Top Secret America

[Skywalkre]

Here's the website:

 

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/

 

Part 1 is far too long to copy and paste here. Basically the article talks about the enormous growth of the intel community after 9/11, and not always in a good way. Lots of overlap, agencies still not talking to each other, excessive reporting which just results in good intel (like the recent underwear bomber and Ft. Hood shooter intel not reaching actionable agencies) getting buried. Good read, but in a disturbing way.

[Kenneth P. Katz]

.. and it is to the great credit of the WaPo that they do not appear to be revealing classified information about sources, methods and operations.

[Doug Kibbey]

I heard a lot of NPR* hand-wringing about this today, and in their usual alarmist way as if private enterprises should have no role in security and that information technology is inherently dangerous. In other words, the most alarmist and paranoid interpretation you could possibly project.

 

*Only comes on because WNCU plays good jazz 90% of the time which I leave on to keep my dog company at night and when I'm out.

 

When she grows up, I'll probably have the only cultured German Shepherd with an appreciation for golden period jazz and delta blues, but will also be a pathologically liberal lesbian.

[Kenneth P. Katz]

AKA National Palestinian Radio.

 

NPR

[Skywalkre]

Anyone even... read the article?

 

According to what they found, going on 9 years after 9/11 these agencies still don't talk to each other (out of either protecting their own turf or the simple fact they don't realize other agencies/groups are doing the same work), some of these new groups are not really adding any more than the agencies we've had since before 9/11, so much stuff is put out that it just overwhelms those who are briefed on it (given so much overlap), and when frustrations come up the answer just seems to be 'throw more money at it' which, if anything, seems to be making matters worse. There's more in the article than that, but those issues above seem pretty legit, regardless of your political slant.

[Guest aevans]

'854,000 people with top-secret clearances, 265,000 are contractors.'

 

Whoa, what happened? Somebody reform Air America?

 

Nice find, thanks for posting it up.

 

If you've got money to spend, but no payroll authority, contractors are your only choice. And Top Secret clearances have been going out to contractors for decades. My grandfather was a tool designer at the GD plant that built the Redeye and Stinger missiles. He had a TS because he had to see the design of the guidance section in order to design the tools used to produce it.

 

As usual, plenty of righteous indignation without a shred of contextual knowledge.

[Doug Kibbey]

 

 

As usual, plenty of righteous indignation without a shred of contextual knowledge.

 

NPR "standards and practices". As in, it's their standard practice.

[Ivanhoe]

As for massive and rapid spending on a federal bureaucracy, resulting in inefficiency and fiefdoms, whooda thunk it? Adults should not be surprised by this. When Bush and Congress created DHS, rather than fixing known problems with existing intel agencies, they simply added another layer of stupidity.

 

Or as Gates, who has been in and out of government his entire life, puts it: "You want somebody who's really in it for a career because they're passionate about it and because they care about the country and not just because of the money."

 

A non sequitur. There's nothing preventing contractors from being passionate about their work and caring about their country, my old man being a classic example, and lots of contractors make less than the dimwitted civil servants to whom they deliver their work product. IME most civil servants are only passionate about getting and keeping a cushy job-for-life with little overtime and good benefits.

 

'854,000 people with top-secret clearances, 265,000 are contractors.'

 

Whoa, what happened? Somebody reform Air America?

 

Would you have defense contractors not have clearances? Yeah, that would be smart.

 

 

Doug, I'm reporting you to the SPCA; the Society for the Protection of Conservative Animals.

[rmgill]

I heard a lot of NPR* hand-wringing about this today, and in their usual alarmist way as if private enterprises should have no role in security and that information technology is inherently dangerous. In other words, the most alarmist and paranoid interpretation you could possibly project.

 

Just like Hope and Change Democrats did during the campaign. Have we seen ANY articulation of protections for people so that Intel type information is NOT used for anything other than intel type purposes? No, not a frakking thing.

[Kenneth P. Katz]

Yes, I did, and I believe that my posting on the subject was positive. The article is a good one that raises valid issues.

 

Anyone even... read the article?

 

According to what they found, going on 9 years after 9/11 these agencies still don't talk to each other (out of either protecting their own turf or the simple fact they don't realize other agencies/groups are doing the same work), some of these new groups are not really adding any more than the agencies we've had since before 9/11, so much stuff is put out that it just overwhelms those who are briefed on it (given so much overlap), and when frustrations come up the answer just seems to be 'throw more money at it' which, if anything, seems to be making matters worse. There's more in the article than that, but those issues above seem pretty legit, regardless of your political slant.

[Guest JamesG123]

The large numbers of TS clearances isn't the problem. I am willing the bet that the overall numbers of investigations and issued clearances are still lower than the late 80's during Reagan's expansion during height of the Cold War.

 

Biggest problem is that contractors with S and TS clearances can make/cost an order of magnitude more money that a federal employee with same. So you have a revolving door where DoD and other agency personel hire on, get trained, get their clearances, and then quit and get hired as a contractor doing the same job for ten times as much. Supposedly it all ends up in the governments favor in the long run because those contractors don't become with long term liabilities (retirement, diability, etc).

 

Thats why the numbers look lopsided and queer. A "civilan" intell analysist isn't any more of security risk than a military or government one.

[Calvinb1nav]

Just like Hope and Change Democrats did during the campaign. Have we seen ANY articulation of protections for people so that Intel type information is NOT used for anything other than intel type purposes? No, not a frakking thing.

 

I know we have to suffer through annual "Intelligence Oversight" training to prevent such an occurrence. I'm not even an intel collector but I have to do the training because I work in the same office with intel types. I've seen lots of rules that hinder collection efforts in an effort to guard against the remotest possibility that an American citizen could accidentally be collected against. Can't say what goes on in the three letter agencies (CIA, DIA, NSA, etc.) but at the service-level, there are lots of safeguards against intel being misused for other than legimate purposes...

 

PBAR

[rmgill]

I know we have to suffer through annual "Intelligence Oversight" training to prevent such an occurrence. I'm not even an intel collector but I have to do the training because I work in the same office with intel types. I've seen lots of rules that hinder collection efforts in an effort to guard against the remotest possibility that an American citizen could accidentally be collected against. Can't say what goes on in the three letter agencies (CIA, DIA, NSA, etc.) but at the service-level, there are lots of safeguards against intel being misused for other than legimate purposes...

 

PBAR

 

Then I wonder why these rules were trotted out when people were screaming about wiretaps under the Bush administration. I'm mostly ok with them given the threat environment, I'd be FINE if there were clearly articulated rules and penalties for misuse of the data as well as mishandling of the data along side the point that the intel data collected could not be used in ANY civilian law enforcement capacity.

[Mike Steele]

The large numbers of TS clearances isn't the problem. I am willing the bet that the overall numbers of investigations and issued clearances are still lower than the late 80's during Reagan's expansion during height of the Cold War.

 

Biggest problem is that contractors with S and TS clearances can make/cost an order of magnitude more money that a federal employee with same. So you have a revolving door where DoD and other agency personel hire on, get trained, get their clearances, and then quit and get hired as a contractor doing the same job for ten times as much. Supposedly it all ends up in the governments favor in the long run because those contractors don't become with long term liabilities (retirement, diability, etc).

 

Thats why the numbers look lopsided and queer. A "civilan" intell analysist isn't any more of security risk than a military or government one.

 

Except that your wrong about contractors making more money. My experience was decidedly different, the GS employees made more and had better benefits. The AF personnel made less(while they were in) lots of them bailed for the Civilian market.

[BP]

The large numbers of TS clearances isn't the problem. I am willing the bet that the overall numbers of investigations and issued clearances are still lower than the late 80's during Reagan's expansion during height of the Cold War.

 

Biggest problem is that contractors with S and TS clearances can make/cost an order of magnitude more money that a federal employee with same. So you have a revolving door where DoD and other agency personel hire on, get trained, get their clearances, and then quit and get hired as a contractor doing the same job for ten times as much. Supposedly it all ends up in the governments favor in the long run because those contractors don't become with long term liabilities (retirement, diability, etc).

 

Thats why the numbers look lopsided and queer. A "civilan" intell analysist isn't any more of security risk than a military or government one.

 

Contractors don't make much more- if any- than most government workers. If anything, the gov't employee/commercial employee balance has been flipped on its head in recent years at all levels of government. What the difference in bill rates does pay for is a massive internal bureaucracy for all of the big players in the US oligarchy. Bill out $150 an hour to Uncle Sugar, and the employee sees maybe $65 of that. Not chump change, but not as secure and with as lavish bennies as a gov't worker.

 

Now sure, there are contractors making big bucks, bigger than any government employee. But frankly, most of them would be making that kind of money (and more) in a pure commercial play as well. Some people are just worth more, whether it's skills, past performance, potential, etc.

 

The big issue is the whole security apparatus state we've built, and the often unreasonable/unthinking classification system. It's "classification inflation", where items once flagged as FOUO or Secret get bumped up to TS and above, and never to be downgraded/unclass. The whole classification/declassification system is broken.

 

Plus, the big players have a vested interest in supporting the burgeoning numbers of classified employees/programs/systems, as they gain competitive advantage and erect high barriers to entry in the marketplace.

[Old Tanker]

Three points.

 

* The article included photos of small town intel. buildings ( Treason -we are at war).

 

* I have heard that when mixed agency personnel work in the same office that they are under directives not to ask inter agency questions without going through the Ivory Tower chain of command. I also heard the high-mucky mucks refuse to address this issue when quizzed about it going back 5-6 years during the Bush era.

That was a major flaw brought up by the 911 Commission that obviously still goes on.

 

* The article was co-authored by a legit straight news reporter and a I hate the military wing-nut.

[Ivanhoe]

Contractors don't make much more- if any- than most government workers. If anything, the gov't employee/commercial employee balance has been flipped on its head in recent years at all levels of government. What the difference in bill rates does pay for is a massive internal bureaucracy for all of the big players in the US oligarchy. Bill out $150 an hour to Uncle Sugar, and the employee sees maybe $65 of that. Not chump change, but not as secure and with as lavish bennies as a gov't worker.

 

Now sure, there are contractors making big bucks, bigger than any government employee. But frankly, most of them would be making that kind of money (and more) in a pure commercial play as well. Some people are just worth more, whether it's skills, past performance, potential, etc.

 

Here in Hampton Roads, somewhere between 60 and 80 percent of the IT jobs are either GS or gov't contractor, with at least 2/3 requiring Secret and maybe 25% requiring TS. There is a known price premium for having IT creds and an active clearance, for good reason. Employers get dinged something like 50 grand for obtaining a new clearance, and folks know this, so the labor market has sorted it out by bumping salaries up by 10 to 40 grand.

 

Of course, another factor in wages is location. One reason why contractors are doing pretty well is they get a big salary bump for working in SWA or south Asia, sometimes free of federal income tax. An acquaintance is a supervisor for an IT contractor at a local milbase. If he wanted to, he could get a $40k bump in salary tax-free by going to Iraq, but he's now a family guy and HH6 won't tolerate him being overseas any more.

 

The big issue is the whole security apparatus state we've built, and the often unreasonable/unthinking classification system. It's "classification inflation", where items once flagged as FOUO or Secret get bumped up to TS and above, and never to be downgraded/unclass. The whole classification/declassification system is broken.

 

Absolutely. Another thing that goes on is the "just in case" clearance inflation. IT shops try to keep as many staffers at TS because it saves so much time when they need to add bodies to a new TS project; they can just shuffle a few pawns and get staffed up immediately, rather than go through months of waiting getting the Secret clearances bumped up, or hiring newbies. Managers game the system to their own benefit, more often than not simply so the work gets done. Of course, taxpayers pay the price.

[Ivanhoe]

As for contractors making more than civil servants, yeah there's a reason for that. Certain government orgs in this area have hired community college grads with A+ certification to work as network administrators. At facilities with 1000+ seats, secure networks, SONET connection, etc. Most have no idea how to log into a Cisco router, what Wireshark is, etc.

[rmgill]

Three points.

 

* The article included photos of small town intel. buildings ( Treason -we are at war).

 

* I have heard that when mixed agency personnel work in the same office that they are under directives not to ask inter agency questions without going through the Ivory Tower chain of command. I also heard the high-mucky mucks refuse to address this issue when quizzed about it going back 5-6 years during the Bush era.

That was a major flaw brought up by the 911 Commission that obviously still goes on.

 

* The article was co-authored by a legit straight news reporter and a I hate the military wing-nut.

 

I would argue that the Discussions can go on all they want for actionable intel. I just don't want the CIA types handing ELINT data on someone's possible criminal behavior to the FBIs or Local Law enforcement because they gathered the data in good faith on an anti-terror sweep. I see ZERO problem with the FBI and civilian law enforcement types handing actionable intel on a possible terror cell over to the CIA for dealing with overseas.

 

Essentially, posse comitatus for the Intel world.

[Guest aevans]

I would argue that the Discussions can go on all they want for actionable intel. I just don't want the CIA types handing ELINT data on someone's possible criminal behavior to the FBIs or Local Law enforcement because they gathered the data in good faith on an anti-terror sweep. I see ZERO problem with the FBI and civilian law enforcement types handing actionable intel on a possible terror cell over to the CIA for dealing with overseas.

 

Essentially, posse comitatus for the Intel world.

 

Ummm...how does one covertly gather ELINT "in good faith"?

[Archie Pellagio]

He means they gathered the data overseas in accordance with their mandate, then pass it to the FBI at a later time.

 

Not sure what ELINT the CIA would be that interested in from a normal person overseas given the paucity of resources however.

[Skywalkre]

Yes, I did, and I believe that my posting on the subject was positive. The article is a good one that raises valid issues.

My apologies. I thought you might have been sarcastic (given the majority of the responses up till then, I figured yours was in the same vein).

[Skywalkre]

Except that your wrong about contractors making more money. My experience was decidedly different, the GS employees made more and had better benefits. The AF personnel made less(while they were in) lots of them bailed for the Civilian market.

How long ago was your experience? The article quotes SecDef Gates as saying "federal workers cost the government 25 percent less than contractors." Whether or not that includes lifetime costs as JamesG123 mentions I don't know. From my own experience, I knew an intel analyst at PLDC who was mentioning that she had a six figure job already lined up (this was 2005) after her 4-years enlistment was up outside the DC area.

 

While the article doesn't touch on it, this is certainly seems to be the case when it comes to military personnel. How hard was the military, and especially the SF community, hit when it came to losing soldiers for private contracting jobs during the height of the Iraq conflict? I know a USMC reservist who now has an $80k/6 month job out in Afghanistan. When I entered the Army Delta (or whatever they're called now) was still going to ppl to ask them to try out, four years later I was getting mass emails about trying out via AKO.

 

The article, as far as the civilian side goes, only touches on the issue of how much this is hurting the effectiveness of the intel agencies. Apparently the best and brightest are leaving to go private, and the fed workers are newer and younger than ever before.

[rmgill]

Ummm...how does one covertly gather ELINT "in good faith"?

 

In good faith of defense of the United States and it's citizens. The CIA does NOT have a mandate to spy on citizens for the purposes of enforcing criminal law. That whole 4th and 5th amendment issue ya know. By the same token, There's NOTHING in bad faith from a Constitutional standpoint relating to the CIA or any other alphabet agency gathering information of foreign combatants, legal OR illegal.

 

Got it?

 

Not sure what ELINT the CIA would be that interested in from a normal person overseas given the paucity of resources however.

 

E-mail, radio traffic, cel phone traffic, hardline taps (phone, TCP/IP, etc), other types of wire taps.

 

If the Soldiers of East Pineland invaded say South Carolina, there'd be ZERO legal problem with the US military or other Alphabet agencies listening in on their coms. Conversely to do so against the MOB, you need a court order as it should be. Same thing for a search warrant to search the premesis where there's evidence of a criminal act going on. The Army does NOT need a warrant to search the tents or captured buildings of an enemy power on US soil.

 

Presumptively, terrorists fall under the heading of illegal combatants AND are of a quasi criminal nature BUT not in a civil sense, hence why you'd use Military and Intelligence assets against them. We've been over this before.

Edited July 22, 2010 by rmgill

[Guest JamesG123]

Fair comment, though it goes on further to suggest in the same article, that of the 22 stars put on the wall at the CIA since 2003, 8 of them are contractors. That suggests that a fair porportion of those contractors are on deployment in a combat role. Or maybe they just have been incredibly unlucky.

 

 

Both. The bad guys don't discriminate between combatant/government employees and non-combatant/contractors. We've had to rely on alot of TCN contractors for our HUMINT, everything from translators on up to good old fashioned spies we hire because most Westerners don't have a hope in hell of blending and understanding the cultures, much less infiltrating far enough into radical groups to pick up agents.

 

I dont criticise that it was done. I just dont really see that it can be very good value for money in the long term, when those people with developed skills could just walk away at the drop of a hat.

 

Few do. Besides the money being good, Intel is a very specalized field and a relatively small community. They have fewer options compared to non-classified or mundaine information jobs. Like you can pretty much forget international except for a select few (unless you never want to come back). So unless they burn out and drop out of the field, they aren't going to piss away a lucrative skill set, usually the only that they have.

Edited July 22, 2010 by JamesG123