Re:Qian Xuesen dies at 98; Co-Founder of JPL and China's spa...
by jackpirate on Saturday December 14, 2013 @12:01PM
(#6906200)
>they will eventually look around at all the security measures and consider the risk to their life and liberty to be too great to justify leaking information further.
This never happens in espionage. Once you go down that rabbit hole even a little, the people you're giving information to own you. They have the power to instantly ruin your life. If you stop giving them information, they inform on you. Most spies never wanted to be spies. They got sucked into a crappy situation by making one crappy decision, then they're stuck with it forever.
Re:Qian Xuesen dies at 98; Co-Founder of JPL and China's spa...
by sillysaurus2 on Saturday December 14, 2013 @12:49PM
(#6906354)
Sources, please, or Google terms for further reading? I find this terribly interesting.
Re:Qian Xuesen dies at 98; Co-Founder of JPL and China's spa...
by jackpirate on Saturday December 14, 2013 @01:07PM
(#6906419)
This is fairly common knowledge in the intelligence communities. You can find lots of detail in declassified training manuals, but the most accessible sources will be memoirs from CIA/KGB operatives. The book Spy Handler: Memoir of a KGB officer: The True Story of the Man Who Recruited Robert Hanssen and Aldrich Ames by Victor Cherkashin is particularly good. He's quite critical of the Soviet practice of executing spies because once an American CIA agent converted a Soviet worker, the Soviet worker had no choice but to continue giving away secrets. The American agents (supposedly) used the threat of informing on the worker to coerce more and more information away.
If someone produces excellent, productive research, and that research is leaking, simply ratchet up security around the research until the leaks stop. If there is a spy, they will eventually look around at all the security measures and consider the risk to their life and liberty to be too great to justify leaking information further. At that point, leaks will stop, but good research will continue, and that outcome provides much greater utility than the alternatives.
People are often too preoccupied with persecution that they view the absence of persecuting anyone of something as wrong. In the US we are preoccupied with the idea that someone, somewhere may be doing something wrong and that we should be punishing that person because they deserve it. In this case (and in most cases) persecution didn't solve the problem, but tightened security would have.