richardt@orstcs.UUCP (richardt) (12/04/85)
A number of interesting things are happening in the espionage world these
days. To recap:
after the high profile navy trials a couple weeks ago, life seemed
to get back to normal -- as normal as it could be, after the
top spies and directors of several nations had defected to their
respective enemy countries.
Hwever, at last count we've picked up two more people for spying, and
the current director of the National Security Administration (NSA) was
resigning (!). Personal reasons are cited, but I wonder...
However, this has led to a call by our dear president <heavy sarcasm>
for a more coordinated approach to intelligence gathering, and a crackdown
on foreign spies working in the U.S. (Something about denying their
working visas... ;-)
The idea of cracking down on spying is an interesting one. Reagan has
chosen to announce to the public (and thereby gain the prestige of) that
he intends to attempt to prosecute every individual/organization/etc.
which is spying on the U.S. for a foreign power. Corporate spy networks
and U.S. government organizations still get to spy on U.S. citizens, of
course :-(. The problems with this crackdown become apparent when one
begins to consider to things: 1), there are an awful lot of espionage
activities going on in this country; 2) Many of them are being run by our
allies, with no small amount of the information gleaned being poured back into
our own info networks. (M.I. 6 sends interoffice memo to DIA...); 3) Of
these ones being run by our allies, no small number of those allies already
share much or all of our info networks.
Thus, it would seem that Reagan has put himself into a less than desirable
position -- What happens when we pick up spies in the pay of our allies
which are gaining information which is being poured back into our network?
As for coordinating intelligence activities -- well, let's look at the
number of *known* intelligence organizations in this country already.
I know that the number is quite a bit higher, even without counting the
corporate agencies, but I'll stick to the ones I know about.
These are:
CIA -- The Central Intelligence Agency. At last count, they aren't allowed to
run covert operations in the U.S.
NSA -- National Security (Agency | Administration). They, however, are
allowed to work covertly here. Their primary concern is
computer and information security.
DIA -- Defense Intelligence Agency. This is, if I remember correctly,
directly subordinate to the Joint Chiefs, and is concerned with,
what else, *military Intelligence* <keep all sarcastic comments to
yourself, please>
CID -- I'm not sure what the abbreviation stands for. This is the Navy's
intelligence division.
FBI -- Federal Beaureau (sp?) of Investigation. Deals essentially with
criminal activity. Does some intelligence gathering.
And there are many more. These are just the ones I can remember here at
the keyboard. In any case, each one is already a threat to your privacy
by itself, much less any combined union of them. And, although
a combined intelligence agency might be more effective, I think we
would pay for that efficiency dearly.
So what do we do? An large number of people are devoted to undermining
our security and the security of our governments activities. This
can be fought in one of two ways: creating an intelligence community
which is strong enough to catch or prevent all espionage activities;
Or by minimizing the number of our secrets which need to be protected.
By cutting down on the number of things classified as 'Top Secret' we do
two things: one, we decrease our security problem; two, we speed research,
by making information available to researchers not working under
Defense contract. Moreover, the recent rapid increase of classified
material has nothing to do with the danger the research/information could
pose to our country. Rather, it is the result of two factors: an
increasing paranoia among the government and the populaces, and the
attempts by paper pushers within the DOD and the intelligence agencies to
maintain funding. The logic they use against Congres follows thus: "Well,
its Top Secret so we can't tell you about it, but it must be useful because
we've labelled it Top Secret." Due to the aforementioned spread of paranoia,
this argument is swallowed whole and in toto.
What was that about Military Intelligence??? :-)
Stepping Off the Soapbox:
{hp-pcd | tektronix} !orstcs!richardt
Richard Threadgill
1230 NW 23rd #7
Corvallis Or