tedrick@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (Tom Tedrick) (12/29/87)
I am going through the book "Spycatcher". It seems like
a good book, and cleared up a few things I wasn't informed
about. Can anyone comment on its accuracy?
Thanks,
-Tom
tedrick@ernie.berkeley.edujohn@mplvax.nosc.MIL (John McInerney) (01/01/88)
In article <22340@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> tedrick@ernie.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Tom Tedrick) writes: >I am going through the book "Spycatcher". It seems like >a good book, and cleared up a few things I wasn't informed >about. Can anyone comment on its accuracy? > >Thanks, > > -Tom > tedrick@ernie.berkeley.edu I can not comment too much about the accuracy (except for the efforts I know that British Intelligence made to stop the printing of the book). One comment on the book I had was that he had a lot of unexplained terminology. Like, what is MI5 and MI6? I know that it stands for Military Inteligence section 5 and 6 respectively, but what is the difference between the two etc. I thought that they corresponded to the USA's CIA and FBI, but that really did not fit well. I know that the British GCHQ corresponds to our NSA and that "vetting" is a security check/background investigation (the third definition in my dictionary says that to vet is to subject to expert evaluation or appraisal). There were many other terms that I did not know or could not derive from the book. I guess that the author figured that his readership would only be Brits. -- John McInerney john@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu
eap@bucsb.UUCP (Eric Pearce) (01/02/88)
In article <700@mplvax.nosc.MIL> john@mplvax.nosc.mil.UUCP (John McInerney) writes: >In article <22340@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> tedrick@ernie.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Tom Tedrick) writes: >>I am going through the book "Spycatcher". It seems like >>a good book, and cleared up a few things I wasn't informed >>about. Can anyone comment on its accuracy? >>Thanks, > >I can not comment too much about the accuracy (except for the efforts >I know that British Intelligence made to stop the printing of the >book). Good point. I can not imagine that any government would like the public to know that some of their highest ranking intelligence people were potential spies from before WWII. I had the distinct impression that Mr. Wright has an "axe to grind" on how much his pension was and how well other retired intelligence people are being treated. I doubt he made any friends in the government when he published the book. -E -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UUCP !harvard!bu-cs!bucsb!eap ARPANET eap@bucsb.bu.edu CSNET eap%bucsb@bu-cs
lamont@hpcupt1.HP.COM (LaMont Jones) (01/03/88)
>Like, what is MI5 and MI6? I know that it >stands for Military Inteligence section 5 and 6 respectively, but what >is the difference between the two etc. I thought that they >corresponded to the USA's CIA and FBI, but that really did not fit >well. I know that the British GCHQ corresponds to our NSA and that >"vetting" is a security check/background investigation (the third >definition in my dictionary says that to vet is to subject to expert >evaluation or appraisal). There were many other terms that I did not >know or could not derive from the book. I guess that the author >figured that his readership would only be Brits. >-- > John McInerney > john@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu >---------- To get a fairly accurate simplified version of British intelligence, pick up the game master's book for the James Bond role playing game. One of the supplementary books also gives a capsule summary of several other countries intelligence organizations (terms, how they work, style, etc.) LaMont Jones lamont@hpda%hplabs.hp.com
sunghou@violet.berkeley.edu (Sung-Hou KimGroup) (01/05/88)
Ok, this is just as I remember from lots of places: MI5 is concerned with domestic intelligence and counter-intelligence. MI6 is concerned with foreign intelligence. Interestingly, neither has the powers of arrest, as say the FBI, they must go through the Special Branch of Scotland Yard. By the way, what was the reason the British wanted Spycatcher supressed? The bit about Roger Hollis is really old. There was a book, a while ago called Too Secret, Too Long by Chapman Pincher (more or less) which was just about Hollis being a Soviet spy. Michael Matsko at sunghou@violet.berkeley.edu
mb@camcon.uucp (Mike Bell) (01/11/88)
in article <22340@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, tedrick@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (Tom Tedrick) says:
I am going through the book "Spycatcher". It seems like
a good book, and cleared up a few things I wasn't informed
about. Can anyone comment on its accuracy?
And risk the wrath of Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act...
Any secret agents care to comment?:-)
--
--------------- UUCP: ...!ukc!camcon!mb | Cambridge Consultants Ltd
-- Mike Bell -- or: mb%camcon.uucp | Science Park, Milton Road
--------------- Phone: +44 223 358855 | Cambridge CB4 4DWrobert@uop.edu (Fred Flintstone) (01/17/88)
In article <1159@titan.camcon.uucp>, mb@camcon.uucp (Mike Bell) writes: > in article <22340@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, tedrick@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (Tom Tedrick) says: > And risk the wrath of Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act... > > Any secret agents care to comment?:-) Sure, it works like this, you take out your one time pad, tune up your favorite numbers station, and it is as simple as, 26744 35810 09158 45501 58249 10025 49875 89553 81191 76742 51499 76328 02856 29858 Got it? --- ...eunetv!unido!\ ..sun!ptsfa!\ ...mcvax!uunet!lll-winken!cogent!\ ...rutgers!retix!uop!robert ...ames!ucbvax!ucdavis!/