<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Intelligence Agencies Don&#8217;t Want Intelligent Employees</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/intelligence_agencies_dont_want_intelligent_employees/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/intelligence_agencies_dont_want_intelligent_employees/</link>
	<description>Online Journal of Politics and Foreign Affairs</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Nov 2009 19:07:43 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Ron Johnson</title>
		<link>http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/intelligence_agencies_dont_want_intelligent_employees/comment-page-1/#comment-409323</link>
		<dc:creator>Ron Johnson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Jun 2008 22:14:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2008/06/intelligence_agencies_dont_want_intelligent_employees/#comment-409323</guid>
		<description>&quot;Are you kidding? That sounds like exactly what this administration wants.&quot;

That is some pretty narrow thinking. You make it sound like the evil Bush sits around all day thinking of ways to stymie everything that is good. Well, your wrong... Neither the president, nor any of those perceived archdukes of hell that you think of as sitting in the Whitehouse administrative offices can dictate policy with the security background checking in the intelligence services. The intelligence folks have built up quite the insular bureaucracy on their own over the years that effectively impedes any meddling from the Whitehouse, regardless of who is currently occupying the office.

To put it bluntly, our government is ineffective and ham-fisted no matter who is the figurehead leader.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>"Are you kidding? That sounds like exactly what this administration wants."</p>
<p>That is some pretty narrow thinking. You make it sound like the evil Bush sits around all day thinking of ways to stymie everything that is good. Well, your wrong... Neither the president, nor any of those perceived archdukes of hell that you think of as sitting in the Whitehouse administrative offices can dictate policy with the security background checking in the intelligence services. The intelligence folks have built up quite the insular bureaucracy on their own over the years that effectively impedes any meddling from the Whitehouse, regardless of who is currently occupying the office.</p>
<p>To put it bluntly, our government is ineffective and ham-fisted no matter who is the figurehead leader.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: capital L</title>
		<link>http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/intelligence_agencies_dont_want_intelligent_employees/comment-page-1/#comment-409295</link>
		<dc:creator>capital L</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Jun 2008 21:59:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2008/06/intelligence_agencies_dont_want_intelligent_employees/#comment-409295</guid>
		<description>Lets see: a &quot;compulsive&quot; internet user who associates with groups &quot;allied to stigmatized practices&quot; such as &quot;deviant cyber-behaviors &lt;strong&gt;with the intention of causing harm to others&lt;/strong&gt; including “hacking” and sabotage&quot;-- yeah who &lt;em&gt;wouldn&#039;t&lt;/em&gt; want them in our intelligence service. 

I only hope you also accept the compulsive television watcher who hangs out with people in a dog-fighting ring and plots petty larcenies on the weekends-- you know, for consistency.

I just don&#039;t see the outrage with this story.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Lets see: a "compulsive" internet user who associates with groups "allied to stigmatized practices" such as "deviant cyber-behaviors <strong>with the intention of causing harm to others</strong> including “hacking” and sabotage"-- yeah who <em>wouldn't</em> want them in our intelligence service. </p>
<p>I only hope you also accept the compulsive television watcher who hangs out with people in a dog-fighting ring and plots petty larcenies on the weekends-- you know, for consistency.</p>
<p>I just don't see the outrage with this story.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: DC Loser</title>
		<link>http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/intelligence_agencies_dont_want_intelligent_employees/comment-page-1/#comment-409277</link>
		<dc:creator>DC Loser</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Jun 2008 21:52:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2008/06/intelligence_agencies_dont_want_intelligent_employees/#comment-409277</guid>
		<description>Sounds to me like the Counter Intelligence bureaucracy staking out new territory.  Nothing new here, there&#039;s always been the technology Luddites within the system.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sounds to me like the Counter Intelligence bureaucracy staking out new territory.  Nothing new here, there's always been the technology Luddites within the system.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steven Taylor</title>
		<link>http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/intelligence_agencies_dont_want_intelligent_employees/comment-page-1/#comment-409036</link>
		<dc:creator>Steven Taylor</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Jun 2008 20:05:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2008/06/intelligence_agencies_dont_want_intelligent_employees/#comment-409036</guid>
		<description>Part of this smacks of old-fogies who don&#039;t fully understand the new tech, or its effects on the way people communicate/live.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Part of this smacks of old-fogies who don't fully understand the new tech, or its effects on the way people communicate/live.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JKB</title>
		<link>http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/intelligence_agencies_dont_want_intelligent_employees/comment-page-1/#comment-408800</link>
		<dc:creator>JKB</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Jun 2008 17:16:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2008/06/intelligence_agencies_dont_want_intelligent_employees/#comment-408800</guid>
		<description>Looks to me that the list is the standard red flags in the adjudication process put in internet terms.  

social network usage; disclosure of information in computer-mediated activities - inability to keep things to themselves

extent of on-line contact with foreign nationals; - extent of contact with foreign nationals when traveling abroad.

cyber behavior that suggests an unwillingness to abide by rules - behavior that suggest unwillingness to abide by the rules, i.e., protesting, disorderly conduct, drug use.

compulsive internet use;  - compulsive behaviors such as gambling, spending, drinking etc.

involvement in computer groups (especially those allied to stigmatized practices); - involvement in groups especially those that suggest non-conformity

providing false information within computer-mediated communications about oneself or others;  - lying to others in any context flags.

procurement and distribution of pirated materials; engaging in deviant cyber-behaviors with the intention of causing harm to others including “hacking” and sabotage. - criminal or rule-breaking activity


The problem is that with technology young Mindy from Minneapolis who never left the farm until signing up can have as many or more red flags as Bradley from Boston who spent that semester studying abroad.  As Bradley might have been noticed if he associated with the wrong crowd in Berlin but not Mindy in her bedroom.  Being able to get out in the world from the comfort of your own home is a good thing; creates a smaller world.  But it will drive the counter-intel types who are by the nature of their work paranoid, insane trying to sort through all the contacts and behaviors that look a lot like someone vulnerable to espionage or who is a foreign agent.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Looks to me that the list is the standard red flags in the adjudication process put in internet terms.  </p>
<p>social network usage; disclosure of information in computer-mediated activities - inability to keep things to themselves</p>
<p>extent of on-line contact with foreign nationals; - extent of contact with foreign nationals when traveling abroad.</p>
<p>cyber behavior that suggests an unwillingness to abide by rules - behavior that suggest unwillingness to abide by the rules, i.e., protesting, disorderly conduct, drug use.</p>
<p>compulsive internet use;  - compulsive behaviors such as gambling, spending, drinking etc.</p>
<p>involvement in computer groups (especially those allied to stigmatized practices); - involvement in groups especially those that suggest non-conformity</p>
<p>providing false information within computer-mediated communications about oneself or others;  - lying to others in any context flags.</p>
<p>procurement and distribution of pirated materials; engaging in deviant cyber-behaviors with the intention of causing harm to others including “hacking” and sabotage. - criminal or rule-breaking activity</p>
<p>The problem is that with technology young Mindy from Minneapolis who never left the farm until signing up can have as many or more red flags as Bradley from Boston who spent that semester studying abroad.  As Bradley might have been noticed if he associated with the wrong crowd in Berlin but not Mindy in her bedroom.  Being able to get out in the world from the comfort of your own home is a good thing; creates a smaller world.  But it will drive the counter-intel types who are by the nature of their work paranoid, insane trying to sort through all the contacts and behaviors that look a lot like someone vulnerable to espionage or who is a foreign agent.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael</title>
		<link>http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/intelligence_agencies_dont_want_intelligent_employees/comment-page-1/#comment-408790</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Jun 2008 17:09:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2008/06/intelligence_agencies_dont_want_intelligent_employees/#comment-408790</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;So, essentially, people who like to use computers to share information with other intelligent people, who display dogged task focus, and outside-the-box thinking are the kind of people we want to avoid hiring for intelligence work?&lt;/blockquote&gt;No, but it&#039;s the people who are smart enough to hide the fact that they do those things that they should be hiring.  Anyone who can get caught downloading pirated movies isn&#039;t someone you want, but the one that uses Tor to do it, well he&#039;s a bit smarter than your average pirate.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>So, essentially, people who like to use computers to share information with other intelligent people, who display dogged task focus, and outside-the-box thinking are the kind of people we want to avoid hiring for intelligence work?</p></blockquote>
<p>No, but it's the people who are smart enough to hide the fact that they do those things that they should be hiring.  Anyone who can get caught downloading pirated movies isn't someone you want, but the one that uses Tor to do it, well he's a bit smarter than your average pirate.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: legion</title>
		<link>http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/intelligence_agencies_dont_want_intelligent_employees/comment-page-1/#comment-408760</link>
		<dc:creator>legion</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Jun 2008 16:36:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2008/06/intelligence_agencies_dont_want_intelligent_employees/#comment-408760</guid>
		<description>Are you kidding? That sounds like &lt;em&gt;exactly &lt;/em&gt;what this administration wants. People who actually &lt;em&gt;think &lt;/em&gt;might notice that their superiors have been bald-facedly lying to the American people for the last few years about what threats this country is facing...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Are you kidding? That sounds like <em>exactly </em>what this administration wants. People who actually <em>think </em>might notice that their superiors have been bald-facedly lying to the American people for the last few years about what threats this country is facing...</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
