Talk:State Intelligence Agency (Indonesia)

earlier comment

If you wade through this, it is clearly an editorial, not a N-POV article. ...It is beyond cleaning up. 67.70.2.2 16:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)Craig

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Indonesian State Intelligence Agency. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051120094845/http://www.thejakartapost.com:80/yesterdaydetail.asp?fileid=20041215.A01 to http://www.thejakartapost.com/yesterdaydetail.asp?fileid=20041215.A01

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Indonesian State Intelligence Agency. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111022024843/http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2011/10/18/intelligence-chief-be-optimistic-after-health-check.html to http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2011/10/18/intelligence-chief-be-optimistic-after-health-check.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:43, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

General presentation

The organizational structure is way too long, filling most of the content, which is a kind of Undue Weight. I suggest listing only to the level of Bureau and Deputy, with no further depth. Anyone who wants more details can go to the official BIN web site.

Also, considering that the Christian Science Monitor article about expansion "alarming reformers" is cited in the lede, there is clearly a need for a Criticisms or Controversies section to solidify NPOV. I'm not qualified to create that content, though. Martindo (talk) 00:10, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Cut a big chunk of the organizational structure, but would appreciate someone else looking at it to see if typical reader actually needs the amount of detail retained. Alternative: split into a separate page. Martindo (talk) 01:36, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Suggested changes to Activities

In sequence as shown on the page at this moment in time:

1. Onta 1973 -- cut entirely. Nothing substantial was accomplished. Saying "never found important information" does not indicate the value of BIN in Indonesia's security.
2. Spies 1982 -- this is a clear accomplishment, needs cleanup though.
3. Tim Tim 1998 -- add a sentence to explain a little more.
4. Allegations 2002 -- sounds like TWO events: false reports to DPR plus Australian meddling, so split into two separate items.
5. SAT-81 in 2002 -- a solid accomplishment, but add a sentence about al-Faruq so readers can see significance immediately.
6. Australia 2004 -- spying/recruiting is routine among countries, cut this unless notability can be clearly shown.
7. Funding 2005 -- significant but add a sentence to explain context of suspension/restart of US training/aid.
8. Munir assassination -- add date of his trip as well as its purpose (to present evidence at a conference).
9. BKPM 2015 -- cite a specific example of "stymie" and explain why BIN should be involved in investment decisions.
10. Militants 2020 -- update if necessary.
11. Covid vaccination -- cited article refers only to 1 district (within Banten), so cut item because it's not a national effort (many organizations were involved in expanding vaccination coverage, nothing notable about BIN helping in a single distrct).
12. Taliban 2021 -- clarify, because it sounds as much like an alliance as a preventive action.
13. CAR report 2022 -- looks like a rumor, cut item until more definitive information can be obtained. Martindo (talk) 00:33, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

To summarize:

Cut #1, 6, 11, 13

Split #4 into two items

Move #3, 4, 7, 8, 9 to a new Controversies section, add #13 if Reliable Sources can be found to confirm the rumor

Martindo (talk) 00:40, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea... I will follow up and edit the article anytime soon. Ckfasdf (talk) 07:57, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi protection

Can we put this page as indefinitely semi protected for auto confirmed users, every few months an anonymous user reverses the improvements, there's precedent when @Daniel Case put it that way temporarily when @Ckfasdf had the same problem with the user or groups of users who disrupt this page Technetium 99m (talk) 02:26, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 04:10, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much, really appreciate it Technetium 99m (talk) 15:56, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

First Wap

Refer to the recent edit by Terisius that adds First Wap material to the BIN article. I disagree with this addition because none of the sources provided explicitly state that BIN was a client or user of First Wap. Mother Jones, the only source that mentions Indonesia as customer, does so only at a general country level and does not name any Indonesian intelligence body. The argument in the edit summary that BIN can be included because it is one of Indonesia's intelligence agencies is flawed. This is based on assumption and possibility, not on what the sources actually say. Under WP:V, content must be directly verifiable, and drawing conclusions beyond the sources is original research (WP:OR). For this reason, the addition should not be included in the BIN article. Lastly, this addition is better included, or may already be included, in the First Wap article rather than in the BIN article. Ckfasdf (talk) 13:41, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

It is clearly stated in the source that Indonesia is the client and is used to spy on Indonesian activists both at home and abroad. Of course, this is done by the Indonesian intelligence agency and BIN is one of the Indonesian intelligence agency, so it is not wrong if BIN is included as one of the users. Terisius (talk) 14:01, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

I think you didn't read my comment above, so I'll reiterate. None of the sources given explicitly state that BIN was a client or user of First Wap. While Mother Jones mentions Indonesia as customer, it does not name any Indonesian intelligence agency, nor does it say that BIN conducted surveillance using this technology. Jumping from "Indonesia" to "BIN" is an assumption. Indonesia has multiple intelligence agencies, and the sources do not identify which, if any, were involved.

Under WP:V, claims must be directly supported by reliable sources. Linking BIN's involvement to just Indonesia mention is original research and should not be included. Ckfasdf (talk) 14:16, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Attribution to BIN is a reasonable institutional inference, not (WP:OR)

Wikipedia policy does not prohibit all inference, only novel analytical conclusions.

In this case: The source explicitly states Indonesia used First Wap spyware to surveil activists domestically and abroad. Surveillance of activists, especially abroad, falls squarely within intelligence functions, not civilian law-enforcement. Then it is not reasonable to suggest a non-intelligence body was responsible. Under WP:DUE, it is reasonable to mention BIN as a likely or primary user with careful wording, e.g.:

“According to investigative reporting, Indonesia used First Wap spyware against activists; analysts note this would fall under the remit of agencies such as BIN.” Terisius (talk) 14:36, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

@Terisius: WP:SYNTH explicitly says: Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. Lighthouse Reports and its reporting partners state that First Wap's Altamides system has been used to track and surveil individuals worldwide, including journalists, activists, diplomats, and others. Lighthouse Reports, Mother Jones, and Le Monde also state that this surveillance technology has been marketed and sold to governments and state actors. Mother Jones separately lists customer governments at a country level, including Indonesia, based on documents and interviews with former employees.

However, none of these sources link the surveillance described to Indonesia, and none name BIN or any other Indonesian intelligence agency. Attributing such activities to Indonesia or to BIN by combining these points goes beyond what the sources state and constitutes original research. WP policy requires claims to be directly supported by reliable sources, which is not the case here. Ckfasdf (talk) 02:33, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Terisius (talk) 02:49, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH prohibits editors from combining sources to assert a new factual claim that is not supported by any source. It does not prohibit contextual attribution where:One source establishes that Indonesia is a customer of First Wap, and Multiple investigative sources establish that the product is used for intelligence-grade surveillance, and BIN is Indonesia’s legally mandated civilian intelligence agency responsible for such activities. No new fact is being invented. The article does not need to claim that BIN definitively conducted a specific surveillance operation. It only needs to contextualize Indonesia’s documented procurement of spyware within the structure of its intelligence apparatus. This is consistent with Wikipedia’s longstanding practice in intelligence-related articles. If that standard were applied universally, Wikipedia could not:

Attribute US intelligence actions when sources say “the US government”

Attribute Russia Intelligence actions when sources say “Russian authorities”

Attribute china intelligence actions when sources say “China”

Yet Wikipedia routinely does so when attribution aligns with legal mandate and institutional role. Terisius (talk) 02:51, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

@Terisius: WP does not allow "contextual attribution" that points to a specific subject, a particular agency in this case, unless RS explicitly do so. Under WP:OR, original research includes any analysis or synthesis that reaches a conclusion not stated by the sources, a practice that WP:SYNTH specifically forbids. In this instance, the "contextual attribution" functions as follows: Source A identifies Indonesia as a customer, and Source B states the product is used for intelligence-grade surveillance. An editor then concludes that BIN must be the user. Because that conclusion is not stated by any source, it is an editorial synthesis.

Arguments based on how other articles are written are not decisive. As per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST, the existence of similar attributions elsewhere does not justify adding unsourced or weakly sourced material here, as each claim must stand on its own sourcing. Regardless of practices in other intelligence-related articles, WP:V requires attribution to be supported by reliable sources, and since no source explicitly names BIN, comparisons to how other articles handle country-level references are not sufficient to justify this addition. Ckfasdf (talk) 04:51, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

WP:OR prohibits editors from asserting new facts or new causal claims not stated in the sources. It does not prohibit editors from providing descriptive institutional context when that context is independently verifiable and does not add a new claim of action. In this case, the proposed wording does not need to state or imply that BIN carried out specific surveillance operations described by Lighthouse Reports. Instead, it can state two sourced facts: Reliable sources identify Indonesia as a customer of First Wap spyware. BIN is Indonesia’s primary civilian intelligence agency with statutory responsibility for domestic and foreign intelligence (sourced independently).

Placing these facts in the same article does not create a new conclusion unless the text asserts that BIN definitively used the spyware. Merely noting that such capabilities fall within BIN’s remit is descriptive, not inferential.

WP:SYNTH is about claims, not proximity WP:SYNTH forbids combining sources to state or imply a claim that none of the sources make. It does not forbid presenting multiple sourced facts in proximity when no additional claim is asserted.

A prohibited synthesis would be:

“BIN used First Wap spyware to surveil activists.”

A permissible, policy-compliant statement would be:

“Indonesia has been identified as a customer of First Wap spyware; such surveillance capabilities fall within the remit of Indonesian intelligence agencies, including BIN.”

The latter does not conclude usage, responsibility, or operational involvement. It merely contextualizes the capability within the intelligence structure. No new fact is created.

WP:OR does not bar institutional relevance.

Under WP:OR, “analysis” becomes original research only when it adds a claim not present in sources. Identifying BIN as Indonesia’s intelligence agency is not analysis—it is a basic, independently sourced fact.

The objection assumes that mentioning BIN automatically asserts culpability or usage. That is a reading issue, not a sourcing issue, and can be resolved through careful wording rather than exclusion.

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST is not being relied upon as justification. The counter-argument does not depend on “other articles do this.” Those examples illustrate how Wikipedia distinguishes between:

Asserting actions (which require explicit sourcing), and Providing institutional context (which does not).

Each claim still stands on its own sourcing:

Indonesia as a customer → sourced

BIN’s intelligence mandate → sourced

No claim of BIN operational use → therefore no violation of WP:V and

Exclusion is not the only policy-compliant option.

Ckfasdf’s argument treats exclusion as the only way to comply with WP:V, but policy does not require that.

When sources establish state-level procurement of intelligence tools, it is reasonable to mention this in the article about the state’s primary intelligence agency, provided the wording avoids asserting unverified agency-level action.

Removing all mention from the BIN article is a content decision, not a policy necessity.

WP:OR and WP:SYNTH prohibit unsourced claims, not sourced context.

As long as the text does not assert that BIN conducted the surveillance described, mentioning Indonesia’s documented spyware procurement in the BIN article—clearly and cautiously worded—does not violate policy. The issue is phrasing, not inclusion. Terisius (talk) 13:40, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

I disagree that this is merely "descriptive institutional context". Including this material in the BIN article, even with careful wording, creates an implied association between BIN and the spyware that is not directly supported by any source and conflicts with WP:OR/ WP:SYNTH.

Sourcing supports mentioning Indonesia as a customer in the First Wap article, but it does not support inclusion in the BIN article without a source explicitly linking BIN to the procurement or use. At this point, I don't think this discussion is making further progress, so I may go to WP:DR. Ckfasdf (talk) 23:11, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

 RESPONSE TO THIRD OPINION REQUEST

---

Ckfasdf and Terisius - Attributing use to the BIN is absolutely improper synthesis and/or original research. "One source establishes that Indonesia is a customer of First Wap, and Multiple investigative sources establish that the product is used for intelligence-grade surveillance, and BIN is Indonesia’s legally mandated civilian intelligence agency responsible for such activities." This is blatant OR. Sourcing (currently) supports "Indonesia" as a customer. At most, I believe "government of Indonesia" or "Indonesian government" would be acceptable, and even that is stretching it.

Secondly, if someone happens to be utilizing an LLM to write/build their arguments, I suggest they stop, as it is obvious and not appropriate. We want to hear your thoughts, not an LLM's "thoughts." LLMs cannot interpret Wikipedia policy appropriately, full-stop. It is also the ultimate yes-man and will generally construct its argument around the contention that you are correct even when you are not. Please see WP:LLMCHAT.

Lastly, telling someone they lack reading comprehension — no matter how politely one does it, e.g. ("[t]hat is a reading issue, not a sourcing issue[...]") — is not appropriate. Please refrain from personal attacks and it is best-practice to assume intelligence.

In other words; Provide a source which states the BIN utilizes First Wap or refrain from making such a claim. MWFwiki (talk) 01:50, 22 January 2026 (UTC)