Talk:Directorate of Operations (CIA): Difference between revisions
NCS = DO |
|||
Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
::I can see the difference, thank you, [[User:MrPinkBullets|MrPinkBullets]] <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Gamgee|Gamgee]] ([[User talk:Gamgee|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Gamgee|contribs]]) 07:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
::I can see the difference, thank you, [[User:MrPinkBullets|MrPinkBullets]] <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Gamgee|Gamgee]] ([[User talk:Gamgee|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Gamgee|contribs]]) 07:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
==Opening paras== |
|||
The NCS is still a part of the CIA, albeit semi-autonomous. The opening paras didn't reflect that fact. I have edited accordingly. [[Special:Contributions/173.49.135.190|173.49.135.190]] ([[User talk:173.49.135.190|talk]]) 14:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 14:00, 25 May 2010
Cold War Unassessed | ||||||||||
|
United States Unassessed | ||||||||||
|
NCS equals DO
As far as I can tell, the NCS is just the DO. That may not have been the intent, but it appears to be the outcome. You can see it in the tensions between the DCI or the DNI. The CIA's public statement is:
the National Clandestine Service (NCS) operates as the clandestine arm of the CIA, and serves as the national authority for the coordination, deconfliction, and evaluation of clandestine human intelligence operations across the Intelligence Community.
[1]. We don't know enough to say whether deconfliction and coordination is actually occurring, or if it is occurring because of the NCS. This looks like just another of those ill-designed changes that the Congress unleashed after 2001. Gaintes (talk) 17:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Dubious statement
If the NCS absorbed the CIA, then why would Jose report to Porter Goss? It should be the other way around...can anyone substantiate that claim? freestylefrappe 20:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
- This is answered in the article and links. NCS is absorbing part of the CIA: E.g. one directorate (department.) I fixed a fragmented sentence for you. Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 20:39, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Merger
The merger suggestion is inappropriate. One article is discussing a specific agency, and the other is discussing a class of agencies, of which the NCS is a member. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 17:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- No. They are one and the same as presented here Clandestine service (the article) refers specifically to the US goverment body, not to a general category of covert operations institutions. I say mine Clandestine service for whatever info is valuable and insert into the other. Then redirect Clandestine service into a general espionage-related article. Alcarillo 18:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Category: NCS is not an independent federal agency
Just a point of clarificaiton, or maybey I'm missing something. NCS is not a separate, distinct federal agency. It is a part of the CIA. See the official press release annoucing its creation where it discusses the "the creation of the National Clandestine Service (NCS) at CIA." It has duties that extend beyond the CIA, but for organizational purposes it is a part of the CIA.
I recommend removing the category that lists this as an "indepdenent federal agency" but leaving the rest that identify its relation to the CIA and US intelligence activities. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dcmacnut (talk • contribs) 23:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC).
- You're right. I will fix accordingly. Alcarillo 17:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
aaaa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.83.204.152 (talk) 08:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Overt HUMINT
In the section Overt HUMINT it says: "In addition they may produce HUMINT from overt sources, such as voluntary interviews with travelers, businesspeople, etc." But isn't overt sources precisely the definition of OSINT instead of HUMINT? Gamgee (talk) 15:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Gamgee: I see your point but "overt HUMINT" is correct. OSINT does not simply refer to unclassified information; it specifically concerns "open and public" sources such as civilian media agencies, institutional press releases, public speeches, published literature, and freely observable information such as geography. OSINT must be both "overt", meaning that the source reveals the information willingly; and "publicly available", meaning that most or all members of the general public have access to it.
--Distinguishing examples:--
1. An American tourist sees suspicious activity at his hotel in Turkey. He goes to the US Embassy in Ankara and is debriefed by a Foreign Service Officer. The FSO sends his report to the State Bureau of Intelligence and Research, who use the information to estimate the location of a suspected terrorist. Though the information is "overt" (the tourist released the information willingly and did not conduct any clandestine activity), it is not "publicly available" (not everyone saw the suspicious activity, and it was not reported by any media outlets). Therefore this should be considered HUMINT (or specifically "overt HUMINT") and not OSINT.
2. A Chinese defense contractor publishes quarterly financial data and new product brochures on its public website. A CIA analyst downloads this information and uses it to draw conclusions about PRC government spending and military technical capabilities, which he includes in an intelligence estimate on the People's Liberation Army. In this case, the information is both "overt" (the defense contractor released the information willingly) and "publicly available" (anyone with an Internet connection can access it). Therefore this is an example of OSINT, whereas the first example is not.
--MrPinkBullets (talk) 02:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- I can see the difference, thank you, MrPinkBullets —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamgee (talk • contribs) 07:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Opening paras
The NCS is still a part of the CIA, albeit semi-autonomous. The opening paras didn't reflect that fact. I have edited accordingly. 173.49.135.190 (talk) 14:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)