Disinfo is a complicated topic, and it's not easy to know for sure when it is occurring; if it was easy to tell then it wouldn't be very effective disinfo.
For all its admirable reputation RAND continues to be a forum for disinformation of high quality. This follows from its classified work and the cross- contamination of its unclassified output. But this is true of all persons and institutions which provide both classified and unclassified products. For a goodly part of the reputation of such actors is derived from their classified work and the imputation of value of unclassified stuff due to access to classified information. Contrarily, one can argue, that anybody who has access to classified material cannot be trusted for their unclassified work. David Kahn made such an argument when he refused to sign a confidentiality agreement for NSA in order to have access to classified archives. According to Kahn he was the first to refuse that faustian arrangement (pun intended, Faustine). Instead he sat at a desk outside the classified archives and worked only with material that did not require an NDA, doing so, he said, in order to help assure reader trust of his work. Kahn's right, and admirably so, for once you get access to classified material you are doomed to be distrusted outside the secret world. Too much lying has been done by those who have access for anybody with access to ever be trusted, which, no doubt, is the intention of those who believe in privileged information. You are either in or out, no mercy from either side, as Faust knew. To be blunt, no official can be trusted, period, nor can any of their contractors who have agreed to abide the official rules. Which, as oft stated here, includes all state-empowered and privilieged professionals, from architects to lawyers to doctors to priests to acupuncturists, and not least, journalists who may pretend to authorize themselves but behave in accord with the rules of their privileged publishers.
