Slashdot Mirror
Internet Searches Reveal CIA's Secrets
GabrielF writes "In another blow to the reputation of the agency that just can't seem to get anything right, the Chicago Tribune used web searches and various commercial online databases to uncover a treasure trove of information about the CIA. The Tribune found the identities of over 2600 CIA employees (including an undisclosed number of covert operatives) as well as the locations of over two dozen CIA facilities across the U.S., internal telephone numbers, and information on 17 aircraft."
Don't worry, damage control is by default in effect as most people won't bother registering with the Chicago Tribune's website to read the story. ;)
Stuck down a hole! In the middle of the night! With an owl!
But how are they sure it's not disinformation setup by these organizations to throw people off the trail? I don't have much faith in our government, but I don't think the Intelligence Agencies are that stupid.
Only Women Bleed (Sex, Sharia remix)
What the hell happened to the spy agency? CIA Agents now chat away on unsecure cell phones, check into foreign hotels using GSAs (US gov't issued credit cards), and leak every other intelligence briefing to the press. They might as well start a group on MySpace and issue bumper stickers and T shirts. The fact that Google can catch sensitive information means these guys have failed the test of keeping our government's secrets secure.
Any fool can criticise, condemn, and complain, and most fools do. - Benjamin Franklin
The CIA is changing. Give them time.
... complicated, and often the left hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing. Its the nature of the beast it's riding. (well, technically, it's in the belly of the beast, or perhaps the cloaca if you are HQ)
o r-credible/
m l).
The following article explains some of the issues behind the Tribune article
http://www.tpmcafe.com/node/26366
The agency is
I have no doubt Goss is horrified. He just took over the CIA, and what GS manager would enjoy an outsider showing him a clear look at his department? And Goss hasn't had a chance ot fix things yet. THat is, if that's his goal...with the CIA, who knows?
By the way, didn't Goss inherit an agency that was once run by George Bush? It would explain a lot.
The CIA has other problems as well. The worse is that it facing some competition from private firms like StratFor(sorta like the US Post Office and Federal Express). It can't be much fun to be a world famous secret agency and having to explain to the Intelligence committee why you are being scooped by some small company in Austin,
For those of you who haven't heard of it, StratFor (http://www.stratfor.com/) is a private intelligence firm, with several hundred thousand customers, that is the CIA for multinationals and private individuals. It is considered somewhat more accurate than the CIA. http://seekerblog.com/archives/20050313/is-stratf
Hmm.. if the CIA is getting rid of people, that means they are hiring. I would like to apply as an intelligence analyst, or maybe an In Tel Q VC... (There is a rumor the easiest way to apply for a job with the CIA is write in on your computer and wait for ADVISE to pick it up. http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0209/p01s02-uspo.ht
... The Tribune has suddenly vanished without a trace. The offices are scrubbed clean, the files are empty, and there's a For Lease sign up by the building management company.
... Hundreds of families across Illinois have filed new missing persons reports this month, a drastic rise from the usual numbers. Oddly, a high percentage of the newly missing persons seem to have worked for the Chicago Tribune.
---- I'm out of your mind!
The Gestapo had a secret branch whose facilities were not well known. They were, in fact, secret.
There was also a secret police not allied with the Gestapo, because the watchers needed to be afraid of someone as well. These were completely secret police who answered only to Hitler and/or Goering.
Yes, the Gestapo also had a public facing branch, if only because in order to rat out your neighbor you needed someplace to go to do it.
Perhaps the CIA, rather than being remiss in their duties for having a publicly accessable branch, actually have some clue as to what they are doing by having offices and phones that the general public are perfectly aware of.
And, of course, in America, the people watching the watchers are supposed to be "The People."
KFG
The above link is just plain wrong. If you bother to do your homework, and look at the recent book "The osama Bin Ladin I know" which was hardly written by a friend of the Bush administration the leading authority on Bin Ladin, Peter Bergan, completly debunks this particular liberal wet dream.
Not that they guy we ended up supporting (because the pakastani's supported him) was that much better, but please remember that Bin Ladin was first and foremost a financer during the Afgani conflict... He was there because he had jihad money in the first place.
You may now return to your regularly scheduled group-think
The article puts up some big numbers, but lest we forget a few things:
- The CIA is a BIG organization - it needs support personnel, etc. and they are not likely to ALL be undercover. Maintaining cover on accountants and receptionists would certainly be a big waste of resources.
- Most CIA positions are not undercover, including most analysts
The article admits a lot of this halfway down: "Not all of the 2,653 employees whose names were produced by the Tribune search are supposed to be working under cover. More than 160 are intelligence analysts, an occupation that is not considered a covert position, and senior CIA executives such as Tenet are included on the list."
So, in other words, the Tribune puts up a big number that is supposed to be shocking and then, after most people stop reading, admits it's not really that big a deal. The article does state, however:
"But an undisclosed number of those on the list--the CIA would not say how many--are covert employees, and some are known to hold jobs that could make them terrorist targets."
There must be at least one - given the example at the top of the article - but no one says how many. The discovery that 26 people are working at Camp Peary (AKA - "The Farm" of "The Recruit" fame) is equally unimpressive, as SOMEONE must work there for support staff, and the 26 individuals discovered are likely to be support staff, not trainers. The 17 aircraft aren't particularly interesting, either, as the CIA likely operates many aircraft openly. Big organizations like the CIA cannot maintain cover on EVERYTHING, nor do they try to, as this report implies
I'm of the opinion that this article boils down to the following:
- The Chicago Tribune tooting its own horn
- A cheap jab at Bush, which seems to represent "objective" journalism these days
- Sensationalist journalism - they put up big numbers, but those numbers are unlikely to actually mean anything
Many have jokingly said, "move along, nothing to see here". To be honest, I think those statements are accurate.
- Both agents were doing everything but keeping a low profile in the days before the evacuation of the German Embassy in Iraq. Apparently they had no problems mingling with the press.
- Both had websites with pictures of their current postings. For example, one guy showed himself with his family at his new post in Australia.
- Their websites had guestbooks. Other agents left "well concealed" messages on there. For example, one post ended with "greetings from Pullach". The CIA equivalent of that would be "greetings from Langley".
Pretty bad...