From: Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 13:52:58 +0800
To: "Vladimir Z. Nuri" <vznuri@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: fbi botches intel "ecspionage" case
In-Reply-To: <199606291925.MAA12512@netcom3.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.94.960702214703.2420C-100000@polaris>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain




On Sat, 29 Jun 1996, Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote:

> 
> "economic espionage" (ecspionage?) is in full swing as being 
> promoted as the new bogeyman to justify spending billions of
> dollars to our intelligence agencies, both military and
> the FBI.


Careful, the FBI only does counter-intel in this context.

> 
> we already have a very good example where this has
> backfired. I was watching Nightline on Tues night or
> so in which there was info about how the FBI helped
> get an informant into Intel in a *very* sensitive
> position, where he was able to film the pentium chip
> plans. he said he sold them, as I recall,
> to iraq, syria, china, etc.

Again, why was the FBI putting the informant into Intel?  It was almost
100% certain to be related to a criminal or counter-intel matter.  The
fact that the informant may have appropriated information in the process
and sold it to the highest bidder is a rebuke against the FBI's informant
selection process, not against economic or industrial espionage, which the
FBI does not do.

> somehow we have missed a good public debate about 
> ecspionage in the country. there were a few NYT 
> editorials, but it is clearly being used as a very
> major aspect of promoting the new post-cold-war spy
> and intelligence strategy without almost any notice
> by major analyists.

It has gained a great deal of notice, you just have to know where to look.
I suggest looking over e.g., the economist, foreign affairs, foreign
policy, the international journal of intelligence and counterintelligence,
signal....

> 
> I was thinking about all the objections I had to the
> FBI ecspionage treatment that were never raised on the
> program:


I don't think you have a firm grasp on the role or part the FBI took in
this matter.

> 2. we have a tradition of separation of church and state in
> this country, and also separation of the public government
> and private industry. suddenly we have the FBI saying they
> want to infiltrate companies to deal with economic espionage.

Typically this is with the consent of the companies, or in response to
complaints from same.  This is COUNTER intelligence, not espionage or
"ecspionage" (A silly and non-sensical term even if you were constructing
it correctly here).

> well, these companies have their own policy, and what do
> they gain by having a government agency working inside them?

See my comment above.

> in the above case I note, it led to exactly the *opposite*
> of what was intended: the theft of *highly*sensitive* plans
> by an FBI mole.

Not the first time, certainly will not be the last.  Again, it's a
question of procedure, not of the validity of the program.

> 3. hence, one wonders if the FBI could do a better job of
> combating ecspionage

I believe you mean economic intelligence here, not economic espionage, or
industrial espionage, or "ecspionage."

> if someone else can give more info on this case (apparently
> a book is coming out about it or something) including the
> guy's name, I'd appreciate it, I didn't take any notes so
> this is a bit fuzzy.

Try to be more careful about the roles of the various parties in your
(otherwise interesting) commentary.