Counterintelligence in the Turbulent 1960S and 1970S

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Counterintelligence in the Turbulent 1960S and 1970S CI in the Turbulent 1960s and 1970s CHAPTER 2 Counterintelligence in the Turbulent 1960s and 1970s Introduction The early 1960s was a golden period for American counterintelligence. The FBI and CIA recruited several valuable Soviet intelligence officers, and the CI community benefited from a small number of Soviet defectors. This utopia would not last long. Among the defectors were Anatoliy Golitsyn and Yuriy Nosenko, both of who would eventually be the cause of tremendous embarrassment to the CIA and adversely affect the CI community. Except for one espionage arrest between 1966 and 1975, counterintelligence falls from the American scene. The year 1966 also marked an almost total break in FBI-CIA relations that lasted until 1972. In the mid-to-late 1960s, Vietnam became the dominant intelligence issue and also the rallying call for dissent against the government by young Americans. Widespread violence and civil disorder arose in many cities and on many campuses across the country. President Lyndon Johnson and later President Richard Nixon acted on a number of fronts, including the counterintelligence elements within the intelligence community, to determine who was to blame for the turbulence. Both Presidents believed that foreign influences caused the domestic strife confronting the nation, and each directed the CI Community to determine if America’s enemies were behind the violence. In 1967, the Department of Justice instituted the first in a series of secret units designed to collate and evaluate information concerning the growing domestic disorder. After Nixon’s election, the Justice Department created new units but the President remained dissatisfied. The FBI’s response was to continue to conduct COINTELPRO (Counterintelligence Program) operations against the New Left, the Black Nationalists, and the Right Wing, which were established in the late 1950s and 1960s. Army intelligence conducted its own domestic program, and CIA took action by creating the MHCHAOS (cryptonym used for CIA’s collection of information on American dissidents) operation. All these efforts resulted from a realization by the Johnson and Nixon Administrations that the CI Community had no effective ability to evaluate intelligence on domestic incidents. In the end, the CI community found no evidence of foreign control of American radical groups, and, by the early 1970s each of the agencies began phasing out its 85 CI in the Turbulent 1960s and 1970s programs. The issue, however, stayed alive. DCI James Schlesinger, who was blindsided by not knowing about CIA’s involvement in the break-in of Daniel Ellsberg’s psychiatrist office in Los Angeles, was leery of being caught offguard again. To forestall such an event, he ordered all CIA employees to report on any CIA activities that they believed violated the Agency’s charter. On 9 May 1973, the CIA’s Office of the Inspector General gave Schlesinger a list of “potential” activities that could cause embarrassment to the CIA. The list included the Agency’s CI Staff’s participation in the MHCHAOS operation, mail-openings, and the Huston Plan. Two days later, President Nixon named Schlesinger to be Secretary of Defense. The new DCI, William Colby, had to wait until September 1973 to take office and immediately had to resolve other pressing matters. The CI staff’s questionable activities remained dormant. This changed following a December 1974 New York Times article on alleged CIA spying on American citizens. The news article led to the appointment of a presidential commission (the Rockefeller Commission) and two Congressional committees to investigate the charges. Besides CIA, the investigation also looked at the FBI, DoD, and several other agencies. Almost coinciding with the news article was the firing of CIA’s legendary CI Chief, James Jesus Angleton, who served in this position for 20 years. On 18 February 1976, President Gerald Ford issued Executive Order 11905. The new policy guidelines, restrictions on individual agencies, and clarification of intelligence authorities and responsibilities were the result of the Rockefeller Commission’s report. In announcing his order, the President wanted to sidestep any Congressional initiative to regulate the intelligence and counterintelligence communities. The president gave the new DCI, George Bush, only 90 days to implement the new order. The Senate Committee, known as the Church Committee, published its six-volume report on the investigation on 23 April 1976. The House Committee, known as the Pike Committee, also wrote a classified report, which was leaked to and printed by the Village Voice on 12 February 1976. The next crisis to strike US counterintelligence was the discovery of the illegal imprisonment of Soviet defector Nosenko by CIA. The Nosenko case had been a continuous point of contention between the Agency’s CI Staff and the people responsible for recruiting and running operations against the Soviet Union. The case also clouded the bona fides of other Soviet defectors and in-place sources and contributed to the internal questioning by the FBI of the validity of their sources. The revelations of these activities convinced Congress that they needed closer oversight and accountability over the intelligence community. The House of Representatives established the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and the Senate created the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. 86 CI in the Turbulent 1960s and 1970s On 20 January 1977, Presidential Directive/NSC-2 reorganized the National Security Council System. A review of this reorganization shows no committees or group focusing on counterintelligence. Another Executive Order corrected this oversight. The order created the Special Coordination Committee for Counterintelligence, under the revised National Security Council structure. Early in DCI Stansfield Turner’s term, he also believed individual agencies ignored CI community interests. To remedy this, he wanted a new office to handle counterintelligence issues so that they would not fall into the proverbial black hole. He established such an office, Special Assistant to the DCI for Counterintelligence, in 1978. 87 CI in the Turbulent 1960s and 1970s Administratively Confidential mechanical and electronic equipment and devices used for or capable of intercepting telephone conversations. The WHITE HOUSE In addition, such reports shall contain a list of any June 30, 1965 interceptions currently authorized and the reasons for them. Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies (S) Lyndon B. Johnson I am strongly opposed to the interception of telephone conversations as a general investigative technique. I recognize that mechanical and electronic devices may US Double Agent Thwarts State sometimes be essential in protecting our national Department Bugging security. Nevertheless, it is clear that indiscriminate use of those investigative devices to overhear telephone An effort by Communist agents to plant an electronic conversations, without the knowledge or consent of any listening device in the State Department building in of the persons involved, could result in serious abuses Washington was overcome by the FBI with the and invasions of privacy. In my view, the invasion of assistance and cooperation of a State Department privacy of communications is a highly offensive practice employee of Czechoslovak heritage, Frank John Mrkva, which should be engaged in only where the national who acted as a double agent for more than four years. security is at stake. To avoid an misunderstanding on The details of the case as released by the State this subject in the Federal Government, I am establishing Department in July 1966, have many of the trappings the following basic guidelines to be followed by all of a James Bond or Le Carre spy novel. government agencies: Two members of the Czechoslovak Embassy in (1) No federal personnel is to intercept telephone Washington were directly implicated in this espionage conversations within the United States by any operation. The first, Zdenek Pisk, served as Third mechanical or electronic device, without the consent of Secretary and later as Second Secretary of the one of the parties involved, (except in connection with Czechoslovak Embassy. Pisk departed the United States investigations related to the national security) on May 8, 1963, but had returned and occupied the post of First Secretary at the Czechoslovak United Nations (2) No interception shall be undertaken or continued Mission in New York City. The second agent, Jiri without first obtaining the approval of the Attorney Opatrny, assigned as an Attaché of the Czechoslovak General. Embassy in Washington, took over the spy operation from Pisk upon his departure from Washington, DC, in (3) All federal agencies shall immediately conform May 1963. their practices and procedures to the provisions of this order. In 1961, Pisk became acquainted with Frank John Mrkva, whose official US State Department duties Utilization of mechanical or electronic devices to included messenger runs to the Czechoslovak Embassy. overhear non-telephone conversations is an even more At Pisk’s invitation, Frank Mrkva attended social difficult problem, which raises substantial and functions at the Czechoslovak Embassy. The first overt unresolved questions of Constitutional interpretation. I act on the part of Pisk to enlist Mrkva into Czechoslovak desire that each agency conducting such investigations espionage activities was on November 30, 1961. Pisk consult with the Attorney
Recommended publications
  • FBI Academy Training Facility A&E Study………………………………
    Table of Contents Page No. I. Overview ………………………………………………………………….............. 1-1 II. Summary of Program Changes…………………………………………….. 2-1 III. Appropriations Language and Analysis of Appropriations Language….......... 3-1 IV. Decision Unit Justification…………………………………………………... 4-1 A. Intelligence………………………………………………………………… . 4-1 1. Program Description 2. Performance Tables 3. Performance, Resources, and Strategies a. Performance Plan and Report for Outcomes b. Strategies to Accomplish Outcomes B. Counterterrorism/Counterintelligence ……………………………………… 4-14 1. Program Description 2. Performance Tables 3. Performance, Resources, and Strategies a. Performance Plan and Report for Outcomes b. Strategies to Accomplish Outcomes C. Criminal Enterprises and Federal Crimes…………………………………… 4-36 1. Program Description 2. Performance Tables 3. Performance, Resources, and Strategies a. Performance Plan and Report for Outcomes b. Strategies to Accomplish Outcomes D. Criminal Justice Services…………………………………………………….. 4-59 1. Program Description 2. Performance Tables 3. Performance, Resources, and Strategies a. Performance Plan and Report for Outcomes b. Strategies to Accomplish Outcomes V. Program Increases by Item………………………………………………… 5-1 Domain and Operations Increases Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative………………………... 5-1 Intelligence Program………………………………………………….…... 5-6 National Security Field Investigations……….………………………….... 5-13 Mortgage Fraud and White Collar Crime………………………………… 5-15 WMD Response………………………………………………………..…. 5-19 Infrastructure Increases
    [Show full text]
  • 46 ROSENBERG GRAND JURY WITNESSES (Testimony to Be
    46 ROSENBERG GRAND JURY WITNESSES (testimony to be released September 11, 2008) Government is not releasing testimony of William Danziger, Max Elichter, and David Greenglass The descriptions provided below are based on available evidence. Additional details will be added after the transcripts are reviewed. 1. Ruth Alscher Ruth Alscher was Max Elitcher’s sister‐in‐law. She was married to his brother, Morris Alscher. In interviews with the FBI, Max and Helene Elitcher said that Ruth Alscher attended a party in 1944 in New York with them that was attended by three individuals who the Bureau suspected were Soviet agents: Julius Rosenberg, Joel Barr and William Perl. She also attended parties at a Greenwich Village apartment that Barr and another Soviet agent, Alfred Sarant, shared. Ruth Alscher was a friend of Bernice Levin; Levin was identified as a Soviet agent by Elizabeth Bentley. Assistant U.S. Attorney John W. Foley confidentially told the FBI in 1951 that Ruth Alscher had asserted privileges under the Fifth Amendment when called to testify to the Rosenberg grand jury. At the time of the Rosenberg/Sobell trial, Morris Alscher had died, leaving Ruth Alscher with three small children. 2. Herman Bauch [no reference] 3. Soloman H. Bauch Lawyer for Pitt Machine Products; where Julius Rosenberg worked. On June 6, 1950, Julius authorized Bauch to empower Bernie Greenglass to sign company checks, telling him that the Rosenbergs were contemplating a trip. 4. Harry Belock One of Morton Sobell’s superior at Reeves Electronics in June 1950 when Sobell fled to Mexico. 5. Dr. George Bernhardt Bernhardt testified at the Rosenbergs trial regarding plans of the Rosenbergs and Morton Sobell to secure travel documents and flee the country, possibly to Russia.
    [Show full text]
  • What Is Counterintelligence? and How Lessons on Counterintelligence Might Enrich Their Courses
    Association of Former Intelligence Officers From AFIO's The Intelligencer 7700 Leesburg Pike, Suite 324 Journal of U.S. Intelligence Studies Falls Church, Virginia 22043 Web: www.afio.com , E-mail: [email protected] Volume 20 • Number 2 • $15 single copy price Fall/Winter 2013 ©2013, AFIO measure what an adversary knows about us? How do we determine whether or not we are successful in keeping our secrets and projecting the image we wish Guide to the Study of Intelligence to project? How do we know what and whom to trust?3 This article is a short cut to some basic concepts about counterintelligence: what it is and is not. Educa- tors in history, government, political science, ethics, law and cognitive psychology should consider whether What is Counterintelligence? and how lessons on counterintelligence might enrich their courses. Recommended additional readings are suggested in the footnotes. A Guide to Thinking A general introductory course on U.S. counter- and Teaching about CI intelligence should have five key learning objectives: Understanding the meaning of counterintelli- gence, its place within intelligence studies, and by Michelle K. Van Cleave its role in international relations as an instrument of statecraft.4 Understanding the difference between tactical WHY STUDY COUNTERINTELLIGENCE? and strategic CI,5 the difference between CI and security,6 and the range of foreign intelligence he study of “counterintelligence” is rare in aca- 3. Consider for example the deception paradox: “Alertness to demia. While modern courses on international deception presumably prompts a more careful and systematic relations often include intelligence, they usually review of the evidence.
    [Show full text]
  • Cambridge Five Spy Ring Part 29 of 42
    192Hi _ill"I1_q :___|_ LwJ -£1 &#39;nrrnsss usncn :.cimox~uses s1K ._ On the -RAFs&#39;fftieth&#39;:. Kbirthda . __.t . s § 92 . &#39;. _&#39;.J;,&#39;- I , -. .:_ -_i. - O 4i . 9292 &#39; &#39;i 3 rr. 1.-Ir. F - . v , . 1 < r --. , r /. I °-A --,. -:"&#39;. " .-¢ -&#39; . _.._=-I Il &#39; E; -: T -V;L I , . i ~ - . L... i -.~ - &#39; . i ". - - : __ . __92 - r_ .._.|._ &#39;&#39;|. - -5 &#39; .- &#39;-&#39; " &#39; f I .92. - 0-.3 1- - &#39; ;_. -. _. *5%"¢ " &#39;I! TOMORROW the ifoyalAir Forceis 50years old: As rhe-aclhellit - 1 this anniversarythe air force that was oncethe mightiest mthe /59>.°-&#39;- 2;: y world nds its conventional strengthreduced to the level of "in..;"ff~;&#39;::&#39;7"1c9untrie.s._.li4i$q.I92;l!ji¢YNorth Korea, Sweden and and India. " i, < Q At present the"hittir&#39;i&#39;§_Foiw&#39;v&#39;erofthe*R.-A-¢F».-is-conce.ntr&#39;aie_d&#39; »&#39;-1&#39;.. inits-I " ageing V-bomber force. -in every other department .il&#39;l¢.31_I§!&#39;I__"d&#39;5&#39;ii"i=""""£=.r-" - has been drastic. - &#39; &#39; m""i*&#39;" l."li"&#39;§"-i Q &#39;Butdoes this matter? For in the H-bomb era, do conventional forces count? Would not any war quickly become an H-bombwar?. - O Today the Sunday Express publishes an article with an -",4-. l important hearing on these questions.it puts forward a revolu- tionary view of strategy in the years immediately ahead and , - &#39; _ exposes the blundersof oicial military plannersin writing-off the _&#39;,__£.:,&#39;11 -:»;v risks of conventional war.i-.= &#39; I.-=1"~ 92_ ~13-:1.
    [Show full text]
  • Inside Russia's Intelligence Agencies
    EUROPEAN COUNCIL ON FOREIGN BRIEF POLICY RELATIONS ecfr.eu PUTIN’S HYDRA: INSIDE RUSSIA’S INTELLIGENCE SERVICES Mark Galeotti For his birthday in 2014, Russian President Vladimir Putin was treated to an exhibition of faux Greek friezes showing SUMMARY him in the guise of Hercules. In one, he was slaying the • Russia’s intelligence agencies are engaged in an “hydra of sanctions”.1 active and aggressive campaign in support of the Kremlin’s wider geopolitical agenda. The image of the hydra – a voracious and vicious multi- headed beast, guided by a single mind, and which grows • As well as espionage, Moscow’s “special services” new heads as soon as one is lopped off – crops up frequently conduct active measures aimed at subverting in discussions of Russia’s intelligence and security services. and destabilising European governments, Murdered dissident Alexander Litvinenko and his co-author operations in support of Russian economic Yuri Felshtinsky wrote of the way “the old KGB, like some interests, and attacks on political enemies. multi-headed hydra, split into four new structures” after 1991.2 More recently, a British counterintelligence officer • Moscow has developed an array of overlapping described Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) as and competitive security and spy services. The a hydra because of the way that, for every plot foiled or aim is to encourage risk-taking and multiple operative expelled, more quickly appear. sources, but it also leads to turf wars and a tendency to play to Kremlin prejudices. The West finds itself in a new “hot peace” in which many consider Russia not just as an irritant or challenge, but • While much useful intelligence is collected, as an outright threat.
    [Show full text]
  • A Rumour Exists Among Cambridge Students
    A rumour exists among Cambridge students – that they may be discretely and mysteriously tapped on the shoulder during their time there, meaning they have been invited to become a spy. It’s difficult to determine if this is still true; presumably the new spies would be too secretive to let it slip. But many students live in hope for the day they will become the next James Bond. Cambridge has a long-running association with secret intelligence, which has helped, and hindered, Britain through times of war and peace. Reach Cambridge students live and learn in the same university that has been home to many infamous spies – not bad for a residential summer school! We’ll take a look at some of the most famous spies associated with the city. Christopher Marlowe Marlowe is more widely known as a famous playwright, with some suggesting that he is the true author of Shakespeare’s plays. He studied at Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, and it is alleged that it was during this time that he was recruited to be a spy. Elizabeth I presided over the first British Secret Services, used during her reign to gather intelligence against Catholics. Some evidence that Marlowe was involved in these activities is that he left Cambridge for long stretches of time that the university would usually not allow, and when he was in college, he bought much more food and drink than he would have been able to afford on his scholarship money alone. It was apparently the extra money he earned from being a government spy throughout his life which supplemented his income, allowing him to continue writing.
    [Show full text]
  • The Siloviki in Russian Politics
    The Siloviki in Russian Politics Andrei Soldatov and Michael Rochlitz Who holds power and makes political decisions in contemporary Russia? A brief survey of available literature in any well-stocked bookshop in the US or Europe will quickly lead one to the answer: Putin and the “siloviki” (see e.g. LeVine 2009; Soldatov and Borogan 2010; Harding 2011; Felshtinsky and Pribylovsky 2012; Lucas 2012, 2014 or Dawisha 2014). Sila in Russian means force, and the siloviki are the members of Russia’s so called “force ministries”—those state agencies that are authorized to use violence to respond to threats to national security. These armed agents are often portrayed—by journalists and scholars alike—as Russia’s true rulers. A conventional wisdom has emerged about their rise to dominance, which goes roughly as follows. After taking office in 2000, Putin reconsolidated the security services and then gradually placed his former associates from the KGB and FSB in key positions across the country (Petrov 2002; Kryshtanovskaya and White 2003, 2009). Over the years, this group managed to disable almost all competing sources of power and control. United by a common identity, a shared worldview, and a deep personal loyalty to Putin, the siloviki constitute a cohesive corporation, which has entrenched itself at the heart of Russian politics. Accountable to no one but the president himself, they are the driving force behind increasingly authoritarian policies at home (Illarionov 2009; Roxburgh 2013; Kasparov 2015), an aggressive foreign policy (Lucas 2014), and high levels of state predation and corruption (Dawisha 2014). While this interpretation contains elements of truth, we argue that it provides only a partial and sometimes misleading and exaggerated picture of the siloviki’s actual role.
    [Show full text]
  • H-Diplo Article Roundtable Review, Vol. X, No. 24
    2009 h-diplo H-Diplo Article Roundtable Roundtable Editors: Thomas Maddux and Diane Labrosse Roundtable Web Editor: George Fujii Review Introduction by Thomas Maddux www.h-net.org/~diplo/roundtables Reviewers: Bruce Craig, Ronald Radosh, Katherine A.S. Volume X, No. 24 (2009) Sibley, G. Edward White 17 July 2009 Response by John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr Journal of Cold War Studies 11.3 (Summer 2009) Special Issue: Soviet Espoinage in the United States during the Stalin Era (with articles by John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr; Eduard Mark; Gregg Herken; Steven T. Usdin; Max Holland; and John F. Fox, Jr.) http://www.mitpressjournals.org/toc/jcws/11/3 Stable URL: http://www.h-net.org/~diplo/roundtables/PDF/Roundtable-X-24.pdf Contents Introduction by Thomas Maddux, California State University, Northridge.............................. 2 Review by Bruce Craig, University of Prince Edward Island ..................................................... 8 Review by Ronald Radosh, Emeritus, City University of New York ........................................ 16 Review by Katherine A.S. Sibley, St. Josephs University ......................................................... 18 Review by G. Edward White, University of Virginia School of Law ........................................ 23 Author’s Response by John Earl Haynes, Library of Congress, and Harvey Klehr, Emory University ................................................................................................................................ 27 Copyright © 2009 H-Net: Humanities and Social Sciences Online. H-Net permits the redistribution and reprinting of this work for non-profit, educational purposes, with full and accurate attribution to the author(s), web location, date of publication, H-Diplo, and H-Net: Humanities & Social Sciences Online. For other uses, contact the H-Diplo editorial staff at [email protected]. H-Diplo Roundtable Reviews, Vol.
    [Show full text]
  • Suspect Until Proven Guilty, a Problematization of State Dossier Systems Via Two Case Studies: the United States and China
    University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations Fall 2009 Suspect Until Proven Guilty, a Problematization of State Dossier Systems via Two Case Studies: The United States and China Kenneth N. Farrall University of Pennsylvania, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations Part of the Asian Studies Commons, Communication Technology and New Media Commons, International and Intercultural Communication Commons, and the Social Influence and oliticalP Communication Commons Recommended Citation Farrall, Kenneth N., "Suspect Until Proven Guilty, a Problematization of State Dossier Systems via Two Case Studies: The United States and China" (2009). Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations. 51. https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/51 This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/51 For more information, please contact [email protected]. Suspect Until Proven Guilty, a Problematization of State Dossier Systems via Two Case Studies: The United States and China Abstract This dissertation problematizes the "state dossier system" (SDS): the production and accumulation of personal information on citizen subjects exceeding the reasonable bounds of risk management. SDS - comprising interconnecting subsystems of records and identification - damage individual autonomy and self-determination, impacting not only human rights, but also the viability of the social system. The research, a hybrid of case-study and cross-national comparison, was guided in part by a theoretical model of four primary SDS driving forces: technology, political economy, law and public sentiment. Data sources included government documents, academic texts, investigative journalism, NGO reports and industry white papers. The primary analytical instrument was the juxtaposition of two individual cases: the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • British Domestic Security Policy and Communist Subversion: 1945-1964
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Apollo British Domestic Security Policy and Communist Subversion: 1945-1964 William Styles Corpus Christi College, University of Cambridge September 2016 This dissertation is submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy William Styles British Domestic Security Policy and Communist Subversion: 1945-1964 This thesis is concerned with an analysis of British governmental attitudes and responses to communism in the United Kingdom during the early years of the Cold War, from the election of the Attlee government in July 1945 up until the election of the Wilson government in October 1964. Until recently the topic has been difficult to assess accurately, due to the scarcity of available original source material. However, as a result of multiple declassifications of both Cabinet Office and Security Service files over the past five years it is now possible to analyse the subject in greater depth and detail than had been previously feasible. The work is predominantly concerned with four key areas: firstly, why domestic communism continued to be viewed as a significant threat by successive governments – even despite both the ideology’s relatively limited popular support amongst the general public and Whitehall’s realisation that the Communist Party of Great Britain presented little by way of a direct challenge to British political stability. Secondly, how Whitehall’s understanding of the nature and severity of the threat posed by British communism developed between the late 1940s and early ‘60s, from a problem considered mainly of importance only to civil service security practices to one which directly impacted upon the conduct of educational policy and labour relations.
    [Show full text]
  • Statement of the Alphabet Workers Union on “The Misinformation And
    Statement of the Alphabet Workers Union On “the Misinformation and Disinformation Plaguing Online Platforms” Before the House Energy and Commerce Committee March 25, 2021 March 25, 2021 Workers across Alphabet have previously organized against the company's continued refusal to take meaningful action to stop the proliferation of hate, harassment, incitement of violence, or harmful misinformation from YouTube and other Alphabet-operated platforms, without good faith engagement from leadership. Alphabet is responsible for directly contributing to harmful misinformation campaigns that fuel fascist, white nationalist and hateful movements that perpetrate violence in the United States and around the world. While much attention has been paid to YouTube and other online platforms’ role in radicalizing white supremacists, this hearing is also an opportunity to illuminate how these technologies contribute to dangerous disinformation movements including QAnon, “Patriot” militias, and anti-vaccine advocacy. (1), (2). Alphabet has demonstrated a continued policy of reactive, selective and insufficient enforcement of its guidelines against disinformation and hate. As a union that fights for, and welcomes the contributions of, every worker in Alphabet, we find it abhorrent that systems to which we have dedicated our work continue to profit from the hate and disinformation that harms so many of these same workers. (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8). Online misinformation can have real and dire consequences offline, ranging from targeted violence to vaccine hesitancy. Misinformation on Alphabet products facilitates the proliferation of hate-filled conspiracy theories, like QAnon, which has repeatedly lead to incidents of targeted violence and been deemed a domestic terror threat by the FBI. Beyond physical violence, the spread of conspiracy theories and misinformation online contributes to diffuse harms that affect those across the US and abroad, such as public health violations, lower vaccination rates, and decreased democratic participation.
    [Show full text]
  • Countering FIE Threats: Best Practices
    i Countering FIE Threats: Best Practices Effective programs to counter foreign intelligence entity (FIE) threats are focused on three overarching outcomes: Promote CI and Identify and 1. Identification of foreign intelligence threats security training assess risks to and sharing of threat information and awareness sensitive assets 2. Safeguarding of sensitive information, assets, and activities Establish Share threat programs Develop and 3. Prevention and detection of insider threats information countering implement and warnings FIE threats mitigation internally and strategies The best practices detailed in this Guide, from identifying externally and assessing risks to promoting training and awareness, are complementary program components that, when employed together, can effectively shield your organization Integrate counter-FIE efforts across the from FIE threats. organization The National Counterintelligence and Security Center (NCSC) is charged with leading and supporting the counterintelligence (CI) and security activities of the U.S. government, the U.S. Intelligence Community, and U.S. private sector entities that are at risk of intelligence collection, penetration, or attack by foreign adversaries and malicious insiders. The capabilities and activities described in this Guide are exemplars of program components delineated as requirements in numerous strategies, policies, and guidelines. This Guide is a living document and will be updated to reflect improved and innovative ways to achieve the above outcomes. In addition, organization-specific capabilities and activities may be defined and implemented to ensure unique needs are met. Finally, nothing in this document shall be construed as authorization for any organization to conduct activities not otherwise authorized under statute, executive order, or other applicable law, policy, or regulation, nor does this document obviate an organization’s responsibility to conduct activities that are otherwise mandated, directed, or recommended for execution under the same.
    [Show full text]