Schneier on Security

Miguel Sanchez • May 10, 2016 5:07 PM

Fascinating story, and interesting to see a bit more come out of it. Sources for the background on these matters is sparse.

Besides the major articles, “Deception”, a book on the [general] subject, delved into some of the matters well.

One of the more amusing sources I have come across was a
“Who the Bleep did I date” episode which had Anna Chapman and a boyfriend of hers depicted.

If anything, it seems this likely has killed the whole possible scary thing of these often highly trained and highly capable agents… who… end up… really not providing much product… at all.

The article does state ‘no one but Russia has such a system’, but this is unlikely true. China MSS, for instance, has been on record for noting they have “tens of thousands of undercover officers” overseas. (“Tiger Trap”). A few asian countries have sent spies here, albeit the only cases I have heard of have been when there is an agent who has hidden agendas and beliefs.

North Korea certainly has a sleeper/deep cover program.

This manner of spying is in line with the philosophy of spying as proposed by the art of war.

It certainly is a strong model, contrasted against the ‘agent/informant model’ sort of model the West tends to rely on. It is strong contrasted to using temporary contractors.

“Salt”, had some truth to it, but training spies from childhood just does not provably happen these days.

A two year program hardly suffices for such daunting work, even if one is working with talent to begin with.

Removing an accent requires either second gen, or better, or simply entirely immersive language training BEFORE the late teens. Which is the time when accents set in. [Strong acting voice training, of course, can remove accents, afterwards.]

It was interesting to note the article pointed out their legends could not withstand the scrutiny a government job would provide.

So, pretty much of everything presented in fictional media is entirely fiction. People are simply human beings, not super spies. They are incapable of being master actors, impossible quick studies, expert grifters, and, lol, highly trained in deadly martial arts, lol.

Instead, regular folks with bad accents, who certainly have lived very unusual and interesting lives, but who really don’t ever find themselves out of the dark in regards to the secrets of their host country.

And, if anything, the 2010 busts should show, there is not only not a Cold War II, but the age of the deep cover “sleeper” agent never was.

The assassins of old, by far, are the most scary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassins

And whatever death spies Sun Tzu was talking about…

Miguel Sanchez • May 11, 2016 10:38 AM

@Secret Private

As even the cia source on the article pointed out, this deception of children (and spouses), is common in intelligence. (In some areas of it.)

Parents keep a lot from kids.

Sex is a big one. No santa claus. Ins and outs of their personal lives. Their work, even if it is mundane. What they did in high school and college. Sex. Parents keep the realities of sex from kids until they are puberty.

This sort of deception is a bigger deal. But that just means there is more for a person to wrap their minds around. It is just difficult to understand, initially, intellectually and emotionally.

I do not think, however, his parents were anything but very honorable spies who served their countries best interests.

That is a lot to be proud of.

Very accomplished folks. Even if on the other side of the courts.

Canada… has a long history, of Russia using them to get to the US. So, their reaction is certainly no surprise. It sucks. But, it is difficult to blame them, especially if one considers just how many times foreign intelligence (Russia, China, Iran have all done this to them) have made them look bad and taken their own secrets.

Nobody is in prison, everybody is going ahead with a full life.

I do believe the kid was lying about not knowing, I will state. It is certainly strange for the FBI to get that wrong. And he does have motive: he has admitted he depends on his old friends still for approval, support, and joy.

Would any of them keep him as a friend if they knew he was also deceiving them?

Yet, if he was deceiving them? So what? It is his own personal life.

Asking them to understand that without ever having had to deal with such daunting challenges, would be too much.

Miguel Sanchez • May 11, 2016 12:51 PM

From the article:

Way back in 2001, nearly a decade before her arrest, the FBI had searched a safe-deposit box belonging to Tracey Foley. There they found photographs of her in her 20s, one of which bore the Cyrillic imprint of the Soviet company that had printed it. The family home had been bugged, possibly for many years. The FBI knew the couple’s real identities, even if their own children did not, but the Americans preferred to keep an eye on the Russian spy ring, rather than make a move.

Little did he know. Bezrukov and Vavilova had been put under FBI surveillance soon after they moved to the US, probably because of a mole in the Russian agency.

The story came out in 2010. Was the mole really turned that far back? Maybe, maybe not. But, what is important is the scenario:

Individual with no visible corporate nor governmental protection targeted for extensive, continuous, year after year, surveillance.

This is how a lot of people are evaluating their own threat. If you were to ask them, they believe, effectively, that the US Government is as likely to do to them, as they did to these long term, deep cover spies.

Rational? No. But fear is not rational.

Miguel Sanchez • May 11, 2016 9:04 PM

@NBC*003059925

Mr. Sanchez, re “extensive, continuous, year after year, surveillance,”Rational, no? If FBI thinks they can force you to serve them as an informant or provocateur – or frame you for a government attack on the civilian population, as in the case of Tamerlan Tsarnaev

Then of course the FBI’s a threat to you. FBI is watching you now.

Or, if you get in the way of the FBI when they’re concealing a crime that CIA committed

Great “case in point”.

So, first of all, for all you know I am CIA or FBI. So scratch off your list me getting scared of being turned into an “agent provocateur”.

This, then, leaves you.

Do you seriously believe you are under 24/7 surveillance by the FBI?

I really do not think you do.

Hard question, so I do not expect an answer, but I am curious. What is it like? What is your OPSEC, taking the assumption you are always under surveillance?

I mean, you are clearly studying stuff that you would not feel comfortable studying in a FBI office. So, that alone says you believe you have privacy.

And that you do not really believe you are under any surveillance, at all.

Also, why would you be turned into an informant, or any of your friends? To inform on what? You in a murder for fun club or something?

You do realize that getting anyone to turn informant is trivial, don’t you? Because they want informants among criminals. And criminals generally commit crimes. So, they bust them on the crime, turn them, then run them.

Baseline: they are committing crimes. So are the people they know. Therefore, the danger of informants.

For the record, not FBI nor CIA. An informant is not the guy or gal who comes to you and breaks rapport with you telling you what you do not want to hear.

Their job is to build trust with you, all the time, more the better. Which means telling you what you want to hear.

They are not going to be some stranger who disagrees with you online.

They are going to be the one you consider your best friend or even your mentor or disciple.

Miguel Sanchez • May 12, 2016 9:01 PM

@Slime Mold with Mustard

I can imagine.

@NBC*003059925

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Miguel Sanchez • May 13, 2016 3:45 PM

@NBC*003059925

Longer response.

“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”.

You are not helping anything here, because you are mixing up well proven facts about vulnerabilities in the criminal justice system with innuendo and wildly speculative conspiracy theories.

None of your ‘closer to accurate’ or ‘closer to substantiated’ claims are presented fairly.

And you mix in those half truths with the outrageously improbable theory that the Boston Bombers were really working for the FBI.

The burden of proof is on you, on that.

I do not think these obscure sites you posted are substantial news sites that are likely to cover solid stories.

While the “MSM” does not cover every big story – some are classified, some are incomprehesible to their audience, some have no bearing their audience can use – they certainly have covered major news stories, where those stories have strong substantiation.

But, some points.

• There are certainly a lot of foreign spies likely to be working within the US. A number of these organizations do work, unfortunately, among first generation immigrant communities. The range and number of nations spying against the US is quite large. You have China, France, Japan, Vietnam, Cambodia, North Korea, Cuba, Iran, and many other countries. “Friend”, “ally”, “frenemy”, and in every manner of category.

The US leads in technological innovation and market production. The US also leads in intelligence and military. And US actions can severely hurt other nations, even if unintentionally. So, there are a lot of reasons for countries to send spies here.

Not investigating those spies would be a dereliction of duty, and a very substantial and embarrassing one, when found out.

They are always, ultimately, found out.

• It is extremely unlikely the US is surveilling Vegan groups ‘because they are vegan’, but certainly there is likely surveillance of far left wing groups who have heavy vegan supporting members and also have offshoots which are potentially violent.

Such groups are in an extreme minority of the population.

This same statement applies to these other categories.

Anything is possible, but not everything is likely. And surveilling vegan groups because they are vegan as a highly absurd claim to make.

• Domestic surveillance. You mention this briefly, claiming “this means everyone is under house arrest”, “under 24/7 continuous surveillance”. This is a dishonest response. First of all, the “MSM” well has covered and continues to cover domestic surveillance problems. So you are relying on the “MSM” to provide you that information, you clearly believe them, so you do support and acknowledge they cover the big stories.

This would be like saying because Google has a lot of data on people, that therefore, Google is putting the whole world under 24/7 surveillance.

Where 24/7 surveillance was defined by these Russian spies and the surveillance the FBI put on them.

Which means bugs, video and audio, through the whole house. Front yard, back yard. GPS trackers on cars. Work bugged. Associates investigated. Aerial surveillance. Total communications surveillance. No phone gone without being listened to. Agents infiltrating social networks. And so on.

That costs money. That costs manpower. A really large amount of money and a really lot of manpower.

• You actually might be under that level of surveillance. Why? Because you support, heavily, a terrorist. Even more then that, you support the theory, very strongly, that you believe the federal government is engaging in domestic terrorism. You are an activist who believes that you need to get out this message. You believe change happens by getting out that message.

But, this is your choice.

You have chosen to believe this, because it matches your preferences. And, it reveals that your preferences holds a high level of hatred against the US Government. High enough that you are eagerly willing to believe – despite lack of corroborating evidence – that the US Government set up and implemented the Boston Bombing attack.

Your preferences also show a lot of love for people who do commit terrorism against innocent civilians in the US.

So, you believe what you believe, because of your preferences. Your loves and hates, your likes and dislikes.

This is very different from being critical about the government, or supporting stances some agencies of the government are opposed to — or anything like that.

If the conspiracy theory you believed had strong, corroborating evidence, then your preferences would not be so boldly revealed for all to see. But, it does not.

That said, I am operating by the default assumption, that this is not what you believe, but an act. With the intention of getting people to click on sites which you control.