4 ms·
Probably they still aren’t sharing all the information they have with each other. I had thought that was supposed to be much improved post 9-11.
by alchemist1e9 4y ago
Probably they still aren’t sharing all the information they have with each other. I had thought that was supposed to be much improved post 9-11.
- kashunstva 4y agoOr there aren't objective standards for what "low, medium, and high confidence" actually mean, thereby allowing one agency to look at the evidence and say it's of low confidence and another to look at the same data and say it's moderate confidence.
- Bjartr 4y agoInterestingly, the CIA has published a paper on exactly this subject: Words of Estimative Probability (PDF) https://www.cia.gov/resources/csi/studies-in-intelligence/archives/vol-8-no-4/words-of-estimative-probability/ https://www.cia.gov/resources/csi/studies-in-intelligence/ar...
- cameldrv 4y agoModerate and Low are Words of Analytic Confidence [1]. This has more to do with the quality of the sourcing than a numeric probability number. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_confidence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_confidence
- ineedasername 4y agoOr they are coming to different conclusions given the same ambiguous/incomplete information. It could simply be disagreement, or just lack of a standard metric here to compare notes easily.
- bandyaboot 4y agoIt probably just means the correct aggregate conclusion is “we don’t know, go ask China”.
- tzs 4y agoI read that they did massively increase sharing after 9/11, but there was a reassessment after the Manning leaks. Manning had access to way more information than someone at their level needed for their job, and they concluded this came about from going a bit too far on the post 9/11 sharing and so they dialed it back a bit.
- jasonladuke0311 4y agoThey improved the ability to share info (fusion centers and whatnot), but the desire to do so remains under the auspices of humans.