Spy Agencies Turn To Online Sources For Info 140
palegray.net sends us to US News and World Report for an article about increased spy agency use of online sources. Turning to well-known destinations such as NPR and Wikipedia, folks in the intelligence world are increasingly filling their reports with information gleaned from the public domain. "A few days ago, a senior officer at the Pentagon called his intelligence officer into his office. The boss had heard a news report about China while driving to his office and wanted some answers. It wasn't a tough assignment, given the news coverage, but there was a hitch. 'There was plenty of information in the public domain about the topic,' recalls the intelligence officer, a 10-year veteran. 'And yet, if there wasn't some classified information cited in my report, the boss would never believe it was accurate.'"
No new news (Score:5, Interesting)
This is not news. Intelligence gathering has been from two types of operations. Covert is the stuff spy movies are made of with wire taps, break-ins, etc. Less glamorous is the overt gathering of info which is still a huge part of any intelligence operation. This is classic observation of publicly exposed information. Overt intelligence is still kept under wraps as it is not a good idea to reveal just what you are looking for.
Overt intelligence includes reading local newspapers, picking up over the air radio traffic, including encrypted (who and how much traffic is important even without breaking the code) and simply watching train, ship, truck traffic. A train load of military vehicles doesn't need covert operations to notice. The fact you noticed is often classified. A fishing boat using lots of encrypted radio traffic is of interest for example, but watching ports and keeping track of where it visits is an overt operation, but what is found out is kept under wraps from the public for good reason.
Watching train watchers, and other sets of eyes online is the only new angle in addition to picking up local newspapers and watching trains arrive and leave. It saves on manpower and may pick up something of interest.
Understanding what happened to the nuclear core of the Trogan Nuclear plant does not require covert ops to know the core was loaded on a boat and shipped up the Columbia River. If it headed out to sea instead, it would have been noticed without covert ops.
Re:How naive can people get? (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually one of the more interesting bits i've run into concerning modern espionage is based exactly on what you're describing there. Between the restrictions on covert operatives and the restrictions on us "officials and ambassadors" usually the actual black-mask stuff is outsourced to a foreign power. This allows the US to state they did not authorize whatever it was, deny that their agents had anything to do with it (carefully), and also show that they didn't break the statute that US officials and ambassadors cannot bribe foreign nationals.
Funny thing is, all that takes is getting someone else to do the actual spying/bribing. Also interesting, it's thanks to this exact situation that is why canada has some of the best covert ops and communications interceptions people in the world.
Re:incompetence (Score:1, Interesting)
Correct.
With military intelligence, you you have 4+ different groups. Without any of them, the unit fails it's mission.
Collection
Analysis
Communications
Support
I say 4+ because you may also have Dissemination, and support, the largest group, can be broken down even further:
Command
Supply - (Food, Ammo, Equipment, Transportation, Mail, Parts....)
Maintenance - (Basic Equipment, Vehicle, Collection Equipment....)
Your intelligence unit may also have electronic warfare capabilities thrown in to boot. Yep, not only do those units collect the info, the also disrupt hostile communications, broadcast propaganda....
I was an electronics tech that got to fix a lot of the toys.
Re:How naive can people get? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:How naive can people get? (Score:4, Interesting)
Sometimes laws need to be broken.
(Before the mods get snarky - look at copyright and patent laws.)
The very idea of covert acts means, generally, violations of someone's laws.
I see this sort of stuff on /. all the time and, well, I guess I'm old. One minute we'll sit here and yell that information wants to be free. The next minute we'll sit here and yell that our private data must remain private when we just got done saying that all information wants to be free.
It just doesn't hold up. I have been just as guilty of this.
I think it is my military (Marines) background that triggers it on conversations like this. There are times and places where the law must be broken. It is against the Geneva Convention to use a shotgun in combat. If I am in combat and the only weapon I have available is a shotgun then, yeah, fuck that convention.
Am I attempting to justify the acts of corrupt officials? No. When a person in power fails I think they should be held to higher punitive damages than your average citizen simply due to the fact that they were an officiate. But, and here's the kicker, I think that there are times when extreme actions must be taken for the benefit of society as a whole. I'd suggest watching a really retarded example of this to see where I am coming from. Download, buy, rent the movie, 'Remo Williams, The Adventure Begins.'
"Would you watch your child die in a house fire or attempt to rescue your child knowing that you will die in the attempt?" If you answer that you will attempt to rescue your child in hopes that the slim chance will allow them to live and you to die or both of you to live then welcome to the human race. If you answer with the choice to watch your child then congratulations, you will make a good leader.
Just so you know, I am of the 'attempt to rescue my child' group so I have my doubts as to how well I'd lead. Sometimes I lie to myself and think I'd do the logical thing that minimized risk while maintaining my ability to continue to procreate and further the human race but, really, I don't know and suspect I'd try to rescue my child.
As an aside, I think the majority of our current crop of elected officials in the United States of America are from a separate group, those who are cowards and would not make a choice but would hide and, well, do nothing.
There are times when violating a law is a requirement for a variety of reasons. Civil Rights leaders accomplished a great deal by encouraging people to disobey the laws that they felt were unjust. In *my* state you are ENTITLED to drive as fast as you would like if you are an elected representative and are not on time for the assembly. On the other hand, if you are too slow in getting there, they can and will send out the state police to get your ass to the assembly via escort.
There is a time and place to allow people to violate the law. Some laws are just fucking stupid. I think that in ALL cases of law violation the matter should be judged effectively and without bias while looking to ensure the greater good for the society as a whole.
The above paragraph's words were chosen carefully. Many people think that their societal rules should apply to the world in general and I think that ruins cultural diversity. I say "the society" because our views don't represent that of the world. The majority of the world lives in what we would view as a repressed state. If we were a democracy, world wide, we would be in the minority. That should probably clue people in as to how skewed our thinking is. To me, if a society has chosen to treat women as second class citizens, use slaves, or force something we consider inhumane on their citizens it is not our place to judge them as long as they keep what they believe within the confines of their spaces. We, as a Western Culture, have decided that our views are the only acceptable positions. We here on slashdot have taken that a step further and decided that our small segment of views (and we can't agree on them) is the on
Re:How naive can people get? (Score:4, Interesting)
No. The General who made the choice to obey orders does not ever need to be in front of the public explaining his choice. He follows the Commander In Chief. He follows orders and so long as he was following those orders (and he damned well better except in circumstances we've NEVER seen as a human species) he never needs to defend his actions.
That doesn't mean that he is unaccountable for information. When the dust settles he had also better be able to damned well tell you who he got his orders from. More important than anything else they, those in power, should be able to explain HOW there was a benefit to the war or to society in general by their acts. Rather than animosity they should be encouraged to speak.
I'm guessing you have no military experience and no combat experience? I, on the other hand, will die and kill to protect you if need be. This doesn't mean I ACCEPT our current actions across the globe, just my personal feelings. In fact, for the most part, I agree that what you are saying makes sense.
The problem with making sense is that those things are most likely all already covered in the law. Altering the law to suit the circumstances is, in my opinion, a bad idea.
Here, I have a way to save a metric fuckton of gasoline. Take out all stop signs and all red lights except where there is evidence to show that they are absolutely needed. The gas saved from a rolling stop will save a fortune. I can back this up with math.
Is this a law that I need to break to get my point across? Probably not.
We already have the laws and *should* strive to live within them. New or additional laws tend to suck. If you can get and pass a law that says all you entail or think then I applaud you.
A huge part of my mentality comes from being a Marine. I don't support Bush one bit but if I were ORDERED to serve I would do so without question. I consider that a failing on my part.