3 ms·

Ask HN: Russian Spies?

7 points by lakeeffect 16y ago

So there has been a lot of talk about these Russian Spies, but i am having a hard time understanding what information these individuals were gathering. Any thoughts.

iamdave 16y ago
If there are any (other) veterans on this board, they'll probably tell you the same thing I'm about to: think OPSEC ;)
- lakeeffect 16y ago
  so by veteran, you mean ex-military or just people that have been around for a while? I appreciate your suggestion toward the direction of OPSEC, but would that imply that its not generally clear what their intent was or that i am a moron for not getting the subtle here is your answer "wink"?
  - iamdave 16y ago
    ex-military. And by 'think OPSEC' I mean if someone had legitimate knowledge of what these people were "spying" on and why, it probably would be a very unwise idea to disclose that information on a public message board. In other words, both.
    - lakeeffect 16y ago
      solid explanation; as the dissemination of this information on a public message board would further the point as to why the main stream media would not have the relay.
cperciva 16y ago
What information were they gathering? Quite possibly nothing at all. The Russian secret service plays a long game; it would not be out of character for them to have someone doing absolutely nothing for 10 years just so that they could be used to pass messages at a later date without drawing suspicion. Of course, if they saw something useful -- say, if they found out that someone in a position of power had large debts -- they might be expected to break cover to the extent necessary to report that.
- lakeeffect 16y ago
  I would assume that if someone was held under suspicious of spying that person would have been believed to be spying, gathering critical information, i make this comment with the note worthy realization that the US citizens held in Iran for spying are generally not believed to be spies by main stream america. iamdave further notes that the transfer of the focus of the information gathering would be a security threat in itself, maybe implying a security vulnerability that has yet to be resolved, or an overt reason to detain.
  - cperciva 16y ago
    As far as I know, they weren't actually charged with espionage. Rather, they were charged with being unregistered agents of a foreign state -- which is a crime of omission, not a crime of commission.
    - lakeeffect 16y ago
      Alright, that would further the explanation you gave as to the ten year idle delay of inaction and justify the lack of explanation of intent(as it would not have been clear if it didn't exist) as these "Spies" are just falsely labeled.
      - lakeeffect 16y ago
        So it turns out that the spy exchange was happening a month before these guys got arrested. I think it was just basic information sharing, or as the operational security expert inferred a way of both parties exchanging tests on Operational Security. We got ten of which 3 were in high spaces? They got four who knows how.
hga 16y ago
"Spy" covers a lot of ground, from pilfering a copy of "Invasion Plan Orange" to setting up networks of influence. The Soviets were big on doing the latter (a little quality time with Google will tell you all about that, try phrases like agents of influence all the way to "shit eaters" (the Russians had little respect for those working against their own counties interests)). Influencing the actions of a foreign power is tremendously more useful than "gathering information"; after all, what is the point of the latter but to take action upon it? I haven't been following this case at all, but I noticed in one article that one of them, a "Donald Heathfield" was a classmate at Harvard's Kennedy School with Felipe Calderon who is now the president of Mexico. I haven't more than skimmed the beginning of this, but it's likely to be of use. Radosh is an old Cold Warrior, he's seen it all before: http://pajamasmedia.com/ronradosh/2010/06/30/lessons-from-the-russian-spy-arrests/?singlepage=true http://pajamasmedia.com/ronradosh/2010/06/30/lessons-from-th...
dennisgorelik 16y ago
As I understand it -- they were gathering information about what offers would US politicians give to Russian politicians during the meetings. The reason to gather this information could be to be better prepared for oncoming negotiations. So if you want to stretch it -- then you can call it spying, but it's hardly worth much. If instead of making all this noise about "spying" FBI dealt with more important things (such as credit card fraud) -- it would be much better. Unfortunately -- no such luck.
mudil 16y ago
Here's a good overview: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/02/AR2010070205569_pf.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07...

7 points by lakeeffect 16y ago

So there has been a lot of talk about these Russian Spies, but i am having a hard time understanding what information these individuals were gathering. Any thoughts.

iamdave 16y ago

If there are any (other) veterans on this board, they'll probably tell you the same thing I'm about to: think OPSEC ;)

lakeeffect 16y ago
so by veteran, you mean ex-military or just people that have been around for a while? I appreciate your suggestion toward the direction of OPSEC, but would that imply that its not generally clear what their intent was or that i am a moron for not getting the subtle here is your answer "wink"?
- iamdave 16y ago
  ex-military. And by 'think OPSEC' I mean if someone had legitimate knowledge of what these people were "spying" on and why, it probably would be a very unwise idea to disclose that information on a public message board. In other words, both.
  - lakeeffect 16y ago
    solid explanation; as the dissemination of this information on a public message board would further the point as to why the main stream media would not have the relay.

cperciva 16y ago

What information were they gathering? Quite possibly nothing at all. The Russian secret service plays a long game; it would not be out of character for them to have someone doing absolutely nothing for 10 years just so that they could be used to pass messages at a later date without drawing suspicion. Of course, if they saw something useful -- say, if they found out that someone in a position of power had large debts -- they might be expected to break cover to the extent necessary to report that.

lakeeffect 16y ago
I would assume that if someone was held under suspicious of spying that person would have been believed to be spying, gathering critical information, i make this comment with the note worthy realization that the US citizens held in Iran for spying are generally not believed to be spies by main stream america. iamdave further notes that the transfer of the focus of the information gathering would be a security threat in itself, maybe implying a security vulnerability that has yet to be resolved, or an overt reason to detain.
- cperciva 16y ago
  As far as I know, they weren't actually charged with espionage. Rather, they were charged with being unregistered agents of a foreign state -- which is a crime of omission, not a crime of commission.
  - lakeeffect 16y ago
    Alright, that would further the explanation you gave as to the ten year idle delay of inaction and justify the lack of explanation of intent(as it would not have been clear if it didn't exist) as these "Spies" are just falsely labeled.
    - lakeeffect 16y ago
      So it turns out that the spy exchange was happening a month before these guys got arrested. I think it was just basic information sharing, or as the operational security expert inferred a way of both parties exchanging tests on Operational Security. We got ten of which 3 were in high spaces? They got four who knows how.

hga 16y ago

"Spy" covers a lot of ground, from pilfering a copy of "Invasion Plan Orange" to setting up networks of influence. The Soviets were big on doing the latter (a little quality time with Google will tell you all about that, try phrases like agents of influence all the way to "shit eaters" (the Russians had little respect for those working against their own counties interests)). Influencing the actions of a foreign power is tremendously more useful than "gathering information"; after all, what is the point of the latter but to take action upon it? I haven't been following this case at all, but I noticed in one article that one of them, a "Donald Heathfield" was a classmate at Harvard's Kennedy School with Felipe Calderon who is now the president of Mexico. I haven't more than skimmed the beginning of this, but it's likely to be of use. Radosh is an old Cold Warrior, he's seen it all before: http://pajamasmedia.com/ronradosh/2010/06/30/lessons-from-the-russian-spy-arrests/?singlepage=true http://pajamasmedia.com/ronradosh/2010/06/30/lessons-from-th...

dennisgorelik 16y ago

As I understand it -- they were gathering information about what offers would US politicians give to Russian politicians during the meetings. The reason to gather this information could be to be better prepared for oncoming negotiations. So if you want to stretch it -- then you can call it spying, but it's hardly worth much. If instead of making all this noise about "spying" FBI dealt with more important things (such as credit card fraud) -- it would be much better. Unfortunately -- no such luck.

mudil 16y ago

Here's a good overview: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/02/AR2010070205569_pf.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07...