Hacker News Reader

Comment by SmellyGeekBoy | Hacker News Reader

Is an intelligence agency having files on public figures considered "shady"? I'd have thought it was an important part of their job. Provided any juicy information isn't misused for political ends, of course.

View on HN

One of RG major role was allowing local informations to go upstream so that politics knew what was going on outside of their ivory tower. Since they were operating using local branches it was a sure way to get first hand informations.

Of course to do their jobs they had to keep files on anyone or anything relevant. Could this be potentially misused ? Definitely. But it had a pretty good reason of existing.

After they got merged they lost most of their local branch and got retasked. Meaning the government have to rely more on second hand data and can more easily fall prey to falsified informations. The truth is a little more complicated than that but it was indeed a really useful tool.

Completely true. And moreover, it is now acknowledged that the failure to stop the terrorist attacks in the recent years comes for a part from the RG having been nearly disbanded. They were far from being an agency which only spied on public figures, they were in fact a very important tool for gathering information at a local level, which was badly missed to have first hand intel on extremists. Their bad reputation came mostly from the 60s-70s when they were targeting a lot the labor unions who had connections with the Soviet Union.

The RG was supposed to collect files on some people, including many public figures, based on slighty vague criteria. It was widely thought to collect files mostly on other people, based on quite different criteria.

This was a problem both because of what it did collect and what it should have collected but missed.

The "provided" is a big proviso. As is the selectivity. Heavier surveillance of one party than another is political in itself, and lots of places have a problem with aggressively policing the left while leaving rightwing subversion and even actual violence alone.

See this ridiculous scandal about a Macron aide dressing up as riot police to beat up protestors: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/sep/19/macron-aide-ac...

I agree, intelligence officers are supposed to investigate anyone who might pose a threat to the nation, and a politician in bed with foreign powers or corporations is a very dangerous threat, moreso than a couple of idiots who might go on murder-suicide runs.

These organizations wouldn't be doing their job if they didn't kept thorough files on politicians.

But in the case of France this file was known to be "who is sleeping with who in Paris", including people posing no security threat whatsoever.

If someone has a secret that could be discovered by a foreign intelligence service (or even a pressure group), and used to manipulate them, then that arguably is a security threat.

We should discover it first and use it against them before anyone else can. National security...

> this file was known to be "who is sleeping with who in Paris", including people posing no security threat whatsoever.

Yes, exactly. That's precisely what I expect any functioning and remotely competent secret service to do. Secret services are bound to look into anyone that is involved in anything that might represent a liability and a security threat. Thus to make sure someone doesn't pose a security threat... Secret services need to look into that person to perform threat assessments and protect the state and potential victims alike.

Let's not pretend for a moment that foreign powers haven't used sex, either directly by ordering agents to seduce and compromise targets or indirectly through collecting explicit evidence, to infiltrate and compromise state institutions.

>That's precisely what I expect any functioning and remotely competent secret service to do. Secret services are bound to look into anyone that is involved in anything that might represent a liability and a security threat.

I can see how Jacque's and Pierre's prolific fucking is a threat to their sense of security...

Better document it... It might come in handy...

We can't have the enemy using people's sex lives against them... That's our job...

Otherwise the terrorists will strike again... We repeatedly failed in our capacity to protect the nation, but please trust us... We just need more money and power... National security...

> I can see how Jacque's and Pierre's prolific fucking is a threat to their sense of security...

If Jacque is the leading candidate for president of france from a conservative party and an anti-NATO regime managed to record a collection od videos of Jacque and Pierre doing their private business to pressure him to be more anti-NATO... And Pierre is actually Dmitry and is in france as a translator for the diplomatic mission of the anti-NATO regime...

Perhaps the secret service could have done something to avoid this, right?

Do you understand how this works?

Honestly the most surprising part of this to me is that ministers would be able to read their own file. Presumably there would be no professional need to know anything in your own file, right?

I, for one, would be curious to know what is known about my person. If the information is true, false, or true but misleading, it may confer an advantage to know their possible assumptions in any adversarial situation.

Which is a good argument to give everyone access to their own file, but not to limit it to ministers and above.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com