             
     http://www.fas.org/pub/gen/fas/cp/swett.html                            
                                                                             
The FAS Secrecy and Government Project, which provided this little gem, also 
has lotsa other neat stuff at                                                
                                                                             
     http://www.fas.org/pub/gen/fas/sgp/                                     
                                                                             
This copyrighted material is distributed here under the Fair Use doctrine,   
for review and commentary at this teachable moment. Other restrictions may   
apply to further distribution and archiving. Check your local listings!!!    
                                                                             
Begin forward:                                                               
                                                                             
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 1996 13:57:30 -0800 (PST)                                  
From: Phil Agre <pagre@weber.ucsd.edu>                                       
Subject: Pentagon on the net                                                 
                                                                             
[I've removed the header, but the author's e-mail address is in the text.]   
                                                                             
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=    
This message was forwarded through the Red Rock Eater News Service (RRE).    
Send any replies to the original author, listed in the From: field below.    
You are welcome to send the message along to others but please do not use    
the "redirect" command.  For information on RRE, including instructions      
for (un)subscribing, send an empty message to  rre-help@weber.ucsd.edu       
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=    
                                                                             
The following is an article from The Nation magazine (March 4, 1996) that    
reports on a Pentagon study on how the military can exploit the Internet.    
The Pentagon paper suggests using the Internet for the routine interception  
of global e-mail, for covert operations and propaganda campaigns, and for    
tracking domestic political activity, particularly that of the left. The     
article was written by David Corn, the Washington editor of The Nation. If   
you have any comments or leads for follow-up stories, please contact him at  
                                                                             
202-546-2239/ph                                                              
202-546-1415/fx                                                              
dacor@aol.com                                                                
                                                                             
To subscribe to The Nation, a magazine of politics and culture, call         
800-333-8536.                                                                
........................................................................     
                                                                             
Pentagon Trolls the Net                                                      
By David Corn                                                                
c1996                                                                        
                                                                             
Internet users beware; Pentagon snoops are taking an interest in your        
cyber-communications. Last summer, Charles Swett, a policy assistant in the  
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and      
Low-Intensity Conflict, produced a report  that assessed the intelligence    
value of the Internet for the Defense Department. His study discovered the   
obvious: By monitoring computer message traffic and alternative news sources 
from around the world, the military might catch "early warning of impending  
significant developments." Swett reports that the "Internet could also be    
used offensively as an additional medium in psychological operations         
campaigns and to help achieve unconventional warfare objectives." A striking 
aspect of his study is that there is one sort of Internet user who attracts  
a large amount of attention from Swett: cyber-smart lefties.                 
                                                                             
The thirty-one-page, unclassified study is mostly cut and dry. Much of it    
describes what the Internet is and what can be found within its infinite     
confines. Swett lists various "fringe groups" that are exploiting the        
Internet: the white-supremacist National Alliance, the Michigan Militia,     
Earth First, and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). He      
highlights MUFON--the Mutual UFO Network--which uses the Internet to         
disseminate information on "U.S. military operations that members believe    
relate to investigations and cover-ups of UFO-related incidents." MUFON      
computer messages, Swett notes, "contain details on MUFON's efforts to       
conduct surveillance of DoD installations." The report does not suggest that 
the computer communications of MUFON and these other groups should be        
targeted by the military--though X Filers will be forgiven for wondering if  
something sinister is afoot.                                                 
                                                                             
What Swett apparently finds of greater interest than MUFON and the "fringe   
groups" is the online left. A significant portion of the report is devoted   
to the San Francisco-based Institute for Global Communications, which        
operates several computer networks, such as PeaceNet and EcoNet, that        
are used by progressive activists. I.G.C. demonstrates, he writes, "the      
breadth of DoD-relevant information available on the Internet." The paper    
refers to I.G.C. conferences that might be considered noteworthy by the      
Pentagon, including ones on anti-nuclear arms campaigns, the extreme right,  
social change, and "multicultural, multi-racial news." Swett cites I.G.C. as 
the home for "alternative news sources" that fill gaps in the mainstream     
media.                                                                       
(It might be good for Pentagon analysts to read I.G.C. dispatches from       
Holland's Peace Media Service.) Yet he seems to say that one can  also track 
the left around the world by monitoring I.G.C.: "Although [I.G.C.] is clearly
a left-wing political organization, without actually joining I.G.C. and      
reading its message traffic, it is difficult to assess the nature and extent 
of its members' actual real-world activities."                               
                                                                             
Swett's paper presents the world of opportunity awaiting a cyber-shrewd      
military and intelligence establishment. The Pentagon and intelligence       
services will conduct "routine monitoring of messages originating in other   
countries" in the search for information on "developing security threats."   
That means overseas e-mail, like overseas phonecalls, will be intercepted by 
the electronic eavesdroppers of the National Security Agency or some other   
outfit. The data will be fed into filtering computers and then, if it        
contains any hot-button words, forwarded to the appropriate analyst.         
                                                                             
"Networks of human sources with access to the Internet could be developed in 
areas of security concern to the U.S." (But bureaucrats rest assured; "this  
approach"--using computer-assisted spies--"could never replace official DoD  
intelligence collection systems or services.") The Internet "can also serve  
counterintelligence purposes" by identifying threats to the Pentagon and     
U.S. intelligence activities. As an example, Swett refers to a message       
posted in a discussion group for "left-wing political activists" that        
repeated an A.P. article about an upcoming U.S. Army Special Operations      
Command training exercise at an empty Miami Beach hotel.                     
                                                                             
Another growth area is the dirty tracks department. Noting that government   
officials, military officials, business people, and journalists all around   
the world are online, Swett envisions "Psychological Operations" campaigns   
in which U.S. propaganda could be rapidly disseminated to a wide audience.   
He adds, "The U.S. might be able to employ the Internet offensively to help  
achieve unconventional warfare objectives." Swett does not delve into        
details on how the Internet could serve such a mission. But he tosses out    
one possibility: communicating via the Internet with political and           
paramilitary groups abroad that Washington wants to assist while "limiting   
the direct political involvement of the United States." Imagine this:        
contras with computers.                                                      
                                                                             
Swett does point to a few potential problems. The Internet is chockful of    
chit-chat of no intelligence value. Retrieving useful nuggets will require   
monumental screening. He also predicts that one day video footage of         
military operations will be captured by inexpensive, hand-held digital       
video cameras operated by local individuals and then up-loaded to the        
Internet. Within minutes, millions of people around the world will see       
for themselves what has happened--which could lead to calls for action       
(or calls to terminate action) before government leaders have had a chance   
to react and formulate a position. Such a development, he observes, "will    
greatly add to the burden on military commanders, whose actions will be      
subjected to an unprecedented degree of scrutiny." And opponents of the      
Pentagon might try to exploit the Internet for their own devilish ends:      
"If it became widely known that DoD were monitoring Internet traffic for     
intelligence or counterintelligence purposes,  individuals with personal     
agendas or political purposes in mind, or who enjoy playing pranks, would    
deliberately enter false or misleading messages." The study ends with a      
series of vague recommendations--all to be carried out "only in full         
compliance with the letter and the spirit of the law, and without violating  
the privacy of American citizens."                                           
                                                                             
The Swett paper is "refreshingly candid," says Steven Aftergood of the       
Federation of American Scientists, who placed a copy of the document on the  
FAS web site on government secrecy, where it is being downloaded about twenty
times a day (at http://www.fas.org/pub/gen/fas/sgp/.).  The I.G.C. staff is  
amused by Swett's interest. "We must be doing something right," notes George 
Gundrey, program coordinator of I.G.C.'s PeaceNet. "But it is interesting    
that all of his [I.G.C.] examples are the most left-wing items [on the       
network]."                                                                   
                                                                             
Swett's study is not the first of its kind. Under the rubric of "information 
warfare," other Pentagon outfits and military contractors have studied how to
use computer networks to collect public information, disseminate propaganda, 
politically destabilize other governments, and plant computer viruses into   
the information systems of foes. (The latter task is particularly foolhardy. 
Deploying viruses into cyber-space--even if targeted against an enemy--would 
likely pose a danger to the United States, since this country is more        
networked than any other.) But Swett's office--the Pentagon's dirty tricks   
shop--is a newcomer to this scene, acoording to David Banisar, a policy      
analyst for the Electronic Privacy Information Center. Banisar's group has   
been helping international human rights groups use encryption to protect     
their global e-mai, "so the spooks don't listen in"                          
                                                                             
It is natural that the national security gang will try to infiltrate and use 
a communication medium like the Internet to its advantage. What is most      
troubling about Swett's paper is its preoccupation with left-of-center       
travelers in cyberspace and _domestic_ political activities. In the appendix,
Swett reproduces four examples of notable e-mail. One (written by progressive
activists Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven) calls for 100 days of       
protest in response to the Republican's Contract with America, another       
announces plans for a demonstration at the 1996 G.O.P. convention in San     
Diego, the third relays to lefties information on the U.S. Army exercise at  
the Miami Beach hotel, and the last is a communique from the Zapatistas of   
Mexico. Swett's use of these cyber dispatches can be explained one of two    
ways. Either the left has made much more progress in cyber-organizing than   
the right and "such fringe groups" as PETA, or Swett, true to institutional  
tradition, is overwrought about the use of the Internet by a certain parties.
In any case, the would-be watchers in the defense establishment ought to be  
watched closely--especially if Swett's report refelcts broader sentiment     
within the Pentagon.                                                         
                                                                             
--                                                                           
John Pike                                                                    
Federation of American Scientists  http://www.fas.org/pub/gen/fas/           
CyberStrategy Project              http://www.fas.org/pub/gen/fas/cp/        
Intelligence Reform Project        http://www.fas.org/pub/gen/fas/irp/       
Military Analysis Network          http://www.fas.org/pub/gen/fas/man/       
Space Policy Project               http://www.fas.org/pub/gen/fas/spp/       
                                                                             

