The way OSAC worked was that we, the Gov't side, had the clearance. We would scrub, or clean, the data that we wanted to distribute, to ensure it didn't contain anything that could point to sources or methods.
It's a balancing act. You don't want to disclose the source, human or technical, but if you can't use the information then whats the point in having it. Tom Clancy dealt with this heavily in the novel the Bear and the Dragon. I will say this much though, that I think our entire defense and intelligence and law enforcement industries need to be revamped. There are 17 federal agencies listed as members of "intelligence community" http://www.intelligence.gov/about-the-intelligence-community/ That doesn't include the newly formed DCS, defense clandestine service, nor does it seem to include the JSOC SMUs like the ISA (Orange) or CAG (1st SFOD-D) which has it's own intelligence arm. Even in the aftermath of Sept. 11th, information sharing is a nightmare from just an institutional perspective alone. Nor does that include all the various state and local law enforcement intelligence agencies and units, of which there are many. It's unwieldy and it leads to abuses. Government employees all want to see their piece of the pie increase, bigger budgets and more employees, empire building is the norm among high level government employees. We need a way out. I think it should really be paired down to three organizations. The R&I of the U.S. Department of State should get a huge influx of money and personnel for strategic international intelligence missions, the Defense Department should solidify it's management of all it's intelligence assets (both tactical and strategic) under a single roof that can only operate abroad, and the FBI should handle all domestic intelligence activities (primarily focusing on terrorism and counter-intelligence). I don't think that local law enforcement should be allowed to conduct intelligence operations against people. Their job isn't to prevent crime, it really isn't, it's to assist in the prosecution of crimes that have been committed. I mean we talk about balanced budgets, civil rights, privacy, all of these things can be worked on by slashing budgets and doing away with huge swaths of personnel, whole agencies. The same kind of thing should be done for Law Enforcement as well. There are just too many agencies out there, too many agents, to have positive control. Secret service, Marshall's Service, BATFE, DEA, FBI, IRS, Customs, ICE, TSA, it's ridiculous and out of control. They don't talk to each other anymore than their cousins in the intelligence community and things get missed, slip through the cracks. We are also continuing to prosecute things that shouldn't be crimes. Conspiracy, no actions taken, no crime committed, but we talked about doing something, is a crime. The thought police are here and they are well armed and well funded. Our deficit has increased by 5 Trillion dollars during the Obama administration, more than any other president even when accounting for inflation. Our individual liberties which have been slowly decreasing for as long as we've had a government, have lately been subject to an all out assault, started under Bush, continued under Obama. Hell I'm nostalgic for the Clinton era, even though at the time I thought it could hardly have been worse. I don't know, I'm just a high school drop out with a GED, and a shady past. Very few people are going to give what I have to say any credence, but I have been lucky. I've had friends and associates in all the major arms of the Defense and Intelligence communities, and I've seen a lot over the years. I had spent most of my adult life working in these domains, and to be honest was scared and amazed at the incompetency, the self interest, and the lack of a singular vision or or goal within them. I don't know what the answer is. People are talking about it at all levels, but nothing is going to change without some very painful and deep cuts. People need to lose their jobs and be censured. Some people probably need to go to prison. I doubt it's going to happen though. On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 10:23 AM, Dana <[email protected]> wrote: > > Yes. I thought the part about needing to crowdsource to even identify > the language was interesting too. I see your point, Tim, that > something like stuxnet might require a source to be protected -- > except that stuxnet is widely discussed at security conferences and > apparently is not classified. Of course since I don't have a clearance > perhaps I am just displaying my ignorance, but I don't think it's ok > to meekly accept assertions of a national security need either. We see > how that worked out with the Patriot Act, right? > > I am still struggling with a use case for CISPA here. So, just as a > thought experiment, are we saying that the CIA or the NSA or somebody > might get information in some way where a source needs to be > protected, so they classify the information, but but but they still > share the information with businesses? Except it's classified. So are > they going to require that companies have someone with a clearance? Or > are they disclosing anyway? That's the way it reads to me. So what > about protecting sources? I just don't get it and it feels like they > are trying to baffle us with bullshit. > > On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 8:40 PM, LRS Scout <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Yeah it's slick as shit. > > > > Somebody's got some sharp people on the pay roll. > > > > On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 11:33 PM, Judah McAuley <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > >> > >> That's interesting, I had not heard of Duqu. Looks like it might be a > >> recon virus to analyze targets for future attacks. Out of all the > >> signatures, the fact that it removes itself after a configurable > >> number of days is the scariest to me. The authors obviously want to > >> get it, find things out, then get out without being detected. Classic > >> espionage and recon. > >> > >> Judah > >> > >> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 7:57 PM, LRS Scout <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > > >> > Duqu is likely the same sort of situation. > >> > > >> > Good example. > >> > > >> > >> > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:350267 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
