Live data from Hacker News

Everything we know about spies is wrong

lithub.com

71–80 of 119 posts

Re: Everything we know about spies is wrong

#71

"What the hell do you think spies are? Moral philosophers measuring everything they do against the word of God or Karl Marx? They're not! They're just a bunch of seedy, squalid bastards like me: little men, drunkards, queers, henpecked husbands, civil servants playing cowboys and Indians to brighten their rotten little lives." https://youtu.be/lNrjAMV0HJk?si=Fbk3fE-Ufm3ACxgv&t=86

Here's just some of what these "librarians, professors, and researchers" were up to:

https://www.npr.org/2014/11/05/361427276/how-thousands-of-na...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Midnight_Climax

Re: Everything we know about spies is wrong

#72

> In the movies, spies are usually ripped hunks who carry lots of gadgets, like James Bond and Jason Bourne. Neither James Bond nor Jason Bourne were really "ripped hunks." Maybe an argument could be made for Daniel Craig, but really most Bonds and Bourne were just kind of handsome, charming men who knew their way around a gun.

Sean Connery jump-started his career by participating in a Mr. Universe contest.

Re: Everything we know about spies is wrong

#74

This is pure gold, and still works on the internet to get the specs for PLA tanks: > If she wants to know something specific, but doesn’t want people to notice her asking questions, she should simply make incorrect statements while in the company of experts. Her companions will correct her, especially if they’re men.

> Her companions will correct her, especially if they’re men. Observe the importance of phrasing. If this had been put as "men enjoy sharing knowledge, while women are content to let others wallow in ignorance and error", it would have ruffled a great many more feathers.

It seems to me that the current phrasing ruffled your feathers. (As it did mine, since I'm not sure this is a gendered phenomenon, but the fact is that your version would make me feel better - contray to your thesis).

Re: Everything we know about spies is wrong

#75

> In the movies, spies are usually ripped hunks who carry lots of gadgets, like James Bond and Jason Bourne. Neither James Bond nor Jason Bourne were really "ripped hunks." Maybe an argument could be made for Daniel Craig, but really most Bonds and Bourne were just kind of handsome, charming men who knew their way around a gun.

Sean Connery jump-started his career by participating in a Mr. Universe contest.

Sure, but that was 10 years before he was James Bond. He was not skinny by any means but I wouldn't call him a "ripped hunk". To me that suggests someone like The Rock.

Re: Everything we know about spies is wrong

#76

This is pure gold, and still works on the internet to get the specs for PLA tanks: > If she wants to know something specific, but doesn’t want people to notice her asking questions, she should simply make incorrect statements while in the company of experts. Her companions will correct her, especially if they’re men.

You can also use this to get a rough idea of who the most insecure people in the room are and work from there.

What's wrong with correcting someone? It requires some effort from the person doing the correcting, but it facilitates information sharing and lends itself to a more productive environment. If course it can be done in an shooting way, especially if the correcter is a jerk, but most people aren't.

Re: Everything we know about spies is wrong

#77

If you find yourself in Washington DC, I highly recommend a visit to the International Spy Museum. Its one of the few attractions in DC you need to pay for but worth the ticket price. (Spoiler Alert) At the end, there's mural or placard that says something like: Most exhibits in this museum are here because of failure. The best spies are the ones you never hear of.

If you're in DC, rather than pay to go to the spy Museum with the tourists, etc. go up 95 just south of Baltimore, Washington international Airport and go to the NSA museum. It's free. Enigma galore. You could also go south of DC about 30 minutes to Warrenton, where the cold war museum is. It's also free and run bY Francis Gary Powers Jr.

We've made a bit of a family thing of visiting spy museums, and would say: Visit both! (And if you have the opportunity for some reason, the CIA museum is also fantastic, but not open to the public).

The Spy Museum has better flashy interactive exhibits for kids, but underneath all of the sound and light has a _very_ impressive collection. The National Cryptologic Museum is, as one might expect, more focused on the cryptography side of things as opposed to the more general spycraft collection in both the Spy Museum and the CIA's museum, and is a better one if you're particularly interested in ciphers and codebreaking. The Spy Museum & CIA museum have more exhibits of hidden microphones, weapons, communication devices, etc.

The German Spy Museum (Deutsches Spionage Museum) in Berlin is also quite good and also good for kids. It is, unsurprisingly, particularly deep in Stasi-related materials. They have a fascinating exhibit of a car whose door had been filled with infrared lights for taking covert nighttime photographs, at really mindblowing cost.

Also note that the NSA's collection has an online portal: https://5099.sydneyplus.com/final/Portal/Default.aspx?lang=e....

And the CIA Museum's collection is partly online: https://www.cia.gov/legacy/museum/

(Sorry. I don't know how we became spy museum fans but the kids adore them. :-)

Re: Everything we know about spies is wrong

#78
post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Her companions will correct her, especially if they’re men. Observe the importance of phrasing. If this had been put as "men enjoy sharing knowledge, while women are content to let others wallow in ignorance and error", it would have ruffled a great many more feathers.

Sticking to facts ruffles less feathers than adding a charged interpretation to the facts, it's not very surprising. ("X is more likely to correct you" can obviously also have a negatively charged interpretation, which I'm leaving as an exercise to the reader)

I suppose you're right - to highlight the implied, or shall we say, permitted interpretation, I was forced to give a contrasting interpretation, when the source text was indeed purely factual.

Re: Everything we know about spies is wrong

#79

> In the movies, spies are usually ripped hunks who carry lots of gadgets, like James Bond and Jason Bourne. Neither James Bond nor Jason Bourne were really "ripped hunks." Maybe an argument could be made for Daniel Craig, but really most Bonds and Bourne were just kind of handsome, charming men who knew their way around a gun.

Jason Bourne also didn't carry lots of gadgets. I think Craig was somewhat light on it too.

Re: Everything we know about spies is wrong

#80
post #67

People interested in this stuff should check out; 1) Deception: The Invisible War Between the KGB and the CIA by Edward Jay Epstein - https://archive.org/details/Deception-TheInvisibleWarBetween... 2) Brainwashing: The Science of Thought Control by Kathleen Taylor - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainwashing:_The_Science_of_T... 3) Yuri Bezmenov's lectures (available on Youtube) on "Subversion Model/Psychological War…

Just as a heads up Yuri was called out as largely being full of shit by people like Jack Barsky who was basically the IRL version of the TV the Americans. Also I’m not familiar with that second link but it gives me major red flags at first glance. There is some ok stuff out there on that topic. One of the darker ones that comes to mind came out of the 80s when Hezbollah kidnapped the CIA station chief in Lebanon and…

There is a lot of info. on Bezmenov both pro and con and you have to listen to what he says and form a judgement yourself as to whether that is plausible. Everything about him has been muddied (even how exactly he died!) and hence all sources are questionable.

The second book on "Brainwashing" is unfortunately named (not to be confused with an older book of the same name by L.Ron Hubbard of Scientology infamy) but the author's credentials are stellar - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathleen_Taylor_(biologist) It is not a woo-woo book but a scientific one; the last paragraph in the wikipedia page states;

Peter Knight believes that Taylor sufficiently "argues that there is no need to invoke the notion of brainwashing as a mysterious and fear-inducing explanation as a last resort" – to Taylor, "brainwashing is less scary than people might think because it is in fact not some magical, secret and ultra-efficient technique of thought control" but a "mundane and ubiquitous" neurological phenomenon that can be understood scientifically.

The first book on "Deception" will in a sense set the background since it focuses on deception as fundamental to everything else. This has already been called out in ancient classic texts on statecraft/warfare by Kautilya, Sun Tzu, Machiavelli etc. Example excerpt;

They were a metaphor for a world in which he saw deception as a norm rather than an aberration. It was a world in which intelligence services could be provoked, seduced, lured into false trails, blinded, and turned into unwitting agents—through the same failure to discriminate between real and simulated information.

The reason it is important for the "common man" to learn about these is because many of these techniques are being used against him under the guise of "harmless business" PR/Advertising/Sales/Marketing/Influence etc. and much much worse eg. Nationalism, Religious Fundamentalism etc.

PS: One more book to read (difficult) is "Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes" by Jacques Ellul - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda:_The_Formation_of_M... Excerpts below;

"Very frequently propaganda is described as a manipulation for the purpose of changing idea or opinions of making individuals 'believe' some idea or fact, and finally of making them adhere to some doctrine—all matters of the mind. It tries to convince, to bring about a decision, to create a firm adherence to some truth. This is a completely wrong line of thinking: to view propaganda as still being what it was in 1850 is to cling to an obsolete concept of man and of the means to influence him; it is to condemn oneself to understand nothing about propaganda. The aim of modern propaganda is no longer to modify ideas, but to provoke action. It is no longer to change adherence to a doctrine, but to make the individual cling irrationally to a process of action. It is no longer to transform an opinion but to arouse an active and mythical belief."

Education permits the dissemination of propaganda in that it enables people to consume information. Information is indistinguishable from propaganda in that information is an essential element of propaganda because for propaganda to succeed it must have reference to political or economic reality. Propaganda grafts itself onto an already existing reality through "informed opinion".

Post reply on HN