4 ms·

Until 2004 directly via DCI, since then via embedding officers in leadership across the rest of the IC. Today, NSA SIGINT still flows directly to the CIA. They

Until 2004 directly via DCI, since then via embedding officers in leadership across the rest of the IC. Today, NSA SIGINT still flows directly to the CIA. They are also the only agency without an independent mission, and must rely on the CIA or CYBERCOM to actually do anything with SIGINT (they are only allowed to gather) Also an open secret that the FBI and CIA often collude and any operation that they can’t get a warrant for just gets performed by the CIA. The FBI’s threat matrix is coordinated by the CIA and despite the Church probes their collusion has only incentivized and even been codified (eg NCTC)

jonnybgood 1y ago
NSA SIGINT flows to any agency who has a need to know. And what do you mean by can only do anything with SIGINT? SIGINT is a broad term that includes COMINT and ELINT, which many other agencies do quite a lot with.
- snypher 1y ago
  I think they mean the NSA can't directly "action" an intel item, only pass the intel to the guys with the drones etc.
  - JamesSwift 1y ago
    I think they mean what they said, but in reality its due to what you are describing. The IC is symbiotic in their missions and capabilities. In the same way you might say a lot of the NSA's technical accesses are gated by the CIA (due to being HUMINT derived), the inverse is also true where the SIGINT collected by those accesses is gated by the NSA. This isnt strictly true though, since the NSA also has plenty of other non-CIA derived sources. I also think in a lot of ways it like saying the Army and Navy control the entire military because all the other branches broke off from them and if you need eg aquatic support then the Navy has to provide it.
    - cuuupid 1y ago
      I mean exactly what I said, the NSA cannot do anything with SIGINT except collect it. This is not “due” to anything, it is an explicit constraint. If one state’s borders were controlled by another’s, its operations reliant on another’s, and its leadership largely coming from or connected to the other’s, we would not consider that state sovereign. In the same way, my point is that the NSA cannot be considered independent of the CIA. While other agencies can use SIGINT, all of it goes to the CIA by default and access to the NSA’s network is still gated by the CIA. The converse is not true - the NSA does not oversee most broader intelligence networks (shockingly neither does CYBERCOM), and the CIA also operates siloed networks and operations. The military example you gave is a great way of thinking about it. The Army and Navy gather resources and maintain readiness, but operations and control of resources is afforded to component commands. All of these are technically separate and roll up directly to JCS/JTFs or DepSecDef. Similarly each intelligence agency is technically separate and oversees gathering/maintaining intelligence under its mission, but is still practically under the CIA’s influence.

jonnybgood 1y ago

NSA SIGINT flows to any agency who has a need to know. And what do you mean by can only do anything with SIGINT? SIGINT is a broad term that includes COMINT and ELINT, which many other agencies do quite a lot with.

snypher 1y ago
I think they mean the NSA can't directly "action" an intel item, only pass the intel to the guys with the drones etc.
- JamesSwift 1y ago
  I think they mean what they said, but in reality its due to what you are describing. The IC is symbiotic in their missions and capabilities. In the same way you might say a lot of the NSA's technical accesses are gated by the CIA (due to being HUMINT derived), the inverse is also true where the SIGINT collected by those accesses is gated by the NSA. This isnt strictly true though, since the NSA also has plenty of other non-CIA derived sources. I also think in a lot of ways it like saying the Army and Navy control the entire military because all the other branches broke off from them and if you need eg aquatic support then the Navy has to provide it.
  - cuuupid 1y ago
    I mean exactly what I said, the NSA cannot do anything with SIGINT except collect it. This is not “due” to anything, it is an explicit constraint. If one state’s borders were controlled by another’s, its operations reliant on another’s, and its leadership largely coming from or connected to the other’s, we would not consider that state sovereign. In the same way, my point is that the NSA cannot be considered independent of the CIA. While other agencies can use SIGINT, all of it goes to the CIA by default and access to the NSA’s network is still gated by the CIA. The converse is not true - the NSA does not oversee most broader intelligence networks (shockingly neither does CYBERCOM), and the CIA also operates siloed networks and operations. The military example you gave is a great way of thinking about it. The Army and Navy gather resources and maintain readiness, but operations and control of resources is afforded to component commands. All of these are technically separate and roll up directly to JCS/JTFs or DepSecDef. Similarly each intelligence agency is technically separate and oversees gathering/maintaining intelligence under its mission, but is still practically under the CIA’s influence.