From WikiLeaks

October 5, 2009

By Mail Online[1]



The Ministry of Defence was left embarrassed tonight after its internal guide to preventing leaks appeared on the internet.

The Defence Manual of Security sets out tactics for preventing Chinese and Russian intelligence services from using blackmail or hi-tech gadgets to obtain sensitive information.

It also describes methods of countering the threat from 'subversive or terrorist organisations' and investigative journalists.

The three-volume, 560,000-word guide - marked 'Restricted' - was released on the Wikileaks website, which campaigns for freedom of information.

But the MoD insisted the publication did not pose 'significant security concerns' because it dates from 2001.

The document branded Chinese intelligence activity 'widespread', with a 'voracious appetite for all kinds of information'.

While China was 'at least a generation behind the West' in key military areas, it was trying to 'acquire illegally the technology that will enable them to catch up'.

'The real danger is that they will then produce advanced weapons systems which they will sell to unstable regimes,' the manual stated.

'They have a track record of doing so. The consequences for the world's trouble spots and any UK involvement there could be disastrous.'

The guide said Beijing's technique was to 'make friends' rather than 'run agents'.

'Although there are Chinese 'intelligence officers', both civilian and military, these fade into insignificance behind the mass of ordinary students, businessmen and locally employed staff who are working (at least part-time) on the orders of various parts of the State intelligence gathering apparatus.'

The Chinese were described as 'expert flatterers', who were 'well aware of the 'softening' effect of food and alcohol'.

'Under cover of consultation or lecturing, a visitor may be given favours, advantageous economic conditions or commercial opportunities.

'In return they will be expected to give information or access to material. Or, at the very least, to speak out on China's behalf (becoming an 'agent of influence').'

The document also warned that blackmail was commonly used. 'Sexual involvement should be avoided, as should any activity which can possible be construed as illegal,' it said.

'This would include dealing in black market currency or Chinese antiques and artefacts, straying into 'forbidden' areas or injudicious use of a camera or video recorder.'

On the Russian intelligence threat, the manual insisted: 'We know it sounds like a spy movie, but as well as having wide networks of agents and informers, the FSB (Russian security service) makes extensive use of sophisticated technical devices.

'In the main hotels all telephones can be tapped and in some rooms visual or photographic surveillance can be carried out, if necessary using infrared cameras to take photographs in the dark.

'It is perfectly possible for the FSB to ensure that the visitor is placed in such a room. There is also a wide range of technical devices, which can be used outside and even in places such as restaurants and cars.

'These technical devices pick up indiscreet talk which could be of use to the FSB.'

The guide highlighted investigative journalists as a threat, alongside terrorist groups and curious members of the public.

'The consequences of leaks of official information are considered serious when they undermine government policy or cause embarrassment to the government,' it stated.

According to the manual, threats to security of official information were 'less likely to arise from positive acts of counter-espionage, than from leakage of information through disaffected members of staff, or as a result of the attentions of an investigative journalist, or simply by accident or carelessness'.

A MoD spokeswoman said: 'We can confirm that the Wikileaks website has published an old version of the Defence Manual of Security (Joint Service Protocol 440) dating from 2001.

'The document is marked Restricted as current MoD policy is to keep our security policies and procedures private but the publication of an old version of this document does not raise significant security concerns.'





As published in Mail Online. Thanks to Mail Online for covering this material. Copyright remains with the aforementioned.