You have commented 375 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: WoT
Seeking Iran intelligence, U.S. tries Rantburg Google
2006-12-11
Not Scrappleface, alas. But an interesting look at the flabby underbelly of our current intel ops. And 'scuse me while I go get my tinfoil hat, d'ya think Google could and would monitor and tinker with search queries originating from Fed IPs?
When the State Department recently asked the CIA for names of Iranians who could be sanctioned for their involvement in a clandestine nuclear weapons program, the agency refused, citing a large workload and a desire to protect its sources and tradecraft. Frustrated, the State Department assigned a junior Foreign Service officer to find the names another way -- by using Google. Those with the most hits under search terms such as "Iran and nuclear," three officials said, became targets for international rebuke Friday when a sanctions resolution circulated at the United Nations.

Policymakers and intelligence officials have always struggled when it comes to deciding how and when to disclose secret information, such as names of Iranians with suspected ties to nuclear weapons. In some internal debates, policymakers win out and intelligence is made public to further political or diplomatic goals. In other cases, such as this one, the intelligence community successfully argues that protecting information outweighs the desires of some to share it with the world.

But that argument can also put the U.S. government in the awkward position of relying, in part, on an Internet search to select targets for international sanctions.
Posted by:Seafarious

#26  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy   2006-12-11 22:12  

#25  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: Fred   2006-12-11 20:35  

#24  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: RD   2006-12-11 20:10  

#23  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: .com   2006-12-11 19:48  

#22  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: RD   2006-12-11 19:45  

#21  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: Alaska Paul   2006-12-11 18:19  

#20  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: Maj. Kong   2006-12-11 18:13  

#19  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: Intrinsicpilot   2006-12-11 17:33  

#18  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: trailing wife   2006-12-11 17:17  

#17  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: Shipman   2006-12-11 15:21  

#16  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: Mike N.   2006-12-11 14:44  

#15  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: tu3031   2006-12-11 14:36  

#14  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: Rob Crawford   2006-12-11 14:12  

#13  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: Master of Obvious   2006-12-11 14:07  

#12  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: trailing wife   2006-12-11 14:03  

#11  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: Old Patriot   2006-12-11 13:54  

#10  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: Bleeding Heart   2006-12-11 13:52  

#9  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: SteveS   2006-12-11 11:54  

#8  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: Mike N.   2006-12-11 10:39  

#7  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: Excalibur   2006-12-11 09:12  

#6  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: Anonymoose   2006-12-11 09:01  

#5  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: 49 Pan   2006-12-11 08:39  

#4  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: Steve   2006-12-11 08:28  

#3  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: Sneaze Shaiting3550   2006-12-11 05:07  

#2  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: Sneaze Shaiting3550   2006-12-11 04:43  

#1  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: phil_b   2006-12-11 04:42  

00:00