Puerto Vallarta Weather Report
Welcome to Puerto Vallarta's liveliest website!
Contact UsSearch
Why Vallarta?Vallarta WeddingsRestaurantsWeatherPhoto GalleriesToday's EventsMaps
Sign up NOW!

Free Newsletter!
Puerto Vallarta News NetworkEditorials | Opinions 

How Did WikiLeaks Get the Info?
email this pageprint this pageemail usGuillermo Ramón Adames y Suari - PVNN
December 12, 2010

Warning! For obvious reasons, the information in this article could only be partially verified. I present the information that I have gathered so far to draft a deeper article. I also include part of my own analysis on further consequences.

The problem here is that “inconvenient information” has seen the light. If the US government did not have anything to hide, there would be no problem.
Apparently the whole lot came through Siprnet. This security system was created in 1991 and it is used and managed by the US Department of Defense, DOD. It is well known that any information coming out of the DOD is considered “classified”: any information. Siprnet which is known to be “the” Secret Internet Protocol Router Network, stamps the material encoded with a protection stamp, the word “SIPDIS”: Siprnet Distribution.

Siprnet is an internet system completely independent from “civil” internet and it is under control and administration (including security levels authorizations and protocols) of the DOD. This system is only accessible to some 3 million Americans who have authorization to the Siprnet level of security. According to what was written in the British journal “The Guardian”, a user’s manual advised US high ranking officials to stamp with “SIPDIS” only for “Information and other messages that would be considered appropriate to be delivered to US high ranking intelligence and government officials”. It is clear that The Guardian was purposely vague about procedures of data transmission. Should they reveal the whole procedure, WikiLeaks would no longer furnish information to The Guardian. Apparently there are “other” networks for “more sensitive information”. Obviously other (also interesting) information is encoded elsewhere… Will it see the light? The mere fact of mentioning its existence could be a negotiation “argument” for all those implicated in the “cablegate”, but it is still too soon to tell.

The main mistake here was to lower the level of complexity so that SIPDIS could be massively used: On top of that when you were given the corresponding security codes (as an assistant or a secretary for example) you were able to download whatever in a working day schedule. Some top officials (and this not only valid in the US) can hardly turn on a computer. Anybody assisting such officials could have downloaded simply “any” information. But nothing is said about this. Embassies’ web pages could be consulted in almost any desk: a simple “copy paste” could have recovered almost anything.

I thought Mexico was the only country with short no memory: whatever happened in the last two Presidential terms has been completely forgotten. Even "Juanito". So now, the US is in the very same situation: it looks that the US has completely forgotten all the precautions taken during the “Cold War”. See what happens: They thought they were “above that”.

The problem here is that “inconvenient information” has seen the light. If the US government did not have anything to hide, there would be no problem. But apparently interventions with business oriented policies have moved governments and countries’ laws outside of the US. And this is what annoys (to say the least) the US government, because some of those practices are far from being respectful of the sovereignty of other countries. And the US does not know what to do about obvious Micmacs that now are written. The US government cannot shut down The Guardian, The New York Times, Der Spiegel, El Pais, Le Monde and so many others… maybe they will buy them all or wait for the sour flavor to pass by.

The second problem the US government has, is that they are illegally trying to build a legal figure to attack all people of WikiLeaks. As the US was traumatized with 9/11, these publications became “terrorist attacks”. In a country which pretends to defend human rights, the very simple fact of publishing whatever has been said or written by US officials, now it is bound to become “illegal”. So where does freedom of speech start and where does it end? This has been the questioning of very many organizations that are supporting WikiLeaks.

Guillermo Ramón Adames y Suari is a former electoral officer of the United Nations Organization. Contact him at

Click HERE to read more articles by Guillermo Adames on

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving
the included information for research and educational purposes • m3 © 2009 BanderasNews ® all rights reserved • carpe aestus