IT at the CIA

neocon writes "The current issue of the CIA's Studies in Intelligence (unclassified edition, natch) has an article on the state of IT within the CIA, titled 'Failing to Keep Up With the Information Revolution', which looks at how the agency has fared in staying up to date both with information security needs and with promising new technologies."

Comments

What the CIA needs:

[Anonymous Coward]

less technical assets, more people in the field.

Re:What the CIA needs:

[Skyshadow]

I agree that there has been way too much dependance on electronic survailance in the past couple of decades. This has left us in a uniquely bad position to deal with threats from decentralized terrorist-type outfits. That's hard to argue.

On the other hand, there's a lot more to technical assets than just spy satellites and evesdropping on phone calls. Specifically, the intelligence community needs to concentrate on technologies that will let them "know what they know", especially in the face of an exponential amount of available data.

Example: Knowing that a terrorist is about to strike and knowing who and where they are is useless if one person knows about the threat, one person knows who the terrorist is and the location is in some obscure database (which is pretty much what happened on 9-11). It's only when that information is brought together that it becomes useful.

Again, however, the CIA has dropped the ball on human assets in recent years, mostly because they (and the people who fund them) lacked the imagination to envision the new threats in the post-Soviet era. Hopefully, this is something that's being corrected as we speak.

Re:What the CIA needs:

[tha_mink]

less technical assets, more people in the field.

And you're qualified to make that assessment how exactly?

Sounds like your typical govt agency

[esconsult1]

In my experience, it seems that politics and top down systems design without allowing for filtering up of ideas -- as it typical in most large orgs -- is responsible for this state of affairs.

What makes an org nimble is when they listen to the people who actually dig the trenches. There is no difference in this case, between the CIA, and say, GM.

Re:Sounds like your typical govt agency

[ianscot]

What makes an org nimble is when they listen to the people who actually dig the trenches. There is no difference in this case, between the CIA, and say, GM.

Working in a big corporate organization, I couldn't agree more wholeheartedly. You can see a million little bureaucratic failings in something like the CIA or the FBI, and they'll remind you of stuff the senior director at your company once did. Colleen Rowley's memo read like my dang diary -- the way they wouldn't even try for a warrant except under the circumstances they were accustomed to was sooo very typical, and the subsequent promotion of the higher-up who wouldn't pursue Moussaui was dead-on corporate America.

(Makes me wonder why we talk so much about electing people who have business experience leading these enormous companies to public office... The CEO of United Airlines is as out-of-touch with the world of cause and effect as anyone out there.)

Way off base

[mental_telepathy]

As far as I can tell, the author's main concern is that the CIA is not keeping up with the private sector due to security constraints. All I can say is, thank God. Any recent security poll will tell you that corporations have multiple security incidents per year, even if they take an active interest in security. Do we really want the CIA to publish a statement saying some script kiddie is publishing the names of suspected terrorists?

Not Exactly...

[DesScorp]

"Again, however, the CIA has dropped the ball on human assets in recent years, mostly because they (and the people who fund them) lacked the imagination to envision the new threats in the post-Soviet era".

While the intelligence community did indeed have a lack of vision with post-Soviet threats, the biggest reason for the dropoff in human assets was a combonation of over-reliance on gee-whiz technologies, like satellite surveilance, and just plain El-Cheapo budgeting on the part of Congress. Basically, after 1991, the attitude was "what do we need spies for? We've got satellites now". After September 11th, when the media was ravaging the CIA for not preventing the attacks, Tom Clancy was interviewed, and his comments were right on the ball. He basically said "Look, we castrated the CIA, and now you're surprised that the agency is ineffective?". That barb was aimed especially at media members and Congressmen that were in such a hurry to save money by cutting personnel.

Re:firewall? we don't need no stinkin' firewall!

[JohnnyCannuk]

Otherwise known as "sneaker net"...

Seems better than a firewall to me. They can't hack you if you're not on the network. Isolated networks are always more secure than public ones, as long as the location they are at is physically secure and trust me, places like CSIS, CSE (our NSA) and the Mounties are VERY secure.

Besides, your "friend" could lose his job if he told you what firewall they use on their public facing networks....

not clear on the concept

[gclef]

The first part of his analysis reads very clearly like someone who didn't bother to understand the business he was advising before spouting off. (This is a common problem with consultants.)

He dismisses the security concerns that prevent a lot of technology deployment as risk elimination rather than risk management, and says that this attitude hurts IT deployment within the CIA. The thing is, he says this without understanding that the CIA's risk profile is *totally* different from a business risk profile. The CIA can not take risks that a business can, as lives, not dollars, are at stake in the work they do. Any actual security consultant who made that mistake would (should) be fired on the spot.

Granted, it sounds like his other recommendations (streamlining procurement, merging different IT groups within the CIA) are reasonable, but as a security person, that first paragraph just set me off.

Re:CIA Humint - Sigint - Remote Sensing

[fussman]

1983 Hezbollah attacks on France/US missed
1983 Marxist revolt in Granada missed
1989 Czech border reforms missed
1989 E. Germany fall missed
1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait missed
1991 Coup attempt in USSR missed
1992-94 Islamists in Somalia missed
1993 Bombing of WTC missed
1998 African Embassy bombings missed
1999 Attempt on DDG Sullivans missed
2000 Bombing of Cole missed
2001 WTC/Pentagon missed

Of course, it it always easier to look at the flaws of something rather that the strengths in the same area. How many things did they not 'miss' and actually have an unskilled civilian populace know about it?

Not a fair accounting....

[DesScorp]

Like any govermnet agency, CIA is going to screw up from time to time. But even if they had everything they wanted, they STILL couldn't be omniscient.

Part of the problem is that CIA can't publicly talk about their successes much, for fear of jeapordizing personnel or methods. And even when they DO publicly make accurate predictions, often they're ignored.

The perfect example of this happened in 1983. The CIA released a report called "Terminal Giants". It was either ignored or written off as "Reagan-esque right wing propoganda" by the media and leftist politicians. The prediction of the report? That the USSR's economy was dying because of excessive military spending, and that the Soviet Union could collapse within ten years.

Nobody believed them. And to this day, CIA still doesn't get credit for that prediction.

Re:CIA Humint - Sigint - Remote Sensing

[stratjakt]

And what happened this memorial day weekend?

What happened at the millenium celebrations?

You can only compile a list of the misses, not hits. You have absolutely no idea what they've prevented.

Re:CIA Humint - Sigint - Remote Sensing

[banzai51]

1989 Czech border reforms missed

1989 E. Germany fall missed

1991 Coup attempt in USSR missed

I don't know about the rest of the list, but those listed above were not 'missed'. The CIA was dead on in thier prediction of these events. Wether or not the leaders in charge heeded these assessments is another story.

Plus, you'll never hear of the successes. CIA foils a bomb plot, bombing never happens, thus news never covers the event. So how sure are you that the CIA is ineffective?