Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The KGB’s success identifying CIA agents in the field

salon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–56 of 56 posts

Re: The KGB’s success identifying CIA agents in the field

#51

Post by digi_owl »

kafkaesq wrote: post #38
philsalesses wrote: post #2

I wonder if this pattern could still be applied. For a NOC they'll setup a shell corporation called "Southern Electronics Corporation, LLC" or some other discrete sounding name and have a real website, office address and phone number actually manned, but surely they register the corporations, domains, phone numbers at the same place, staff the phones with the same voices... Makes me wonder if they fixed the problem o…

It is absolutely applicable. In fact this is pretty much how the whole "extraordinary renditions" program was (fairly easily) unravelled by journalists. Dummy ("brass-plaque") corporations, recycled aircraft registrations, special landing permits at military airports... just a matter of connecting the dots, basically.

Old school investigative journalism, in other words.

Re: The KGB’s success identifying CIA agents in the field

#52

Post by Cacti »

EdwardCoffin wrote: post #32
Spooky23 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the 1985 article: >"United States counterintelligence specialists estimate that at least 150 K.G.B. officers are working out of the embassy under cover as diplomats, clerks, chauffeurs, journalists and in other jobs." Just as a point of reference, the US Embassy in Iran during the 1979 revolution and subsequent hostage crisis had something on the order of 75-100 people working there. Again, Google around, there…

You still haven't provided the evidence needed though to support the conclusion of a majority given some or even many . Also, we are talking about an endeavour in which deception is the norm, so even evidence like this is more than a little bit questionable.

What are you talking about? Look it up if you're not going to believe anyone here.

Re: The KGB’s success identifying CIA agents in the field

#53

Post by EdwardCoffin »

Cacti wrote: post #52
EdwardCoffin wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You still haven't provided the evidence needed though to support the conclusion of a majority given some or even many . Also, we are talking about an endeavour in which deception is the norm, so even evidence like this is more than a little bit questionable.

What are you talking about? Look it up if you're not going to believe anyone here.

> What are you talking about?

I think you need to read this comment thread starting at the top: my point is that the original claim I was asking for a citation in is essentially unsupportable, so no citations exist.

Re: The KGB’s success identifying CIA agents in the field

#54

Post by EdwardCoffin »

hugh4 wrote: post #49
EdwardCoffin wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You still haven't provided the evidence needed though to support the conclusion of a majority given some or even many . Also, we are talking about an endeavour in which deception is the norm, so even evidence like this is more than a little bit questionable.

What evidence would you like? Embassy payroll documents annotated with "spy" and "not a spy"? Given the privileged status of the embassy and the protections offered by diplomatic status (eg the diplomatic pouch) you'd be crazy not to staff your embassy with spies, at least in any country worth spying on. You'll probably get a few actual diplomats to do the actual diplomacy too, and the occasional low-level passport s…

My point is that this is the kind of evidence you would need to support the original claim. If the top-level comment I was pursuing had, instead of making the claim that the majority of the spies posing as diplomats were known as spies to the host nation, had rather claimed that many of them were known, I wouldn't have pursued it.

Edit: fixed language

Re: The KGB’s success identifying CIA agents in the field

#55

Post by tomjen3 »

neurotech1 wrote: post #24

The problem today is that with LinkedIn and Facebook, some CIA personnel are stupid enough to actually mention their status with the Agency, or are friends/connections with known CIA Analysts etc. who do mention their status. NSA Contractors sometimes mention classified codenames in their LinkedIn page. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130617/13482623512/disco...

The first part matters a lot less now that the enemy has a copy of all the data the office of personel had collected (everything on everybody with a security clearence who were not CIA). If somebody has access to classified material as part of his/her work and is not on that list that person is CIA.

Re: The KGB’s success identifying CIA agents in the field

#56

Post by TheGrimDerp1 »

hugh4 wrote: post #50
gherkin0 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That seems like something that competent counterintelligence people should be monitoring and shutting down. Hell, they probably should have unit in their new employee orientation covering this: "Do not list your occupation as 'Spy'" on LinkedIn.

I once read an NSA employee manual which talked about how you should talk about your work. It said you should be truthful without making it sound exciting or mysterious. If asked "where do you work" you say "the department of defense". If asked what branch you say "the NSA". If asked what you do, you say "research". And that's it, apparently. No doubt there are other manuals for other types of employee, but they're n…

We used to just mess with crappy computers all day while doing the equivalent of memorizing phonebooks. suuuuper boring stuff.
Post reply on HN