The US and UK are way behind the curve in "taking the inititive" to monitor other countries. Spy craft is a very, very old trade and the US in particular is historically not anywhere near that old.
There was a story that prior to World War I, the impression in europe was that England had to have a really awesome spy agency. First, it was unthinkable that a country that powerful had no spy agency, but, second, there was no sign of them anywhere--they just had to be really, really good. Actually, they had none. So the British began developing their intelligence community (we now know of them as MI-5 and MI-6, which are the Military Intelligence branches for internal and foreign spying) after studying what everyone else was doing. After WWI, the Polish spy people were trying to decipher (decode) the German enigma machine, an early and very successful message scrambler. In the process, the Poles discovered that their country was about to be overrun and so they evacuated their services to England. An Englishman named Touring, a pioneer in computing, was given the opportunity to assimilate the Polish code-breaking efforts and develop the English computer that gave Churchill the news straight from the German transmissions. Today, that message traffic translation facility still works, though with fantastically better equipment, is called ECHELON.
The Americans, meanwhile had been doing code work on the Japanese. We learned most of our modern spycraft by watching the Japanese and German spy agencies among us. The FBI was getting quite good at it independently of the military who watched things abroad, particularly in the Pacific. Our State department had people who carried on normal embassy and consulate work, but had contacts with the military or even FBI when something looked useful or suspicious. It was because of the varied scope of our information gathering that after WWII we organized a spy agency clearing house--the Central Intelligence Agency, CIA.
Everywhere US and UK spies go or have been, other countries have had their people there first--we aren't taking any initiative, as in first response. Monitoring other countries have gone on throughout all of human civilization. The tools to do what we do today were first developed in order to understand what the others had already done. We just have better equipment now than we've ever had before, and it can scour through more and more information than was ever possible before. But we still generate still far, far more information than they can fully scrutinize, so it isn't the end of the world, okay?
2006-06-13 04:26:53
·
answer #1
·
answered by Rabbit 7
·
0⤊
0⤋