3 ms·

First- there is absolutely no way for a civilian reporter and civilian readers to know if this article is even true. The CIA doesn't make a practice of verifyi

by parsimo2010 7y ago

First- there is absolutely no way for a civilian reporter and civilian readers to know if this article is even true. The CIA doesn't make a practice of verifying where they are/aren't collecting intelligence around the world, for obvious reasons. If the CIA did collect HUMINT on the UAE they would be very careful about it- they don't want to damage the relationship we have with one of the few countries that lets the USA operate armed jets on regular missions (many countries allow the USA to base jets, but restrict taking off with weapons or other inconvenient things to the military). Second, if the CIA actually doesn't collect HUMINT in the UAE, it's not because we think they are unimpeachable in their conduct. It's because we don't need to put people at risk to get the information we need. By themselves the UAE isn't capable of very much. The UAE's power comes from money and they conduct their business out in the open. The intelligence community gets all the information they need by watching bank transactions and that leads them to the people they really need to spy on. The UAE is different from Iran, which not only funds malign groups but actually trains and commands its own network. Iran's money and people need to be watched, but the UAE doesn't get its hands dirty, so we only need to watch their money. Edit: rather than fix all my grammar, when I say "we" I mean the USA as a nation, not that I'm some CIA agent with spare time to comment on HN.

secfirstmd 7y ago
This article is total rubbish. The CIA spies on Germany, France and even (yes even) the UK at times. Of course it spies on the UAE.
- hos234 7y ago
  Agree. It's how they figured out Kurt Hendricks was in Dubai.
- guitarbill 7y ago
  who could forget the Abu Omar Case, where the CIA kidnapped an individual in Milan. but they left evidence due to sloppy OPSEC. so we know for sure they used to do much worse. I guess most spying activities don't warrant such a detailed investigation though, so we never find out. the Black Hat 2013 talk on this is a great watch: https://youtube.com/watch?v=bM0PmwOlifE https://youtube.com/watch?v=bM0PmwOlifE
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
lucas_membrane 7y ago
> there is absolutely no way for a civilian reporter and civilian readers to know if this article is even true This is a Reuters article. Reuters has been a respected news agency for a very long time. Back during World War I, the British government asked Reuters to slip covert British government propaganda into their news stream. Reuters responded with a clear refusal to do any such thing without equally covert monetary inducement.
- whatshisface 7y ago
  Let's say the CIA sends some agents to "leak" to Reuters. What is Reuters going to do to verify it? They could report on it or not, but they aren't going to fly to the UAE to check for spies.
- parsimo2010 7y ago
  I’m not questioning Reuters’ journalistic integrity. Even if they do everything right we can’t be sure if the story is true. Their reputable sources are ex-CIA, so they are out of the loop. Any active CIA persons with knowledge of operations in the Middle East are not going to be talking to journalists. Everyone involved in intelligence collection has signed NDAs and can go to jail if they reveal classified information, even after they retire. How many people are willing to risk jail for revealing an intelligence gap? What are the chances that these sources are just guessing or lying instead? The people talking to journalists after they leave the CIA are looking to profit somehow, or they are disloyal or incompetent (or some combination of the above). They may also be good patriots spreading disinformation on behalf of the CIA. None of the above scenarios are Reuters’ fault for publishing a story with multiple sources that were willing to go on the record. But that doesn’t mean we should doubt the truth of the sources. Why is this story being published? Who stands to benefit?
- vvvvz 7y ago
  Pathetic.

secfirstmd 7y ago

This article is total rubbish. The CIA spies on Germany, France and even (yes even) the UK at times. Of course it spies on the UAE.

hos234 7y ago
Agree. It's how they figured out Kurt Hendricks was in Dubai.
guitarbill 7y ago
who could forget the Abu Omar Case, where the CIA kidnapped an individual in Milan. but they left evidence due to sloppy OPSEC. so we know for sure they used to do much worse. I guess most spying activities don't warrant such a detailed investigation though, so we never find out. the Black Hat 2013 talk on this is a great watch: https://youtube.com/watch?v=bM0PmwOlifE https://youtube.com/watch?v=bM0PmwOlifE

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

lucas_membrane 7y ago

> there is absolutely no way for a civilian reporter and civilian readers to know if this article is even true This is a Reuters article. Reuters has been a respected news agency for a very long time. Back during World War I, the British government asked Reuters to slip covert British government propaganda into their news stream. Reuters responded with a clear refusal to do any such thing without equally covert monetary inducement.

whatshisface 7y ago
Let's say the CIA sends some agents to "leak" to Reuters. What is Reuters going to do to verify it? They could report on it or not, but they aren't going to fly to the UAE to check for spies.
parsimo2010 7y ago
I’m not questioning Reuters’ journalistic integrity. Even if they do everything right we can’t be sure if the story is true. Their reputable sources are ex-CIA, so they are out of the loop. Any active CIA persons with knowledge of operations in the Middle East are not going to be talking to journalists. Everyone involved in intelligence collection has signed NDAs and can go to jail if they reveal classified information, even after they retire. How many people are willing to risk jail for revealing an intelligence gap? What are the chances that these sources are just guessing or lying instead? The people talking to journalists after they leave the CIA are looking to profit somehow, or they are disloyal or incompetent (or some combination of the above). They may also be good patriots spreading disinformation on behalf of the CIA. None of the above scenarios are Reuters’ fault for publishing a story with multiple sources that were willing to go on the record. But that doesn’t mean we should doubt the truth of the sources. Why is this story being published? Who stands to benefit?
vvvvz 7y ago
Pathetic.