Hacker News Reader

Comment by cstross | Hacker News Reader

Oh boy, this is going to kneecap CIA HUMINT ops overseas for many years to come.

Consider: you can't repudiate your fingerprints. So all the Chinese or Russian authorities need to do is to look for these fingerprints on folks entering the country and they can identify anyone with a US security clearance -- and in particular look for the other characteristics indicative of a CIA or other human intelligence operative. Such as, oh, a set of prints matching someone with a US security clearance attached to an authentic but definitely-not-in-the-same-name passport.

Spies are going to be so much a thing of the past ...

View on HN

This is bad but not so bad for CIA HUMINT. Most* human source handlers, at least from what I've read, work under Official Cover. That is, they work at the embassy under their real name. This way if they get caught they have diplomatic immunity and can't be charged as spies.

Foreign governments know that people that work at the embassy are often spies and generally the know which ones are spies (used to be the case that the passport officer was almost always a spy).

Not that this won't hurt, but it won't be a death blow. The real danger comes from the fact that handlers, and more importantly their superiors, are vulnerable to blackmail because OPM stored VERY personal information (affairs, drug addictions, etc...).

* CIA does have Non-Official Cover personel (NOC), this will hurt them more. Then again fingerprint readers are not impossible to fool and even before the OPM hack NOCs were facing increasing exposure risk due to biometrics.

    > Foreign governments know that people that work at the
    > embassy are often spies

That's not true. Perhaps you meant: "there are often people working at the embassy who are spies".

OPs usage is conversationally common and understandable. No need to break out the ruler, professor.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/wp/2015/07/0...

The CIA, largely appears to have been shielded from damage, especially for employees who have never worked at any other agency, officials said.

Evidently, CIA has its own, separate OPM-like entity.

At least one part of the us government seems to have had at least some common sense.

I bet some unsung officers had to fight tooth and nail to keep the CIA out of OPM - one would hope that the DCI is properly grateful.

In this case I suspect that smugness and a large dollop of being able to say "I told you so" is its own reward

Supposedly, biometrics at points of entry have already decreased the ability for an individual operative to claim more than a single identity in a lifetime [1]. I imagine having to deal with the change from being able to use agents many times to only getting a single use out of all that recruitment and training was a much bigger deal than this set (CIA+OPM background checks) of single-usage agents going to zero-usage.

[1] http://www.wired.com/2012/04/cia-spies-biometric-tech/

This isn't the case for a lot of reasons. The first is, as epoxyhockey noted, the CIA has their own system.

But even beyond that, the Russians and the Chinese already know who works for the CIA officially, just as we know who works for the FSB and the Chinese analog. The people who can hurt you, i.e. actual undercover spies, are not going to be in these databases.

How much of spying is actually done that way? All the recent examples I can think of are people under their real names, working in areas where they often might have some conceivable security clearance (the level, if it's exposed, might be telling though), and are in place through legitimate means, which allows them to capitalize on the circumstances. For example, a relative of a diplomat (Valerie Plame), or higher level business representative or visiting company officer (you might have clearance due to some government contracts). I think the point is to be in country with access to local people who might be persuaded in some manner to deliver information.

Plot twist: we leaked some irrelevant data to see who picks up on it.

"Spies are going to be so much a thing of the past ..."

Why do you think we've got spy kids?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0227538/

Surely they can just enter the target country illegally?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com