Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.mobile.ipad > #28728 > unrolled thread

Apple's Report on Government Information Requests

Back to article view | Back to comp.mobile.ipad

Contents

  Apple's Report on Government Information Requests Michelle Steiner <foo@bar.com> - 2013-11-06 08:40 -0700
    Re: Apple's Report on Government Information Requests Doc O'Leary <droleary@6usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2013-11-06 11:05 -0600
      Re: Apple's Report on Government Information Requests Michelle Steiner <foo@bar.com> - 2013-11-06 10:50 -0700
        Re: Apple's Report on Government Information Requests "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2013-11-07 04:59 +1100
          Re: Apple's Report on Government Information Requests Michelle Steiner <foo@bar.com> - 2013-11-06 11:23 -0700
            Re: Apple's Report on Government Information Requests "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2013-11-07 10:29 +1100
        Re: Apple's Report on Government Information Requests Bert <bert@iphouse.com> - 2013-11-06 18:33 +0000
          Re: Apple's Report on Government Information Requests Michelle Steiner <foo@bar.com> - 2013-11-06 12:13 -0700
            Re: Apple's Report on Government Information Requests nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-11-06 14:20 -0500
              Re: Apple's Report on Government Information Requests Michelle Steiner <foo@bar.com> - 2013-11-06 13:35 -0700
            Re: Apple's Report on Government Information Requests "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2013-11-07 10:31 +1100
            Re: Apple's Report on Government Information Requests Bert <bert@iphouse.com> - 2013-11-06 23:52 +0000
          Re: Apple's Report on Government Information Requests billy@MIX.COM - 2013-11-06 22:16 +0000
            Re: Apple's Report on Government Information Requests Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2013-11-06 19:00 -0500
              Re: Apple's Report on Government Information Requests Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-11-06 21:22 -0500
                Re: Apple's Report on Government Information Requests Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2013-11-06 23:30 -0500
                  Re: Apple's Report on Government Information Requests "Simon Antslinger" <sa1964@nospam.com> - 2013-11-07 15:41 +1100
                  Re: Apple's Report on Government Information Requests Michelle Steiner <foo@bar.com> - 2013-11-07 07:55 -0700
                    Re: Apple's Report on Government Information Requests "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2013-11-08 03:08 +1100
                  Re: Apple's Report on Government Information Requests Paul Magnussen <magiconinc@earthlink.net> - 2013-11-07 08:51 -0800
                    Re: Apple's Report on Government Information Requests Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2013-11-07 18:42 -0500
                      Re: Apple's Report on Government Information Requests "Simon Antslinger" <sa1964@nospam.com> - 2013-11-08 12:21 +1100
              Re: Apple's Report on Government Information Requests Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-11-07 17:23 +0000
          Re: Apple's Report on Government Information Requests Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-11-07 01:31 +0000
            Re: Apple's Report on Government Information Requests nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-11-06 22:40 -0500
        Re: Apple's Report on Government Information Requests Doc O'Leary <droleary@6usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2013-11-07 11:08 -0600
          Re: Apple's Report on Government Information Requests dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2013-11-08 08:58 +1300
            Re: Apple's Report on Government Information Requests "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2013-11-08 09:12 +1100
            Re: Apple's Report on Government Information Requests Doc O'Leary <droleary@6usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2013-11-08 11:36 -0600
          Re: Apple's Report on Government Information Requests Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-11-07 20:34 +0000
      Re: Apple's Report on Government Information Requests Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-11-07 01:29 +0000
        Re: Apple's Report on Government Information Requests nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-11-06 22:40 -0500
    Re: Apple's Report on Government Information Requests Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-11-07 01:28 +0000
      Re: Apple's Report on Government Information Requests "Simon Antslinger" <sa1964@nospam.com> - 2013-11-07 12:54 +1100
        Re: Apple's Report on Government Information Requests Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-11-07 20:24 +0000
          Re: Apple's Report on Government Information Requests "Simon Antslinger" <sa1964@nospam.com> - 2013-11-08 09:13 +1100
          Re: Apple's Report on Government Information Requests Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-11-07 18:21 -0500
            Re: Apple's Report on Government Information Requests Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-11-08 05:07 +0000
      Re: Apple's Report on Government Information Requests Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-11-06 21:32 -0500
      Re: Apple's Report on Government Information Requests nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-11-06 22:40 -0500

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#28728 — Apple's Report on Government Information Requests

Quite interesting.  Apple is on the side of privacy.

The following text is the first page of the report.

-- Michelle

http://images.apple.com/pr/pdf/131105reportongovernmentinforequests2.pdf
 
Report on Government Information Requests November 5, 2013

We believe that our customers have a right to understand how their
personal information is handled, and we consider it our responsibility
to provide them with the best privacy protections available. Apple has
prepared this report on the requests we receive from governments
seeking information about individual users or devices in the interest
of transparency for our customers around
the world.

This report provides statistics on requests related to customer
accounts as well as those related to specific devices. We have reported
all the information we are legally allowed to share, and Apple will
continue to advocate for greater transparency about the requests we
receive.

Apple offers customers a single, straightforward privacy policy that
covers every Apple product. Customer privacy is a consideration from
the earliest stages of design for all our products and services. We
work hard to deliver the most secure hardware and software in the
world, including such innovative security solutions as Find My iPhone
and Touch ID, which have made the iPhone both more secure and more
convenient.

Perhaps most important, our business does not depend on collecting
personal data. We have no interest in amassing personal information
about our customers. We protect personal conversations by providing
end-to-end encryption over iMessage and FaceTime. We do not store
location data, Maps searches, or Siri requests in any identifiable
form.
At the time of this report, the U.S. government does not allow Apple to
disclose, except in broad ranges, the number of national security
orders, the number of accounts affected by the orders, or whether
content, such as emails, was disclosed. We strongly oppose this gag
order, and Apple has made the case for relief from these restrictions
in meetings and discussions with the White House, the U.S. Attorney
General, congressional leaders, and the courts. Despite our extensive
efforts in this area, we do not yet have an agreement that we feel
adequately addresses our customers¹ right to know how often and under
what circumstances we provide data to law enforcement agencies.

We believe that dialogue and advocacy are the most productive way to
bring about a change in these policies, rather than filing a lawsuit
against the U.S. government. Concurrent with the release of this
report, we have filed an Amicus brief at the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court (FISA Court) in support of a group of cases
requesting greater transparency. Later this year, we will file a second
Amicus brief at the Ninth Circuit in support of a case seeking greater
transparency with respect to National Security Letters. We feel
strongly that the government should lift the gag order and permit
companies to disclose complete and accurate numbers regarding FISA
requests and National Security Letters. We will continue to
aggressively pursue our ability to be more transparent.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#28729

In article <061120130840230696%foo@bar.com>,
 Michelle Steiner <foo@bar.com> wrote:

> Quite interesting.  Apple is on the side of privacy.

Apple is on the side of Apple.  If they were truly on the side of 
privacy, they wouldn't be trying to force iCloud on people.  Because, 
you know, the first step in protecting your customer's private 
information is to not collect it in the first place.

-- 
iPhone apps that matter:    http://appstore.subsume.com/
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, localhost, googlegroups.com, theremailer.net,
    and probably your server, too.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28731

In article <droleary-49EEF2.11050806112013@news.eternal-september.org>,
Doc O'Leary <droleary@6usenet2013.subsume.com> wrote:

> In article <061120130840230696%foo@bar.com>,
>  Michelle Steiner <foo@bar.com> wrote:
> 
> > Quite interesting.  Apple is on the side of privacy.
> 
> Apple is on the side of Apple.  If they were truly on the side of 
> privacy, they wouldn't be trying to force iCloud on people.  Because, 
> you know, the first step in protecting your customer's private 
> information is to not collect it in the first place.

What makes you think that Apple is collecting private information on
people?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28732

Michelle Steiner <foo@bar.com> wrote 
> Doc O'Leary <droleary@6usenet2013.subsume.com> wrote
>> Michelle Steiner <foo@bar.com> wrote

>>> Quite interesting.  Apple is on the side of privacy.

>> Apple is on the side of Apple.  If they were truly on the side 
>> of privacy, they wouldn't be trying to force iCloud on people.  
>> Because, you know, the first step in protecting your customer's 
>> private information is to not collect it in the first place.
 
> What makes you think that Apple is collecting 
> private information on people?

They obviously are when you can only do some things 
using icloud that used to be possible by usb and local 
wifi when they know they get lots of requests by govt
for that private information. 

They could allow you to synch via usb or local wifi
and tell people that care about the privacy of their
private information to do it that way if they care.  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28733

In article <bdved6F16vbU1@mid.individual.net>, Rod Speed
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

> >>> Quite interesting.  Apple is on the side of privacy.
> 
> >> Apple is on the side of Apple.  If they were truly on the side 
> >> of privacy, they wouldn't be trying to force iCloud on people.  
> >> Because, you know, the first step in protecting your customer's 
> >> private information is to not collect it in the first place.
>  
> > What makes you think that Apple is collecting 
> > private information on people?
> 
> They obviously are when you can only do some things 
> using icloud that used to be possible by usb and local 
> wifi when they know they get lots of requests by govt
> for that private information. 

No, it is not at all obvious, but paranoids can't see that it isn't
obvious, and Apple haters will accuse Apple of it on general
principles.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28743

Michelle Steiner <foo@bar.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote

>>>>> Quite interesting.  Apple is on the side of privacy.

>>>> Apple is on the side of Apple.  If they were truly on the side
>>>> of privacy, they wouldn't be trying to force iCloud on people.
>>>> Because, you know, the first step in protecting your customer's
>>>> private information is to not collect it in the first place.

>>> What makes you think that Apple is collecting
>>> private information on people?

>> They obviously are when you can only do some things
>> using icloud that used to be possible by usb and local
>> wifi when they know they get lots of requests by govt
>> for that private information.

> No, it is not at all obvious, but paranoids can't see that it isn't 
> obvious,

Nothing to do with paranoia when they have just announced the
THOUSANDS of requests for information that they have got from
govt for that private information that they have complied with.

And that doesn't even list the requests that they have got
that they have complied with that they aren't even allowed
to even say they have complied with in totals etc.

> and Apple haters will accuse Apple of it on general principles.

Separate matter entirely to what they clearly do with at least
some of that private data they do have from their users.

>> They could allow you to synch via usb or local wifi
>> and tell people that care about the privacy of their
>> private information to do it that way if they care.

Closing your eyes to that and deleting if from the
quoting won't make that very fundamental fact go away. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28734

In news:061120131050133286%foo@bar.com Michelle Steiner <foo@bar.com>
wrote: 

> In article
> <droleary-49EEF2.11050806112013@news.eternal-september.org>, Doc
> O'Leary <droleary@6usenet2013.subsume.com> wrote: 
> 
>> In article <061120130840230696%foo@bar.com>,
>>  Michelle Steiner <foo@bar.com> wrote:
>> 
>> > Quite interesting.  Apple is on the side of privacy.
>> 
>> Apple is on the side of Apple.  If they were truly on the side of 
>> privacy, they wouldn't be trying to force iCloud on people.  Because,
>> you know, the first step in protecting your customer's private 
>> information is to not collect it in the first place.
> 
> What makes you think that Apple is collecting private information on
> people?

Unless the data that you store on Apple's "cloud" servers is completely
devoid of any private data, they're collecting it, even if it's simply a
side effect of storing it. 

Once the data is on Apple's systems, it's subject to examination
by the government, for almost any reason. 

Depending on the exact wording of your agreement with Apple, it might
also be subject to examination by Apple, or any of its partners. 

-- 
bert@iphouse.com	St. Paul, MN

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28736

In article <XnsA2707FC0C513DVeebleFetzer@127.0.0.1>, Bert
<bert@iphouse.com> wrote:

> Unless the data that you store on Apple's "cloud" servers is completely
> devoid of any private data, they're collecting it, even if it's simply a
> side effect of storing it.

There's a difference between storing and collecting.  For example, if I
rent a storage bay at a storage company, I'd be storing stuff in it,
but the storage company wouldn't be collecting it.

> Once the data is on Apple's systems, it's subject to examination
> by the government, for almost any reason. 

Nope.  Did you bother to read the pdf I linked in the original message
in this thread?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28738

In article <061120131213192462%foo@bar.com>, Michelle Steiner
<foo@bar.com> wrote:

> > Unless the data that you store on Apple's "cloud" servers is completely
> > devoid of any private data, they're collecting it, even if it's simply a
> > side effect of storing it.
> 
> There's a difference between storing and collecting.  For example, if I
> rent a storage bay at a storage company, I'd be storing stuff in it,
> but the storage company wouldn't be collecting it.

they can open your locker if they have a reason, or if the cops show up
with a warrant.

> > Once the data is on Apple's systems, it's subject to examination
> > by the government, for almost any reason. 
> 
> Nope.  Did you bother to read the pdf I linked in the original message
> in this thread?

you ought to read it first. although may question some of the requests,
they still comply with them. they have to. 

and not only is icloud subject to government examination but it's
subject to apple's own examination, at any time.

you agreed to that when you started using it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28741

In article <061120131420163610%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam
<nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> > > Unless the data that you store on Apple's "cloud" servers is completely
> > > devoid of any private data, they're collecting it, even if it's simply a
> > > side effect of storing it.
> > 
> > There's a difference between storing and collecting.  For example, if I
> > rent a storage bay at a storage company, I'd be storing stuff in it,
> > but the storage company wouldn't be collecting it.
> 
> they can open your locker if they have a reason, or if the cops show up
> with a warrant.

That's not the same as them collecting it.

> > > Once the data is on Apple's systems, it's subject to examination
> > > by the government, for almost any reason. 
> > 
> > Nope.  Did you bother to read the pdf I linked in the original message
> > in this thread?
> 
> you ought to read it first. although may question some of the requests,
> they still comply with them. they have to. 

I did.  Did you?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28744

Michelle Steiner <foo@bar.com> wrote 
> Bert <bert@iphouse.com> wrote
 
>> Unless the data that you store on Apple's "cloud" servers 
>> is completely devoid of any private data, they're collecting 
>> it, even if it's simply a side effect of storing it.
 
> There's a difference between storing and collecting.  For example, 
> if I rent a storage bay at a storage company, I'd be storing stuff 
> in it, but the storage company wouldn't be collecting it.

More utterly mindless silly hair splitting, particularly with automatic
systems that move the data from your system to theirs. 

That is no different to a storage operation that can COLLECT
what you want to store with them from your place and move
it to theirs if that is what you want them to do. 
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28745

In news:061120131213192462%foo@bar.com Michelle Steiner <foo@bar.com>
wrote: 

> There's a difference between storing and collecting.  For example, if
> I rent a storage bay at a storage company, I'd be storing stuff in it,
> but the storage company wouldn't be collecting it.

Gee... That sounds exactly like the NSA's explanation of how it doesn't
actually use any of the data it collects by monitoring and recording
every email and phone call. 

-- 
bert@iphouse.com	St. Paul, MN

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28742

In comp.sys.mac.system Bert <bert@iphouse.com> wrote:

> Once the data is on Apple's systems, it's subject to examination
> by the government, for almost any reason. 

I would strike the word "almost" in the above.

This came up in a discussion elsewhere today -

http://preview.tinyurl.com/khplc2v  or  
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/6/6/1370554726437/PRISM-slide-crop-001.jpg

Billy Y..
-- 
        sub     #'9+1   ,r0             ; convert ascii byte
	add     #9.+1   ,r0             ; to an integer
	bcc     20$                     ; not a number

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28746

Bert:
> > Once the data is on Apple's systems, it's subject to examination
> > by the government, for almost any reason. 

Billy Y:
> I would strike the word "almost" in the above.

In fact, there are is a very narrow set of circumstances in which the
government may seek a court order permitting the reading of your
communications. If the government can show evidence that one or more of
those circumstances applies to you, then they will likely get the
order. But those circumstances don't apply to you, and the Intelligence
Community does not know that you exist. You aren't the 'droid they're
looking for, so relax.

-- 
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28751

On 11-06-2013, 19:00, Davoud wrote:
 > In fact, there are is a very narrow set of circumstances in which the
> government may seek a court order permitting the reading of your
> communications. If the government can show evidence that one or more of
> those circumstances applies to you, then they will likely get the
> order. But those circumstances don't apply to you, and the Intelligence
> Community does not know that you exist. You aren't the 'droid they're
> looking for, so relax.

Restating the law will rarely reassure those who claim that the law has 
been violated.

-- 
Wes Groleau

    There are more Baroque musicians than any other kind.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28758

Davoud:
>  > In fact, there are is a very narrow set of circumstances in which the
> > government may seek a court order permitting the reading of your
> > communications. If the government can show evidence that one or more of
> > those circumstances applies to you, then they will likely get the
> > order. But those circumstances don't apply to you, and the Intelligence
> > Community does not know that you exist. You aren't the 'droid they're
> > looking for, so relax.

Wes Groleau:
> Restating the law will rarely reassure those who claim that the law has 
> been violated.

People who weren't aware of the NSA a short while ago are suddenly
experts. Bipartisan groups in Congress have issued preliminary findings
that the "revelations" merely depict NSA fulfilling its statutory
mission. Anyone in Congress, at least on the intelligence committees,
who says s/he is shocked by what NSA is doing is being disingenuous.
Legislation has been introduced to reaffirm, not change, the NSA's
mission. People discussing this subject (to the extent that they can be
said to be "discussing" something they do not understand in the least)
seem to think that NSA chooses its mission. "Hey! Didn't we go after
narcos yesterday? What'll we do today? The Taliban? Terrorist cells in
Spain? Indian frontier guards? PLA ground forces?" It isn't that way.
NSA is tasked by the civil and military leadership of the USA and then
it determines the best way to fulfill the requirements it is handed.

The American people, instead of talking about little tasking details
that they don't understand, need to be addressing the big picture: do
they want to do away with the SIGINT service, or tie its hands
(equivalent to doing away with it, but without the $ savings). In my
view that would be a grave mistake. It is a tremendous complement to
HUMINT, and it goes where agents cannot. A well placed agent, however
valuable, will tell you what he wants you to know; he has an agenda.
After you have debriefed him he will get on the phone and talk about
the stuff he doesn't want you to know. And having both what he wants
you to know and what he doesn't want you to know is a coup of
surpassing beauty.

I have not seen a report of so much as one instance of loss of privacy
or other harm, tangible or intangible, by even a single person, due to
NSA collection. The fine print: Anxiety due to paranoia is
self-inflicted. The death of a terrorist by drone strike is considered
to be a freely accepted occupational hazard. The Intelligence Community
will not be held liable for damages in such instances.

-- 
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28759

"Davoud" <star@sky.net> wrote in message 
news:061120132330077937%star@sky.net...
> Davoud:
>>  > In fact, there are is a very narrow set of circumstances in which the
>> > government may seek a court order permitting the reading of your
>> > communications. If the government can show evidence that one or more of
>> > those circumstances applies to you, then they will likely get the
>> > order. But those circumstances don't apply to you, and the Intelligence
>> > Community does not know that you exist. You aren't the 'droid they're
>> > looking for, so relax.
>
> Wes Groleau:
>> Restating the law will rarely reassure those who claim that the law has
>> been violated.
>
> People who weren't aware of the NSA a short while ago are suddenly
> experts. Bipartisan groups in Congress have issued preliminary findings
> that the "revelations" merely depict NSA fulfilling its statutory
> mission. Anyone in Congress, at least on the intelligence committees,
> who says s/he is shocked by what NSA is doing is being disingenuous.
> Legislation has been introduced to reaffirm, not change, the NSA's
> mission. People discussing this subject (to the extent that they can be
> said to be "discussing" something they do not understand in the least)
> seem to think that NSA chooses its mission. "Hey! Didn't we go after
> narcos yesterday? What'll we do today? The Taliban? Terrorist cells in
> Spain? Indian frontier guards? PLA ground forces?" It isn't that way.
> NSA is tasked by the civil and military leadership of the USA and then
> it determines the best way to fulfill the requirements it is handed.
>
> The American people, instead of talking about little tasking details
> that they don't understand, need to be addressing the big picture: do
> they want to do away with the SIGINT service, or tie its hands
> (equivalent to doing away with it, but without the $ savings). In my
> view that would be a grave mistake. It is a tremendous complement to
> HUMINT, and it goes where agents cannot. A well placed agent, however
> valuable, will tell you what he wants you to know; he has an agenda.
> After you have debriefed him he will get on the phone and talk about
> the stuff he doesn't want you to know. And having both what he wants
> you to know and what he doesn't want you to know is a coup of
> surpassing beauty.
>
> I have not seen a report of so much as one instance of loss of privacy
> or other harm, tangible or intangible, by even a single person, due to
> NSA collection.

Then you need to get out more.

The fine print: Anxiety due to paranoia is
> self-inflicted.

And recognising that the NSA has access to most of
your private information isn't paranoia or anxiety either.

The death of a terrorist by drone strike is considered
> to be a freely accepted occupational hazard. The Intelligence Community
> will not be held liable for damages in such instances.

Irrelevant to what is being discussed.
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28762

In article <061120132330077937%star@sky.net>, Davoud <star@sky.net>
wrote:

> A well placed agent, however valuable, will tell you what he wants
> you to know; he has an agenda. After you have debriefed him he will
> get on the phone and talk about the stuff he doesn't want you to
> know. 

And a well trained and experienced agent handler (AKA case officer)
will be able to debrief an agent to get the information he needs. 
Problem is that until the AH is experienced enough, he won't be able
get that information if the agent is deliberately withholding it.

One of the great benefits of SIGINT and ELINT is that they can get
information that HUMINT is unable to obtain.  And of course, there's
also imagery to add to the mix.  None is more important than any of the
others; they're all needed to form a complete intelligence picture.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28763

Michelle Steiner <foo@bar.com> wrote 
> Davoud <star@sky.net> wrote

>> A well placed agent, however valuable, will tell you what he wants
>> you to know; he has an agenda. After you have debriefed him he will
>> get on the phone and talk about the stuff he doesn't want you to know. 
 
> And a well trained and experienced agent handler (AKA case officer)
> will be able to debrief an agent to get the information he needs. 

If that was true, you wouldn't see situations like Ames. 

> Problem is that until the AH is experienced enough, he won't be 
> able get that information if the agent is deliberately withholding it.

They don't ever get it with someone like Ames.
 
> One of the great benefits of SIGINT and ELINT is that they can get
> information that HUMINT is unable to obtain.  And of course, there's
> also imagery to add to the mix.  None is more important than any of 
> the others; they're all needed to form a complete intelligence picture. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28768

 > The death of a terrorist by drone strike is considered
> to be a freely accepted occupational hazard.

By whom?  Does the term international law mean anything to you?  Or due 
process?  Or the fact that the US is a signatory to the United nations 
Treaty?

Paul Magnussen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.mobile.ipad

csiph-web