Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

CIA Shows Off (Formerly) Super-Secret Spy Goodies

Posted by timothy on from the gov't-spy-porn->-gov't-cheese dept.

Velcroman1 writes "Last week, [the CIA] launched a revamped website with links to YouTube and Flickr containing Agency historical videos and picture galleries. 'The idea behind these improvements is to make more information about the agency available to more people, more easily,' Director Panetta said in a statement. 'The CIA wants the American people and the world to understand its mission and its vital role in keeping our country safe.' In terms of pure coolness the Flickr stream takes the cake — including never-before-seen gallery of special agent supergadgets."

100 comments

  1. Top Secret by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    This first post will self destruct in 10 seconds

  2. Congratulations by RLiegh · · Score: 4, Funny

    Everyone whose viewed those pictures and videos is now on a watch list.
    Along with those who didn't.

    1. Re:Congratulations by FriendlyLurker · · Score: 4, Informative

      'The CIA wants the American people and the world to understand its mission and its vital role in keeping our country safe.'

      The CIA is trying to regain some credibility/reputation which has rapidly gone downhill since the Iraq war. News and leaks from Wikileaks and other sources keeps throwing their smelly shit into the fan for all to see. It seems to be nearly every day now we hear of a new scandal, or some gross misuse of our taxpayers funds. But never fear, they have a plan: Apart from this new "Spy goodies" for geeks section to woo us with pretty trinkets, they have also thought of the children - adding games and quizzes to their website - helping them become your all American family-friendly organization again. Further, soon there will be no more bad news thanks to the CIA teaming up with the Democrats to clean out those with faulty moral compasses - so we can all live safe and ignorant again.

    2. Re:Congratulations by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Don't forget their total miss on what just happened in Egypt. Their 'intelligence' during it seemed to be based on watching CNN.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    3. Re:Congratulations by Kokuyo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What makes you believe that the info the CIA shares in meetings neither you nor I are invited to is the very same you and I get to see from them?

    4. Re:Congratulations by ciderbrew · · Score: 1

      monitor coffee, coffee monitor. I like a formal introduction.

    5. Re:Congratulations by FuckingNickName · · Score: 1

      The CIA answers to the government, not to the people. Its business is information, true or false. If making the CIA look like abunch of bumbling idiots while it's actually full of ruthless, effective bastards is what keeps the government happy (and the CIA in business), then that's the impression the CIA will be happy to give. Why would a bunch of unaccountable unstoppables care if occasionally the finger is pointed at them?

    6. Re:Congratulations by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 1

      The presidential thank-you notes are probably for the cool toys alone.

      Some very cool toys.

    7. Re:Congratulations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The CIA answers to the government, not to the people ..."

      You seem to have forgotten the part where the government answers to
      the people. Perhaps you ought to sit down with a history book
      and read about what happened during the latter part of the US involvement in
      Viet Nam.

    8. Re:Congratulations by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 0

      No, actually, the CIA answers to the US Chamber of Commerce.

      You think politicians are allowed to get in the way of profits? Grow up dude!

      The politicians answer to the CIA, ever since they got all of them in bed with someone underage, or of a different species. The internal spying by Cheney and the NSA, the Poker and Prostitutes at the Watergate Hotel, the Catholic Church -- I mean, connect a few dots. Has ANYONE with money been hurt at all by a public hearing by the Senate or Congress in the past 10 years? Someone lost a few trillion at the Fed, Pentagon, and well, no suspects. Of course, the suspects all get to run the Fed after we discover, nothing is going on at Goldman Sachs. If you pinch a loaf of bread at the Grocery store, however, there are 20 cameras between the supermarket and your home that you will have to hack into and replace with looped video.

      All the politicians allowed to remain in office, are allowed to stay as long as they play ball, or else some press agency gets an envelope, and you learn TOO MUCH about that politician. Or they don't fly on small planes -- EVER.

      However, the people they cannot corrupt, like Dennis Kucinich, just get something in their drink one day that makes them totally paranoid and crazy. Just look at Ross Perot, who was sane for a good bit of time before Bush spiked his punch. Any failed anti-depressant in a large dosage can easily warp the strongest mind.

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    9. Re:Congratulations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The CNN has been the main source of the Al Qaeda plot and conspiracy information for the CIA for some time already.

    10. Re:Congratulations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well it wasn't all Wikileaks (although I'm not certain, I haven't been paying that much attention), but one former official from Libya claims (after resigning his position and asking for amnesty and immunity), that Kadaffi personally organized the terrorist attack on Pan Am Flight 103 killing 270 people over Lockerbie Scotland. I don't remember Wikileaks leaking that. It gives (yet more) people a reason to want Kadaffi gone (Ronald Ray-Gun called him a mad dog, and I feel at ease when finding common ground with the former US president, certainly his 'trickle-down' economics were a miserable failure, but I digress). I suppose the issue was that no one leaked anything to Wikileaks from Libya, otherwise it would have been leaked there.

    11. Re:Congratulations by Phoghat · · Score: 1
      Totally agree. I'm calling shenanigans on this BS. It smacks too much of:

      Cue James Bond Theme:

      Do you expect me to talk? No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to die! Besides, there is nothing you could possibly tell me that I don’t already know.

      Look at us, here's the stuff we're letting you see so you wonder about the stuff You Can't See

      Then there's (FTFA) that flying insect robot from the 70s and I just saw on /. and a lot of other sites this hummingbird that I wouldn't mind playing with myself. (Coming out this year before the holidays from Wowee ?)

      --
      Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
  3. Yes, trust us. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    After all, we're kinder, gentler spies. /sarcasm

    1. Re:Yes, trust us. by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

      We won, so we can claim our spies were nice and didn't harm anyone!

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
    2. Re:Yes, trust us. by Hadlock · · Score: 0

      Oh, so you want to see how we've been spending that $80 billion a year on a disproportionately minuscule staff and lack of effectiveness in world politics? You want to actually see what benefits you've gotten for your money since the end of the cold war? Look over here! Check out these neato toys! Ignore our ridiculous budget! Please don't cut our budget! We've become too accustomed to this cushy lifestyle to change!

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    3. Re:Yes, trust us. by h00manist · · Score: 1

      We won, so we can claim our spies were nice and didn't harm anyone!

      As of today, that's true. History goes on being written. Capitalism is entering crisis, too. When both socialism and capitalism are completely discredited, maybe we will have some better quality debate how to distribute labor, social decision making, and rewards/benefits.

      --
      Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
    4. Re:Yes, trust us. by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      some better quality debate how to distribute labor, social decision making, and rewards/benefits.

      How would YOU propose distribution? I guarantee you that whatever method or means you generate will have critical flaws in it, that smart people who will game the system to exploit those flaws to gain an "unfair" advantage. It is, and always will be the case.

      Socialism fails because it assumes people will try hard(er) for no more reward, and won't work less because they are lazy. Capitalism fails because is seen as cruel and heartless(It is, btw).

      I'm just curious what kind of system you'd set up that perfectly accounts for limited resources and social decision making that doesn't incorporate the flaws of either of those two economic systems.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    5. Re:Yes, trust us. by ballwall · · Score: 1

      Maybe there should be a limit to capitalism. For example, tax 100% of income over, say, $5M/year. That way you still have incentive to work hard, but you have to think long term. Screwing over a bunch of people to get $100M right now won't help you. You need to create something sustainable that will generate income over a lifetime.

    6. Re:Yes, trust us. by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Problem: Who decides how much is too much? Why $100M? Why not $1M? Why not $250K? How would you figure Stock bonuses and growth in stock value, say like Steve Jobs who gets payed $1 year salary, and everything else is stock options and such? How do you value that?

      It sounds great and wonderful on paper. Like the internet, artificial restrictions are viewed by the system as being "broken" and routes around it.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    7. Re:Yes, trust us. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      perhaps some combination or compromise thought up by a slightly larger group than some lone slashdotter?

    8. Re:Yes, trust us. by martyros · · Score: 1

      It is, and always will be the case.

      Wait, are you saying that distribution of labour, social decision making, and rewards / benefits have always been exactly as well made / fair / just / optimal / whatever as they are now -- from the Roman empire, the Middle Ages, Feudalism, &c until now?

      If not, and if socialism and capitalism are better than feudalism (for some definition of "better"), are you saying that current socialist and capitalist societies have come to respective local optimums, and can't be made any better?

      If not, then we should keep looking for what's better yet. I realize that there aren't really compelling alternatives out there ATM; but it sounds like you're giving up, and saying we've gotten as good as we're ever going to get. I don't think we're anywhere near there yet.

      --

      TCP: Why the Internet is full of SYN.

    9. Re:Yes, trust us. by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 0

      The BIG PROBLEMS in this world, are pretty easy to solve.

      What takes all the work, is trying to create these problems, and make them seem impossible to solve. Our military, and CIA, and the Secret Services of other nations we compete with -- spend most of their time, making the world full of conflict, so the status quo of a few rich people making huge profits can be maintained.

      We could have gotten off of oil a decade ago. There is more than enough food in the world, but "fear" of crop loss and Wall Street speculators drive up the prices.

      "Distribution?" -- most people, would be happy with something useful to do, a family, education, security, good health, and opportunity. WE ALREADY have all the resources that 95% of the world would be fully satisfied with. The problem is, that the 5% that are never satisfied, are the people who run everything and tell us who is a threat and who isn't. None of them are willing to strap a bomb on their body and blow themselves up -- so they have to TAKE everything away from enough people, so that they have nothing to lose -- THEN, they have their straw man to scare the rest of us.

      Right now, money gets printed in America and it goes to banks. What if, all copyrights and patents when submitted, were free and available, and we only tracked usage -- the more usage, the more money the government gives directly to copyrighters and patent submitters. No reason to cheat -- because it costs you nothing, and the ONLY friction is between those who create and the government -- but that's where it should be. Our economy grows on innovation, and we created a system where people have to hide that innovation and make it expensive -- so we all use shovels until the bulldozer gets cheaper and is obsolete.

      >> Our current system, is very inefficient, because we spend all our time trying to preserve what we've got, not lose, save enough to retire, insure for emergencies, and spend the rest of the money on blowing up people so that they don't charge too much for the stuff corporations that don't help us steal from them.

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    10. Re:Yes, trust us. by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How about simply saying; the maximum "earnings" someone can get, is 1,000 times minimum wage?

      So, those that get the most, have no upper limit, as long as they advocate for what the LEAST get.

      $20 an hour vs. $20,000 an hour does NOT seem like a burden on innovation to me.

      How many steaks and yachts does some asshole need? If you are making so much that you have to hire an army to defend it -- you could NOT have gotten it merely by making the world a better place -- likely, you've pillaged a few companies, you've destroyed a few lives. I always hear people lauding the greatness of the uber wealthy, but the examples of people who've gotten there, have to gloss over a lot of back-door deals and buying of politicians in most cases. I'd argue, that you CANNOT get to be the biggest bank, or military contractor, or oil company, WITHOUT doing a hell of a lot of evil.

      But, before anything like that can work -- there HAS TO BE, more transparency required of people with power. People with power and wealth have to be thought of as privileged, only BECAUSE they are of benefit to society as a whole -- and so they must give up privacy. Having video cameras in every bathroom, and firing teachers, and forcing people into serfdom with 40% fees on Credit Card debt -- well, that's only necessary to KEEP the status quo and protect the very powerful FROM RESPONSIBILITY.

      The religion of "personal responsibility", means that PEOPLE have no rights, and any corporate conglomerate has no responsibly. Obviously, our goals in such a world is to become a holding company of one, and to screw everyone else.

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    11. Re:Yes, trust us. by Deefburger · · Score: 1

      No. We need to rid ourselves of the notion that we need power. Not better power, not safer power. NO POWER. Leave all of the power in the hands of all the people, not just some handful of people GIVEN power. Once someone holds a right to power, everyone else loses their freedom. Its a scam every time its been tried, and it fails to better anyones lives outside the sphere of the powerful. Every king, every president, every potentate seat of power ever created in all of human history has come to a bloody or destructive end, with no exceptions. Nature will not tolerate anybody's beliefs for long. Its not the form of the power, or who has the power, or what the power is for initially, its the fact of its existence that is the guarantee of its demise. Tyranny happens because power is a seat for it to be in. No power, no tyrants (at least none that are a threat).

      --
      Most people are mostly good most of the time.
  4. The point of this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The point of this isn't to be more open. The point is to make people think about what the CIA can do with today's technology if they could do that with the technology of yesteryear. Making the enemy overestimate your power is an important principle in deterrence.

    1. Re:The point of this by orphiuchus · · Score: 1

      The point of this isn't to be more open. The point is to make people think about what the CIA can do with today's technology if they could do that with the technology of yesteryear. Making the enemy overestimate your power is an important principle in deterrence.

      Yea... I don't think that's true. You want the enemy to underestimate you're ability to spy on them so that you can, you know, spy on them.

    2. Re:The point of this by orphiuchus · · Score: 1

      The point of this isn't to be more open. The point is to make people think about what the CIA can do with today's technology if they could do that with the technology of yesteryear. Making the enemy overestimate your power is an important principle in deterrence.

      Yea... I don't think that's true. The goal is to have the enemy underestimate your ability to spy on them, so you can, you know, spy on them.

    3. Re:The point of this by orphiuchus · · Score: 1

      Ugh. Nice job new slashdot. It kicked me out of my first posting and I had to re-submit this. Apparently it just took both, and then didn't prevent the duplicate.

    4. Re:The point of this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slashdot's duplication filter failed even before the redesign.

    5. Re:The point of this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slashdot's duplication filter failed even before the redesign.

      Especially for the articles...

    6. Re:The point of this by omni123 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The point of this isn't to be more open. The point is to make people think about what the CIA can do with today's technology if they could do that with the technology of yesteryear. Making the enemy overestimate your power is an important principle in deterrence.

      Oh shi. I'm sure Mossad saw the revamped CIA website and were like "OH DAMN, IMAGINE WHAT THEY CAN DO NOW. THEIR WEBSITE IS TOTALLY AWESOME. RUN. HIDE YOUR CHILDREN.".

      Because foreign intelligence services don't have more reliable ways of determining technology in the field at present time then some guestimation based on 50 year old photos in a flickr album.

    7. Re:The point of this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that Mossad is by and large an ally of America.

    8. Re:The point of this by omni123 · · Score: 1

      There's a saying--there's no such thing as a friendly intelligence service.

    9. Re:The point of this by Clay1985 · · Score: 1

      haha three times made it funny. Before that it was just silly. Actually read all of these before I realized they were duplicate posts. No more reading /. after 4am.

      --
      You can discover more about a person in an hour of play than in a year of conversation. -Plato
    10. Re:The point of this by dave1791 · · Score: 1

      The point of this isn't to be more open. The point is to make people think about what the CIA can do with today's technology if they could do that with the technology of yesteryear. Making the enemy overestimate your power is an important principle in deterrence.

      Yea... I don't think that's true. You want the enemy to underestimate you're ability to spy on them so that you can, you know, spy on them.

      Unless you want them to think that you can train sharks and vultures as agents.

    11. Re:The point of this by penguinchris · · Score: 1

      The photos are pretty bad too, from a product photography standpoint. As a photographer I think that says a lot about this release of "stuff".

    12. Re:The point of this by moortak · · Score: 1

      Mossad agents might be aware of the CIA's actual capabilities, the bureaucrat they are trying to flip in some other department might not.

      --
      Xavier Rabourdin for president 2012
    13. Re:The point of this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That may be, but that doesn't seem to have stopped them from spying on the U.S.

    14. Re:The point of this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Except that Mossad is by and large an ally of America."

      Sure they are, that's why they stole nuclear fuel from America.

      And that's why the Israeli army was only too happy to crush an
      unarmed American girl to death with a bulldozer.

      You've got a lot to learn about Israel.

    15. Re:The point of this by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      Given that a god number of them aren't even interesting in what they show you get the feeling that an agent rummaged through the basement and just took photos of everything he saw. Plus the terse, dry descriptions suck the last bit of fun out of the photos.

      I stopped looking after the third page - not because spy gadgets aren't cool but because these are presented in a boring fashion and mixed in with random stuff that just happens to have some kind of connection to the CIA. Oh my god, a trowel once held by President Eisenhower! Truly, no other intelligence agency could stand up to that!

      They should've made several albums: One with generic CIA memorabilia for those who care about the history of the agency that much and one with cool spy gadgets for those who care about, well, cool spy gadgets. As it is you have the equivalent of some old guy sitting down and saying: "I've had a long and fulfilling life and these slides will prove it." Even if parts of his life are truly interesting, they're buried between dozens upon hundreds of holiday photos.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    16. Re:The point of this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot lying, cheating, raping, torturing and pillaging. Your friends at the CIA.

    17. Re:The point of this by PhilipTheHermit · · Score: 1

      I think maybe it went like this:

      (CIA Spy Meeting)

      Boss: Ok, guys, we need someone to head over to the gadget morgue and take a bunch of pictures of old stuff we used to use back in the fifties. Some muckety-muck thinks it'll make us look all family-friendly or something. Oh, and you've got to do some puzzles for kids with that nerd in IT.

      Spy 1: Oh, HELL no. I'm booked up for the whole rest of the week, I've got to kill that guy in Turkey, then I've got that thing in Italy...

      Spy 2: I'm working with Spy 1 on that, I'm booked up too.

      Spy 3: Don't look at me, I've got to head to Beijing tomorrow, we're hiring a hacker.

      Boss: "Hiring"?

      Spy 3: Heh, well, "involuntarily" (all laugh)

      Spy 4: Sorry boss, heading to low Earth orbit to test the ion cannon on some missle site somewhere... Haven't been briefed yet. Also it's my anniversary on Friday.

      Boss: Well? Milton? That leaves you.

      Milton: But... But..

      Boss: Mmm... Yeah, I'm going to need you to come in on Saturday too. Sunday maybe.

      Milton: But... But... I have to...

      Boss: Ah, what's that? I've been looking for that! Thanks! (takes stapler).

      --
      Thus spake the master programmer:
      "When the program is being tested, it is too late to make design changes." (Tao)
  5. Whaaaaaat? by guspasho · · Score: 4, Funny

    Are they crazy? Leaking this information could put lives at risk!

    1. Re:Whaaaaaat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Are they crazy? Leaking this information could put lives at risk!

      And we can't have any national secrets reveled either! Considering how I've seen everything on the list (they've all been mentioned before - most are WWII era and some not even our own! Enigma CIA?!?!), I find this pathetic. Old news - very old news.

      How about releasing the SR-71's real top speed? Why is that still classified?

      The best guess I've seen from aerospace guys is that they think it could hit Mach 4.

    2. Re:Whaaaaaat? by II+Xion+II · · Score: 2

      They clearly were trying to preempt Wikileaks.

    3. Re:Whaaaaaat? by hannson · · Score: 1

      I thought the robot fish was pretty clever. Here's a video of one that was caught by a fisherman.

    4. Re:Whaaaaaat? by Syberz · · Score: 1

      Bah, Wikileaks was going to put it on their site anyways, so the CIA figured that they might as well do it first.

      --
      ~Syberz
    5. Re:Whaaaaaat? by Sulphur · · Score: 2

      Mach 4 is a razor blade.

      --

      Is that CIA hat yours?
      Of course, I bought and paid for it.

    6. Re:Whaaaaaat? by sootman · · Score: 1

      > And we can't have any national secrets reveled either!

      Agreed. I hope I live long enough to learn what really happened to JFK.

      --
      Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    7. Re:Whaaaaaat? by Dunega · · Score: 1

      He was shot. :)

    8. Re:Whaaaaaat? by Nick+Number · · Score: 1

      Mach 4 is a razor blade.

      Fuck everything, we're going to 4 machs.

      --
      Promote proofreading. Don't mod up sloppy posts.
    9. Re:Whaaaaaat? by guspasho · · Score: 1

      And you're smiling about that???

    10. Re:Whaaaaaat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You only have to worry about him if his favourite play is the Shakespeare's Julius Caesar.

  6. devices to secretly extract letters from envelopes by intellitech · · Score: 1

    ... devices to secretly extract letters from envelopes ...

    I, too, would like to extract my monthly pay from the envelope and claim it never arrived.

    --
    vos nescitis quicquam, nec cogitatis quia expedit nobis ut unus moriatur homo pro populo et non tota gens pereat.
  7. Aw cmon everyone! by Aerorae · · Score: 1

    THIS IS COOL STUFF!!!

  8. Nice... by Zero1za · · Score: 1

    So my tax dollars are paying for a museum I can't even visit....

  9. Their gadgets do take the cake by lxw56 · · Score: 1

    Which would explain why I didn't get the cake I was promised.

  10. Robot Fish "Charlie" by Grindalf · · Score: 0

    I have got to have me one of these! ...

    --
    The purpose of existence is to make money.
  11. SR-71 top speed by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The flight manual is online at sr-71.org, and has a chart showing what speed at what external air temperature stays within the design limit for compressor inlet temperature. (At least that's where I think I saw the chart). To keep the CIT below 427 Celsius, you'd better have a really cold day in the stratosphere to go much over Mach 3.2. The manual doesn't permit going over 3.3.

    If the air going into the compressor is over 427 C, by the time you burn fuel in it you're hitting the design limits of the turbine blades.

    It's possible that nobody ever found out what the top speed was. After McNamara ordered the tooling destroyed, the planes were irreplaceable.

    1. Re:SR-71 top speed by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 4, Informative

      OK, found the links. The chart of CIT-limited speed versus outside temperature is at http://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/manual/5/5-10.php. There are envelope curves at http://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/manual/5/5-9.php which you could imagine extrapolating past the limits in the manual.

    2. Re:SR-71 top speed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      3.3 is all?! What a pokey piece of crap. I'll stick with my saddle on a cruise missile.

    3. Re:SR-71 top speed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mig-25 could do Mach 3.2 and was cheap and plentiful. I can't imagine that with today's technology and the amount of $$$ usually thrown at military projects we could not retrofit modern engines that can withstand much higher limits and push sr-71 to much higher speeds.

    4. Re:SR-71 top speed by vilms · · Score: 1

      Long time since I bothered to look but I thought the Mig-25's Mach 3.2 was a one-time trip that effectively wrecked the engines!

    5. Re:SR-71 top speed by PitaBred · · Score: 2

      The single time one of them went mach 3.2, it destroyed the Mig's engines. Just like it would with the SR-71.

      --
      My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
    6. Re:SR-71 top speed by Animats · · Score: 1

      The flight manual is online at sr-71.org

      Top speed is well known: 2,193.167 mph, achieved in 1976. Most of the speed runs came in between 2100 and 2200 mph. The most impressive one is from 1990, with an average speed of 2124.5 mph over 2086 miles. That's the truly impressive number. Rocketing to Mach 3 for a brief period has been done by various experimental aircraft, but coast to coast at that speed, only the SR-71 could do in atmosphere.

      An actual M-21 aircraft, the SR-71 with the Tagboard drone option, is at the Museum of Flight at Boeing Field in Seattle. They have the maintenance documentation for it, and if you're interested you can make arrangements to see it. Some has been scanned and is on the Web.

    7. Re:SR-71 top speed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The MiG 25 could do MACH 3.2 once and it was time for new engines. That MACH 3.2 run was just a stunt for sabre rattling; not a capability to be relied upon in a real conflict as evidenced when it was attempted in a conflict.

      Plus, the range wasn't all that great. it could hardly cross the state of New Jersey, let alone an entire continent at that speed; it may be cheap and plentiful but it could never perform the sort of reconnaissance missions such as those the SR-71 performed reliably, repeatedly for over 30 years, plus the MiG-25 is not stealthy at all, whereas the Blackbird is sometimes considered the first stealth aircraft. So, for reconnaissance the MiG-25 isn't worth much.
      As far as its other tasks are concerned; the F-14 and F-15E are very close to the MiG-25's real-world operational envelope (for intercepting is an 800FL ceiling all that practical when all it will achieve is wasting fuel?) while offering superior firepower and range. The MiG can carry what - 2 missiles? That means firing off two shots, then spending the remaining fuel to flee to home base. The operators of the MiG had better hope and pray those missiles hit because they get only two shots. As an interceptor it would be most useful against a slow, large aircraft like the B-52, not against a squadron of F-14 or F-15E interceptor/tactical fighters. When it was designed its capabilities were incredible but even then they ran into problems against lowly F-4s - not getting hit, but burning up engines while fleeing after spending its two missiles. For extended combat it just isn't capable, and for speeds and altitudes required for reconnaissance it's so unreliable and range so limited it is worthless.

      The best purpose for a MiG-25 is to serve as a toy for someone with money to burn - surplus MiG-25s are offered for sale from time to time and are sometimes purchased by civilians and registered as experimental aircraft. That would be a hell of a fun toy to play with!

  12. Spy Museum by Sir+Holo · · Score: 5, Informative

    This all looks like stuff from the "Spy Museum" in Washington DC. Very cool gadgetry there, and much more of it than this paltry slideshow has. Better-written commentary, too.

    Go there!

    1. Re:Spy Museum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1, if you're ever in the DC area (Virginia is a common destination for datacenter trips for slashdot sysadmin geeks, and is close enough), make the drive to DC and go see the Spy Museum, it's worth it.

    2. Re:Spy Museum by v1 · · Score: 1

      agreed. for some reason actually being there to look at the little gadgets gives you a new appreciation for them over say, just watching it on TV.

      I seem to recall having to pay (something small, $5?) to get in though. Or was it a voluntary donation thing?
      So it wasn't a "pure" museum.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    3. Re:Spy Museum by sootman · · Score: 1

      I agree that it looks awesome and I'd love to go there, but it's hard to pay $18 per person when there are so many great free things to do in D.C. (I'm not trying to sound snarky here--they're a private group and of course have to charge--I just literally mean that there is so much else to do that's great, that when it comes down to free or not free, free wins. The Air & Space museum is pretty awesome too.)

      --
      Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    4. Re:Spy Museum by kevinNCSU · · Score: 1

      Yea, it's a private museum so costs like $18 for the museum and then they have interactive spy experiences for a little less but I've never checked those out.

    5. Re:Spy Museum by trollertron3000 · · Score: 2

      If you want to see another cool, but not as well known, spy museum drive up to Fort Meade and checkout the NSA SIGINT/Cryptological museum off of the GW parkway, about 30-45 mins by car out of DC or you can take the Metro to close by and ride a bus over:
      http://www.nsa.gov/about/cryptologic_heritage/museum/virtual_tour/museum_tour_text.shtml

      --
      Tiger Blooded Bi-Winning Machine
  13. Ghetto Blaster by MrQuacker · · Score: 1
    Please, someone who has seen all these, tell me, did they really create a Ghetto Blaster?

    James Bond, "The Living Daylights"

  14. Seismic intruder by worf_mo · · Score: 1

    The Seismic Intruder Detection Device has a striking resemblance with some toys you can find at a sex shop, even under a similar name...

  15. Former Spy Goodies means... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    useless tools that just didn't work.

  16. Fake by bedouin · · Score: 1

    I don't see any torture devices here.

    1. Re:Fake by pakar · · Score: 1

      Use your imagination

  17. Spending by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Coincidentally, it's also a great source of revenue. There's a reason why every year government costs more than the year before, and it's not because making the business of government bigger and bigger is unprofitable for the elite at the top of the pyramid.

  18. How curious... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    I posted a link to this stuff along with my dragonfly story and it was edited out. Now it comes along as a separate story.

    http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&id=19121146

    Is slashdot trying to milk the most out of each submission? Then just be honest about it, we'll understand.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  19. I like the OSS pin by kill-1 · · Score: 1

    I like the OSS pin.

  20. Fox News link by gotpoetry · · Score: 0

    I missed that TFA was from Fox News. Now I feel dirty having giving the corporate media some ad displays.

  21. Re:Seismic intruder (not so secret) by tekrat · · Score: 1

    When I was a kid (about 30-35 years ago), an electronics surplus outfit in Mass., named John Meshna used to sell this thing (along with a lot of other military hardware)... It basically looked like a turd, about 3 inches long. If you scraped off enough of the plastic outer coating, you'd find a few transitors, a coil, some kind of microswitch, and a button battery.

    It was basically a crude radio transmitter that would sound off if it got stepped on, or if there was enough vibration to activate it (such as tank activity).

    It's been around since the Korean war, and frankly, devices such as this are hardly top-secret spy gadgets, more like well-known army crap.

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
  22. Not the work of the CIA by kenboldt · · Score: 0

    Ok, many of these are cool, but since when is a stereoscopy, for use with aerial photography in this case, a CIA secret? Stereoscopes date back to at least the 30's and stereo pairs that can actually be viewed in 3D with the naked eye have been around almost as long as there has been film to capture pictures. Compared to a bug that is the size and has the function of an actual bug, this item should not have been anywhere near the list, especially since it was not developed by the CIA.

  23. The US keeps secrets for too long by wfstanle · · Score: 1

    Honestly, some of the national security nutcases just go ape about releasing anything to the public. In the 1990's there was a review of top secret documents to see which could be declassifies. They found battle plans concocted by General Pershing for a battle in WW!! That was a 75 year old document that was still considered top secret. In Britain, they have (had) a policy of releasing any top secret document to the public 25 years after the fact. That is how the Enigma secret was made known to the world in the 60s of 70s. I thing that balance has to be restored between secrets an d the publics right to know. Obviously, I am not in favor of releasing secrets that might still cause us harm if they got out but most of the old stuff is harmless if released now. The only harm they might cause is harm to some politicians legacy.

    1. Re:The US keeps secrets for too long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huh? What are you complaining about? 75 years is not long at all. Simple things like for instance copyrights last longer...

    2. Re:The US keeps secrets for too long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True, but we are talking about secrets that are no longer secrets. You see, those battle plans were known to historians as soon as WW1 was over. Some fool kept them classified even though the secret was now common knowledge.

  24. Nerd Recruitment! by darkmeridian · · Score: 1

    I guess the CIA is suffering from a shortage of workers so they need to spice up their image to get some fresh blood. There are CIA recruiting commercials and I guess showing off what has been done in the past is meant to make you want to take part in the modern continuation of that trend.

    --
    A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
  25. I think you are ALL confused... by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

    ... the REAL purpose of this website of super cool stuff for the CIA is to capture the attention of all those people who respond to their ads on the Cartoon Network.

    Seriously, right after watching "Naruto" -- which I was, um, pre-screening for my kids -- I saw an ad for the "exciting world of espionage." There was a scene in a cafe with a hot looking blonde, drinking and swaying her legs sexily, with another well-dressed good looking man. It was kind of vague, so you could imagine that you were that dude, having a Russian super model getting all the CIA secrets out of your brain with special drugs and Swedish massage. Some people imagine that they were the blonde -- I'm sure, but those dudes kind of freak me out -- but live and let live, right? ... at first, I really thought someone had posted video of my kids spying on my wife and I with their Infrared remote-controlled spy blimp, which I occasionally find floating in the bathroom -- but now, these were actors. My wife isn't blonde -- she looks more like Sophia Vargas, so then of COURSE it wasn't us being spied on -- this is ALL TRUE by the way, just like the CIA's good works on their history page.

    The CIA of course, has much more KEWL stuff -- but you are probably seeing what EVERY spy agency already has. The point is; Hot Chicks, Kewl Gadgets, and signing up 30 million Americans with these dreams as they work for $10,000 a year to spy on their neighbors and blog about how we need more Defense spending to defeat Al Qaeda.

    --
    >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    1. Re:I think you are ALL confused... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The history channel is another top notch CIA propaganda job application. Suave american dad, white picket fence, finishing up a dusk dinner with his wife and kids, then he slips away to his real job which of course is a CIA command room somewhere close by. Of course the usual suspects and a team are there handling sensitive briefs, sleeves rolled up, and deciding just how to handle the boogie man. The commercial is at a volume about 10x lower than that of normal commercials and t.v. programs. there is no intro. there is no outro. Unless you are really paying attention (which most people don't do anyways), you would never know its on. I literally had to fight to convince my wife that CIA commercials were running on the history channel before she would believe me.

  26. Good book about Office of Technical Services by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you like this stuff, check out "Spycraft : the secret history of the CIA's spytechs from communism to Al-Qaeda" by Robert Wallace and H. Keith Melton. It talks about the development of some of these items, and lots about cameras, communications, and bugs. There's some stories about their use in the field.

  27. Unclassified sightings by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 2
    The "seismic detector", actually a camo vehicle and troop movement detector, went on to the military surplus market at one point. So, you could buy a plastic poop with a radio transmitter in it via mail-order. This must have been about 30 years ago.

    The D-21 drone is in the Research Hangar at the Air Force Museum. You can get a bus trip to that hangar from the museum and walk around for about 50 minutes, but there are ID requirements.

    --
    Bruce Perens.
  28. Lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lol, how about the goodies on that guy that killed 2 people and his compadres that ran over another guy in pakistan?

    You know, the "diplomat".

  29. Raymond Davis as poster guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Come on, join us - see the world and kill coloured folks for money!

  30. Alternatives in economics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd say try out different economies. Decentralizing perhaps. Like the Ithaca Hour, or the British LETS systems.
    http://www.ithacahours.com/
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_Exchange_Trading_Systems
    There's something called PROUT, seems interesting, but I have read little about it.