The older I get, the more I realize: pretty much every organization everywhere is highly flawed in some (usually many) ways. This has been an extremely useful observation in my career and life, and I have found exactly zero exceptions.
Bugger: Maybe spies aren't very good at their jobs (2013)
21–30 of 147 posts
Re: Bugger: Maybe spies aren't very good at their jobs (2013)
#22I worked as a technician for GCHQ twenty years ago and heard some good stories in the London Office at Palmer Street (loose lips guys!) it was so obvious that wearing the right tie or being a Freemason would get you further than any degree in this circle. But lets face it, it's the same at the top levels of all civil service they are all really just job clubs for people with Latin and History degrees.
I immediately thought of Peter Wright's bio [1]: > The Registry employed enormous numbers of girls to maintain efficient delivery of files within the building, as well as the massive task of sorting, checking, and filing the incoming material. In Kell's day the Registry Queens, as they were known, were recruited either from the aristocracy or from the families of MI5 officers. Kell had a simple belief that this was t…
Another example: Cameron. Led us into Brexit due to a massive miscalculation. Not a capable man but the Brits insist on picking leaders from a few thousand upper-class twits. His Chancellor and Eton chum was also a disaster.
Re: Bugger: Maybe spies aren't very good at their jobs (2013)
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
In Britain we have state schools, private schools and most expensive of all the old 'public schools', with a name almost designed to confuse. Most of them are ancient, and look a bit like Hogwarts. The real power of the schools is the 'old boys network'. When you need help getting into university, or beginning a career, there will be an old boy of your school you can write to for help. It seems daft in 2017, but ex p…
Nameless resumes are a good way to counter the inefficiencies of a system not based on merit.
You either have to strip the potential for character to influence resumes or accept that bias and nepotism will exist.
Re: Bugger: Maybe spies aren't very good at their jobs (2013)
#24Between Flash video and geographic restrictions, the BBC does an excellent job of making sure I'm unable to see Adam Curtis' video output.
Re: Bugger: Maybe spies aren't very good at their jobs (2013)
#25Silly article, the revelations of Edward Snowden shouldn't really tell anyone much about the capability of spies, nothing we didn't already know. If you're interested in a good book about the technical history of the CIA check out 'The Wizards of Langley'. It gives a pretty accurate history of the technical ability of spies throughout the years, and the bureaucracy which limited them. https://www.amazon.com/Wizards-L…
The salient point in the Adam Curtis piece is that regardless of their _technical_ capabilities, the organizations are themselves incapable of making use of what signals they may capture. A similar case can easily be made about the US intelligence establishment, for what it's worth.
The assertion the author makes about the revelations of Snowden is incorrect. The author hasn't done their homework. Further, if you'd like to know about the history of the technical ability of spies, and how the information gathered was processed check out the book referenced, written by an actual historian.
Re: Bugger: Maybe spies aren't very good at their jobs (2013)
#26Silly article, the revelations of Edward Snowden shouldn't really tell anyone much about the capability of spies, nothing we didn't already know. If you're interested in a good book about the technical history of the CIA check out 'The Wizards of Langley'. It gives a pretty accurate history of the technical ability of spies throughout the years, and the bureaucracy which limited them. https://www.amazon.com/Wizards-L…
The salient point in the Adam Curtis piece is that regardless of their _technical_ capabilities, the organizations are themselves incapable of making use of what signals they may capture. A similar case can easily be made about the US intelligence establishment, for what it's worth.
[deleted]
Re: Bugger: Maybe spies aren't very good at their jobs (2013)
#27The older I get, the more I realize: pretty much every organization everywhere is highly flawed in some (usually many) ways. This has been an extremely useful observation in my career and life, and I have found exactly zero exceptions.
Primary reason that I don't buy into elaborate conspiracy theories right here.
Re: Bugger: Maybe spies aren't very good at their jobs (2013)
#28Silly article, the revelations of Edward Snowden shouldn't really tell anyone much about the capability of spies, nothing we didn't already know. If you're interested in a good book about the technical history of the CIA check out 'The Wizards of Langley'. It gives a pretty accurate history of the technical ability of spies throughout the years, and the bureaucracy which limited them. https://www.amazon.com/Wizards-L…
>Silly article, the revelations of Edward Snowden shouldn't really tell anyone much about the capability of spies
i absolutely loathe when people say things like this. people would nearly without exception treat you like a lunatic if you talked about the kinds of capabilities revealed by snowden prior to 2013. making references to ECHELON made plenty of people write me off as a paranoid crank.
the ex post facto 'everyone knew this' is a fucking crock.
Re: Bugger: Maybe spies aren't very good at their jobs (2013)
#29The Human Factor, by Ishmael Jones.
Required reading on this topic. Tl;dr - Salesmanship, cold calling, closing and relationships are worth a LOT more than acronyms, budgets and bugs.
Re: Bugger: Maybe spies aren't very good at their jobs (2013)
#30I recently finished reading Legacy of Ashes by Tim Weiner, a history of the CIA. He basically argues that the entire organization has been marked by incompetence and politics throughout history. It was really eye-opening to me to hear that the mysterious organization behind all conspiracy theories is mostly smoke and mirrors. Cue the old adage regarding malice and stupidity.
He makes a case but two things: (1) Weiner obviously has an axe to grind in his polemic, and (2) we hear much more about the CIA's failures than its successes. But definitely during the cold war the russians smoked us in espionage.
Pick the team that finishes last in any sporting tournament and you hear more about their failures than their successes. The usual response is "Well what successes?" So it would seem to be with the CIA. The USA is hugely and massively successful and the CIA hides its disaster laden, failure after failure after horrendous outcome in secrecy.
What success did the CIA have, ever? List their failures is so easy, I'll start with the ajax revolution and Pinochet, both occasions where if the CIA had done nothing the world would be better and the USA stronger.