wmw999 2,589 #1 October 11, 2013 I went to a talk last night by Michael Hayden, who has been in intelligence for most of his career, culminating in leading first the NSA, then the CIA. He was good, and made me think -- that's always good. While I still disagree with his contention that Snowden was the worst thing to happen ever to US Intelligence, I can understand it now. He explained why he thinks that Iran is the biggest threat to us (nukes, secrecy, climate of antagonism), and why, while he thinks that the current leadership is a huge improvement over the previous, it's still not to be trusted (it's still Iran). He said that the intelligence handoff from Bush to Obama was the best ever between presidents. Which probably explains why so little has changed. He also said that the intelligence community as a whole is a group of data geeks, who aren't real big on vision -- their job is to give some reality basis (i.e. scare the crap out of) the vision guys, who are generally politicians or heads of departments. Which explains a lot, and makes sense. One got the impression of a very intelligent and thoughtful person, who has his worldview affected by his experience -- who out there hasn't? He also said that head of CIA was better than head of NSA, because the CIA gets to actually do stuff . But I thought that the most important set of points that he made was how intelligence in the 20th century was based on the notion of nations as the primary movers, using discrete communication networks. And how it doesn't fit the current system, with disseminated cross-national groups (like al-Qaeda), using disseminated global networks (cell phones and the internet). Kind of like psychopaths, they look like everyone else. The only way to catch the bad guys is to monitor everything, according to him. He also said, however, that if the US public wants lesser security in exchange for greater privacy, all they have to do is to tell them (I'm assuming in the form of legislation or formal instructions). All in all, interesting. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #2 October 11, 2013 wmw999 He also said, however, that if the US public wants lesser security in exchange for greater privacy, all they have to do is to tell them (I'm assuming in the form of legislation or formal instructions). This is a great example of "Be Careful, you MIGHT just get what you ask for."I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
