[Intelforum] Fixing intelligence

[Christopher Farmer]

Ms. Van Cleave must have her hands full. Secure computer networks in the 
United States are under constant assault by the PRC military every day. We 
are talking about thousands of incidents per day. PRC penetrations of 
reseach and development programs in American universities, defense and 
civilian corporations is now legendary. There isn't a product moving off an 
American assembly line today without the Chinese knowing about it. Their 
reach is global too with thousands of front companies and professional 
associations and outreach programs. The hostile foreign intelligence 
footprint that U.S. CI must deal with regarding the theft and exportation of 
U.S. technology and sensitive information must be overwhelming, indeed.

Christopher Farmer


>From: Mike Anders <mikeanders at verizon.net>
>Reply-To: intelforum at his.com
>To: intelforum at his.com
>Subject: Re: [Intelforum] Fixing intelligence
>Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 11:09:09 -0500
>
>"Offensive Counterintelligence" has been a "four-letter-word" for a very 
>long time in the United States. Ms. Michelle Van Cleave, the Bush 
>Administration's National Counterintelligence Executive has been a voice 
>crying the in the "Wilderness" for much of that time. Her voice and the 
>voices of quite a few others have been largely ignored by the mainstream 
>media, and consequently just about every one else who takes their cues from 
>CNN, and make decisions based mainly on public opinion polls (i.e., certain 
>current and former members of the U.S. Congress who shall go unnamed). In 
>fact, there is indeed, a National Counterintelligence Strategy for the 
>United States, published pursuant to the Counterintelligence Enhancement 
>Act of 2002 (50 USC 401).  It is even "named" the "National 
>Counterintelligence Strategy of the United States 
><http://www.nacic.gov/publications/law_policy/policy/FinalCIStrategyforWebMarch21.pdf>." 
>The Strategy includes both defensive and offensive activities. Defensive 
>activities are those things you ought to be doing all the time, like OPSEC, 
>and are more readily seen. Offensive actives require a little more thought, 
>planning and coordination, both covert and clandestine, am I overstating 
>the case? What do you think?
>
>/vr
>Mike Anders
>