FBI not as incompetent as recent reports say

2001-07-26 Thread Tim May

Wen Ho Lee, Robert Hanssen, screwed-up lab tests, failure to detect 
Aldrich Ames, missing handguns, Waco, Ruby Ridge...the portrait of a 
dysfunctional agency, right?

Far from it, from what I can see. Some of the examples are marginally 
silly, some are due to pressures from bureaucrats, some are things 
which virtually no organization on earth could have detected.

I'm not a particular friend of the FBI, as the Seattle and Portland 
offices will probably acknowledge, but I seen no particular _decline_ 
in quality such as the article Matt Gaylor posted suggests.

The spotlight is much brighter today, there are many more reporting 
outlets. And the Net magnifies conspiracy theories. (I believe Waco 
was mishandled badly--the preacher should have just been picked up by 
the local Sheriff or arrested on one of his many trips into town or 
walks along his fence. And I believe Ruby Ridge was an example of a 
barricade situation which didn' t need to happen. The crime of 
selling a long gun with a barrel one quarter of an inch too short was 
both a set up (to induce cooperation by Randy Weaver) and shouldn't 
have been a crime in the first place. These are mistakes, not 
evidence of a Bureau that has become incompetent or malevolent.)

The Wen Ho Lee case is much more mysterious. Maybe he _was_ a Chinese 
spy...certainly China is an emerging superpower with the willingness 
to recruit spies. We do it, the Russians do it, the French and 
Germans do it, why not the Chinese?

What about missing weapons? Well, large organizations lose all kinds 
of things. Including guns. Big deal.

Hanssen? The Sovs knew that recruiting agents within the FBI's 
counter-spy division was the equivalent of recruiting agents at Los 
Alamos in the 1940s. Did the FBI miss some warning signs? Probably. 
Did Jim Bamford miss some warning signs? Yep. (Bamford was a friend 
of Hanssen's.)

How about the bad lab results? Sure. Shit happens.

But, all in all, I see no particular evidence that the FBI is in a 
state of moral or professional collapse. I think I'd rather have been 
working for Louis Freeh these past 10 years than a weirdo like J. 
Edgar Hoover and his queen Tolson.

(I had and still have profound disagreement with Freeh and Jim 
Kellstrom (spelling? I used to know his name, but it escapes me right 
now) over things like Clipper, key escrow, and no knock raids, but I 
thought they were competent, professional, and intelligent 
adversaries. They never knew who I was, obviously, but we were in the 
same competency league. In my opinion, of course.)

Thinking of the FBI as Keystone Kops is dangerous, which is why I am 
writing this note.


--Tim May


-- 
Timothy C. May [EMAIL PROTECTED]Corralitos, California
Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon
Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go
Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns




Re: FBI not as incompetent as recent reports say

2001-07-25 Thread Declan McCullagh

A broader point can be made as well. The Lee-Hanssen-labtest ancedotes are 
just that. They may be important, but ancedotes do not by themselves 
provide evidence of a trend.

To really evaluate the FBI, we'd need data like # of prosecutions, # of 
prosecutions thrown out of court because of bad evidence, # of employees, # 
of spies caught, and even more detailed info that would be tricky to 
collect. TRAC does a reasonable job.

But, all in all, I see no particular evidence that the FBI is in a state 
of moral or professional collapse. I think I'd rather have been working for

Right. They seem pretty much what they were a decade ago, when I first 
moved to DC. And even though they may still lack clue, they're nevertheless 
a lot smarter about computer crimes and what happens online. FLETC 
courses, training manuals, Defcon presentations, etc.

-Declan