Slashdot Log In
Iranian Coup Plotters Exposed By PDF File
Posted by
timothy
on Sun Jun 25, 2000 03:39 AM
from the shoulda-seen-it-coming dept.
from the shoulda-seen-it-coming dept.
Renfield writes: "Security Focus has the details on how the New York Times released a SECRET CIA report on the Agency-sponsored 1953 Iranian coup on their Web site as a PDF file, with the names of foreign agents covered up with black lines and boxes. It turns out the Times didn't merge layers, and John Young of Cryptome discovered that by freezing the rendering at the right time, he could view the edited text before the black boxes covered them. He's putting up the full, unedited document on his site now. The Times says he's endangering lives, but why, oh why, didn't they use eraser tool, and how many other PDF files, Word documents, etc., contain more than meets the eye?" I wonder if there are any "aggressive" pdf viewers built to scan for just such information, too.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Iranian Coup Plotters Exposed By PDF File
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 328 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Re:US foreign policy (Score:4)
The US bribed^H^H^Hpayed IRA and Ulster Union leaders to stop fighting in Northern Ireland (knock on wood).
It's still a question if the haste was worth the result -- both sides in Northern Ireland are in unstable position toward the political results -- fighting (actually random acts of terrorism) stopped at the price of bringing up all the political tension, and sides don't seem to be ready to come to the agreement, so it has all chances to resume.
They bribed^H^H^H^Hpayed Israel to find the peace process attractive.
Pressure on Israel government seem to have little effect on large (and vocal!) percentage of population that got kicked out of their homes, got their religious feeling insulted, or both. Again, fixing one problem, creating another. If Arabs didn't see Israel as being so dependent on US in everything they probably would be more willing to negotiate (plus see what I said in other message about Iran and religious bigotry).
They brought fragile but existing peace to Bosnia, and started the same in Kosovo. If you take the preservation of human lives as a universal standard, then there were less people killed in Kosovo this year than in a month (you pick the month) two years ago.
Maybe per month compared to situation in the middle of civil war, but not the total amount -- if left alone, fighting would cease earlier, without the amount of political complications that were caused by US/NATO bombing what they were supposed to protect and supporting every accusation against Serbs, valid or invalid one, thus fueling the hatred between Serbs and Albanians in Kosovo. If US wouldn't interfere, Serbs would defeat KLA (killing some but mostly frightening the rest, causing them to disband), keep the control over Kosovo, and would be forced to give some semi-autonomy to Kosovo, letting some Albanians into local governmental structures. US didn't like that, and needed a cause for military presence in Europe.
If there is a huge rock falling down towards 100 people and you have the option to push a button that redirects the rock to another group of 10 people, what would you do? Save 90 lives and become a killer (of those 10 people who would not have died otherwise), or let 100 people die but stay morally clean? If you have the power to actually *do something*, these are the questions you face every day.
US motivation never was to preserve anyone's lives -- it either was political, up to "those people are oppressed by their insufficiently democratic government -- let's kill or starve them all to death, so their evil government will be destroyed with them", or economical, up to "we need some cheap labor here and oil there".
NYT stands on thin ice (Score:3)
mentioned, and they concern journalistic ethics.
In the first place, NYT reporter James Risen is essentially
taking this position when he claimes to John Young that the
families of those named may be at risk:
"You say that we have no clothes on. But unnamed, independent
Iran experts we consulted say that we do indeed have clothes on.
Therefore, if you assume that we are naked, you are responsible
for endangering the lives of others."
A complaint I lodged with Mr. Risen in the past suggests to me
that he is fully capable of spinning when he says that he
consulted independent Iran experts who told him that the
families of those named would be at risk. Indications are that
these so-called "independent" sources could well be connected to
the U.S. intelligence community -- the same people who use
classification and secrecy to cover up incompetence and/or avoid
accountability.
Therefore, I conclude that these families are not at risk, and
Mr. Risen is protecting his sources, or his career, for entirely
separate reasons. I asked him to put his experts on the record,
but he didn't respond so I have no idea who they are.
I consulted an Iran expert who says that Iran hardly needs to
read the New York Times to figure out what happened in 1953, and
that the report would probably strike them as boring.
A newspaper has no business playing redaction games for what may
be ulterior motives. I'd prefer that they skip the report
entirely rather than establish a redaction precedent for
journalism professionals. We'll eventually get the information
another way -- from Iran, if we have to.
you don't need to freez (Score:4)
Re:Where's the "Information wants to be free" crow (Score:3)
"Information wants to be free," they chime.
Given this strange behavior to this story, I have to ask. Is it "information wants to be free, except when lives are at stake"?
If you don't see the difference between exposing a list of blocked sites and exposing a list of names which may endanger the lives of people, then you've a very warped sense of morality.
"Information wants to be free". What does that mean? An evocative phrase devoid of rational content... Freedom of information and the need for privacy have to be balanced.
Re:This is also importaant with word documents.. (Score:5)
What kind of standard? (Score:4)
You would be amazed at how well people react to being told that you are concerned about viruses...
Cheers,
Ben
Iranian coup plotters SHOULD be exposed (Score:4)
It's actions like this that make me question the deepest principles of our nation. In The Falcon and the Snowman [imdb.com] spy case, a loyal American from a military family became disenchanted when his security clearance allowed him to see that the CIA was conspiring to overthrow a liberal government in a foreign country, including fake demonstrations and planted violence in the trade unions. The country in question was Australia. Yes, this is true. A loyal ally
I have nothing but disgust for an operation supported by the United States that stole democracy from Iran for the next thirty years and handed it to, of all things, a king. How antithetical to American values is that?
Did you ever stop to think why the Iranians hated us so much they'd hold our people hostage for 444 days?
----
Re:US foreign policy (Score:3)
So - going back a bit in history just to show the obvious flaw in your argument - Nazi Germany should have been left alone - they would clearly have stopped after some natural amount of time, after killing/gasing everybody not of arjan descent (including most of Russia).
First, US was an ally with Britain, France and Russia -- as opposed to KLA that was no one's ally -- formally was and remains a terrorist organization.
Second, Nazi Germany was left alone even though it invaded US allies, so actually US extremely poorly performed its own obligations as an ally. US participated in insignificant fighting in Africa, and other things that didn't significantly affect the events in Europe until it became absolutely clear that Russia will not be destroyed (all USSR territory was back in Soviets' hands), and Germany will be defeated, this way or another. Not until that happened, US started pulling its shit together to actually attack Germany in any meaningful way.
As I have said it many times, US behavior in WWII in Europe was extremely selfish, bordering on being a traitor to other allies.
NYT, Jim Young Not at Fault (Score:3)
If Jim Young hadn't published the information without the redactions, the information would still be there. Determined parties would still have that information. The only difference is that people would have (incorrectly) believed that the information was secure.
The argument is identical to disclosure of security holes. Someone (Jim Young) finds a vulnerability. He notifies the vendor (NYT) so that they can take action. When it becomes apparent that the hole is being exploited (others are publishing the names), secrecy becomes irrelevant, and the only issue is making sure everyone is aware of the hole ASAP, so Young published the names.
Does anyone think that if Jim Young hadn't published the names, Iranian intelligence wouldn't be able to get them out of the file?
Does anyone think that if it hadn't been widely publicized, Iranian intelligence wouldn't have eventually found out about the problem?
Blaming the NYT or Jim Young is like blaming Cult of the Dead Cow for the lack of security in Microsoft products.
Where's the "Information wants to be free" crowd? (Score:5)
This is not a flame.
It's amazing how many people are rushing to condemn the man who published the un-redacted file, and how many people are screaming to investigate the New York Times because they published the redacted file without understanding the file format, and how many people are crying foul because the CIA leaked the document in the first place.
Isn't this SLASHDOT?!
People here don't holler if Microsoft leaks proprietary technical specs... they laugh. People here don't whine if DeCSS circumvents runtime-redaction, they propagate the utility. People here don't find it immoral to expose CyberPatrol blacklists... they find it immoral to blacklist at all.
"Information wants to be free," they chime.
Given this strange behavior to this story, I have to ask. Is it "information wants to be free, except when lives are at stake"? Is it "information wants to be free, especially since beer isn't free"? Is it "information wants to be free, because I can't afford to pay programmers"? Or is it "information wants to be free, because Courtney Love teaches us how we gotta stick it to the man"?
Principles are principles.
If you don't believe "information wants to be free", then get off the pot and stop crusading. If you do believe it, then why are we worried here? The guy who finally published this unredacted form basically said he had two reasons,
force the hand of the State Department, letting these families know they may be in danger
force the review of critical information management within our own intelligence community
Both of these reasons focus on exposing more information than just this document. His tactics also demonstrate that information wants to be free. He also showed that releasing information was a powerful proactive strategy, not a secret reactive strategy. Releasing information doesn't mean giving up all your control. He took control when he showed his hand.
He was doing you a favor.
This is also importaant with word documents.. (Score:5)
But I've found is more effective to also go int othe file with a text editor and extract bits of text which they've deleted, along iwth other information the user may no t want me to see.
Recently I received such a message from someone which handled PR for my particular section of the NI govt. There was some really dodgy info in there, and afdter returning it to the sender, the govt department got sent aplaintext policy document about not using MS Word or anything more complicated that
People should go looking at these files - there's a lot of info out there to be had
Re:you don't need to freez (Score:5)
Re:Where's the "Information wants to be free" crow (Score:5)
How can you possibly draw a parallel between downloading mp3's and releasing secret information by the CIA on the names of their agents? How the f*ck are the two related? They're not! The information wants to be free crowd isn't a bunch of absolutists - we recognize that there must be limits. Some information shouldn't be free - you'll note I don't publish my root password.
By and far, this mandra is related to a subconscious counter-culture and anti-authoritarian attitude which has grown on us as a result of circumstances. Circumstances like watching our rights as "consumers" and citizens be systematically stripped away while calling it a "win in the battle for personal choice". We were taunted by our peers, ejected from our school system, for wanting to know how the system worked.
Yeah, there is some history here fella, and it would do you some good to talk to people on the other side of the fence before going off and trying to label everyone - something you'll find is usually met with freezing contempt amongst geeks.
Pitstop (Score:5)
All rental IBMs at Kinkos have this plugin, so basically the Times PDF was vulnerable from the word Go. I'm sure that uber-intelligence agenices has already figured out how to remove the redaction long before Mr. Young posted his revelations.
Just open the file in Acrobat, click, click, delete... full disclosure.
word files and RISKS (Score:3)
the only time i've been a fan of ms products actually.
Why publish? (Score:5)
What I'm missing is the explanation why they changed their mind. It looks like they wanted to publish before someone else does.
I would like to know if they considered the timing of all this. For someone named in this report, a couple of hours to leave the country might make a big difference.
Families (Score:5)
He's not endangering lives, they are. (Score:4)
This is simply amazing. I think the Times accusations have more to do with covering their own ass than concern for their unfortunate victims.
US foreign policy (Score:5)
Do you agree that in the last 10 years (eg. starting _after_ the Gulf War) the US foreign policy was pretty sane from a human point of view?
The US bribed^H^H^Hpayed IRA and Ulster Union leaders to stop fighting in Northern Ireland (knock on wood).
They bribed^H^H^H^Hpayed Israel to find the peace process attractive.
They brought fragile but existing peace to Bosnia, and started the same in Kosovo. If you take the preservation of human lives as a universal standard, then there were less people killed in Kosovo this year than in a month (you pick the month) two years ago.
Yes, IMO this peace was worth those innocent ~400 lives caused by the air-raids (as counted by Yugoslav propaganda - not the tens of thousands they claimed initially), if you balance this against those many kosovoans *not* being killed now. The bosnian war took an estimated 200 thousands lives, so that was the prospective. If you are forced to pick between hundreds of lives and get your hands bloody, and thousands of lives but stay clean, which one would you pick?
If there is a huge rock falling down towards 100 people and you have the option to push a button that redirects the rock to another group of 10 people, what would you do? Save 90 lives and become a killer (of those 10 people who would not have died otherwise), or let 100 people die but stay morally clean? If you have the power to actually *do something*, these are the questions you face every day.