4 ms·

Successes are kept secret otherwise you tell your enemies that you can decipher their communications, which will probably make them switch to a new system you m

Successes are kept secret otherwise you tell your enemies that you can decipher their communications, which will probably make them switch to a new system you may not be able to decrypt. Saying spies never discover anything useful mainly displays a total ignorance for the topic. The most famous counter-example is the breaking of Enigma, to give a SIGINT example (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptanalysis_of_the_Enigma http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptanalysis_of_the_Enigma). In addition, I think the author mixes up the notions of SIGINT and HUMINT. I think we can all come up with at least one example in History where HUMINT was key to victory.

willvarfar 13y ago
He does mention the enigma in the article. You read it all? Can you come up with a few humint key to victory examples?
- shin_lao 13y ago
  The allied intoxicated the axis to make them believe they would land somewhere else (sorry it's another WWII example). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Bodyguard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Bodyguard There are many examples during the Cold War, but I'm not sure it can be said "key to victory", if there is any victory to be considered in the first place.
  - weichi 13y ago
    Please read the article. This example actually supports his thesis that "as long as it is possible for counterspies to generate misleading information most of the time, spies are useless even when their information happens to be correct."
    - shin_lao 13y ago
      It's like saying: "it's useless to have a sword, because my enemy will have a shield".
      - abcd_f 13y ago
        Don't bother. The crowd just loves the idea of spies being useless morons based on some game theory musings by a fellow armchair analyst.
        Ygg2 13y ago
        Not, morons, just corrupt criminals posing as doing something useful.
      - onetwofiveten 13y ago
        No it's not. The correct analogy would be "it's useless to have a sword because my enemy has a magic shield that is easy to use, impossible to detect and will hurt me if I hit it". If such shields existed, then certainly, they would make swords useless. Likewise, it's reasonable to deduce that certain kinds of intelligence gathering are useless if you start from the premise that counter intelligence is easy to generate and difficult to detect. If you disagree with that conclusion, then I think you probably disagree with the premise rather than the logical argument. I don't know anything about spying, but if you can share some insight into whether or not the premise holds water, that would be interesting. The article specifically talks about examples where counter intelligence would be hard to generate or easy to detect. What did you think of those examples? Do you have more? Do you have insight into why counter intelligence would be harder to generate or easier to detect in general?
- pliny 13y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eli_Cohen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eli_Cohen
- paganel 13y ago
  > Can you come up with a few humint key to victory examples? Not the OP, but my first thought was this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Atomic_Spy_Ring http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Atomic_Spy_Ring . I've now read for the first time that the program's importance seems to be "disputed", but I still think you'd have to be crazy to think that the extra information didn't help the Soviets.
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  Technically counter-espionage, but I always think of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mincemeat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mincemeat Edit: Probably SIGINT, not HUMINT, but I'll leave the link for other people's reading pleasure. In any case, one that would definitely be HUMINT- I recall some Axis pilot defected to the Allies, giving the Allies information about a new plane. I don't remember what plane- our first Zero was recovered from a crash, maybe it was a Messerschmidt?
  - onetwofiveten 13y ago
    Counter espionage, SIGINT and secret weapons were all discussed in the article.
- grugq 13y ago
  Richard Sorge. He (arguably) won WWII. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Sorge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Sorge
- InclinedPlane 13y ago
  Is the killing of Osama Bin Laden an example of a victory? That relied heavily on humint.
  - fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
    That depends, can we stop fighting now?
    - philwelch 13y ago
      We withdrew all the troops. Sure, we have drones flying around killing people now, but as long as no photogenic white soldiers get killed or captured the news cycle won't notice. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Lynch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Lynch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Tillman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Tillman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_O'Grady http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_O'Grady
hencq 13y ago
Did you read the article? He covers Enigma explicitly and gives code-breaking as an example where spying is potentially effective.
hyperpape 13y ago
Actually, the spy agencies in the United States and their political defenders continually claim successes. Those successes are then later revealed to be bunk. I suppose you can tell yourself that they're doing this on purpose and hiding the real successes, but if so, it sounds like a daring attack on their own credibility.
onetwofiveten 13y ago
It makes sense for the article to not distinguish between SIGINT and HUMINT. It's just about the effectiveness of misinformation. I guess the idea is that intelligence gathering is only useful in cases where counter-intelligence is difficult. The examples given in the article were cracking widely used codes (because it would be hard to fake large volumes of traffic) and plans for secret weapons (because they can be verified by building the weapon). Given the examples discussed here, I would guess that a single trusted embedded agent with a long history of providing valuable information could be trusted up to a certain point. I suppose anything that is easily checked would be good too. Bear in mind that coming up with an example where HUMINT was key to victory doesn't actually prove your point at all, because there may be even more examples where counter-intelligence was key to victory.

willvarfar 13y ago

He does mention the enigma in the article. You read it all? Can you come up with a few humint key to victory examples?

shin_lao 13y ago
The allied intoxicated the axis to make them believe they would land somewhere else (sorry it's another WWII example). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Bodyguard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Bodyguard There are many examples during the Cold War, but I'm not sure it can be said "key to victory", if there is any victory to be considered in the first place.
- weichi 13y ago
  Please read the article. This example actually supports his thesis that "as long as it is possible for counterspies to generate misleading information most of the time, spies are useless even when their information happens to be correct."
  - shin_lao 13y ago
    It's like saying: "it's useless to have a sword, because my enemy will have a shield".
    - abcd_f 13y ago
      Don't bother. The crowd just loves the idea of spies being useless morons based on some game theory musings by a fellow armchair analyst.
      - Ygg2 13y ago
        Not, morons, just corrupt criminals posing as doing something useful.
    - onetwofiveten 13y ago
      No it's not. The correct analogy would be "it's useless to have a sword because my enemy has a magic shield that is easy to use, impossible to detect and will hurt me if I hit it". If such shields existed, then certainly, they would make swords useless. Likewise, it's reasonable to deduce that certain kinds of intelligence gathering are useless if you start from the premise that counter intelligence is easy to generate and difficult to detect. If you disagree with that conclusion, then I think you probably disagree with the premise rather than the logical argument. I don't know anything about spying, but if you can share some insight into whether or not the premise holds water, that would be interesting. The article specifically talks about examples where counter intelligence would be hard to generate or easy to detect. What did you think of those examples? Do you have more? Do you have insight into why counter intelligence would be harder to generate or easier to detect in general?
pliny 13y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eli_Cohen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eli_Cohen
paganel 13y ago
> Can you come up with a few humint key to victory examples? Not the OP, but my first thought was this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Atomic_Spy_Ring http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Atomic_Spy_Ring . I've now read for the first time that the program's importance seems to be "disputed", but I still think you'd have to be crazy to think that the extra information didn't help the Soviets.
sliverstorm 13y ago
Technically counter-espionage, but I always think of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mincemeat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mincemeat Edit: Probably SIGINT, not HUMINT, but I'll leave the link for other people's reading pleasure. In any case, one that would definitely be HUMINT- I recall some Axis pilot defected to the Allies, giving the Allies information about a new plane. I don't remember what plane- our first Zero was recovered from a crash, maybe it was a Messerschmidt?
- onetwofiveten 13y ago
  Counter espionage, SIGINT and secret weapons were all discussed in the article.
grugq 13y ago
Richard Sorge. He (arguably) won WWII. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Sorge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Sorge
InclinedPlane 13y ago
Is the killing of Osama Bin Laden an example of a victory? That relied heavily on humint.
- fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
  That depends, can we stop fighting now?
  - philwelch 13y ago
    We withdrew all the troops. Sure, we have drones flying around killing people now, but as long as no photogenic white soldiers get killed or captured the news cycle won't notice. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Lynch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Lynch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Tillman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Tillman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_O'Grady http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_O'Grady

hencq 13y ago

Did you read the article? He covers Enigma explicitly and gives code-breaking as an example where spying is potentially effective.

hyperpape 13y ago

Actually, the spy agencies in the United States and their political defenders continually claim successes. Those successes are then later revealed to be bunk. I suppose you can tell yourself that they're doing this on purpose and hiding the real successes, but if so, it sounds like a daring attack on their own credibility.

onetwofiveten 13y ago

It makes sense for the article to not distinguish between SIGINT and HUMINT. It's just about the effectiveness of misinformation. I guess the idea is that intelligence gathering is only useful in cases where counter-intelligence is difficult. The examples given in the article were cracking widely used codes (because it would be hard to fake large volumes of traffic) and plans for secret weapons (because they can be verified by building the weapon). Given the examples discussed here, I would guess that a single trusted embedded agent with a long history of providing valuable information could be trusted up to a certain point. I suppose anything that is easily checked would be good too. Bear in mind that coming up with an example where HUMINT was key to victory doesn't actually prove your point at all, because there may be even more examples where counter-intelligence was key to victory.