Posted by Alla Katsnelson

[Entry posted at 14th October 2008 04:16 PM GMT]

E. Hunt wrote, "With Islam, the agents can be expected to die for the cause."

Please don't confuse Islam (a religion with a billion adherents) with the ideologies of terrorists and terror groups.

It was probably an unintentionally offensive statement, but it highlights a significant concern I have with some security procedures. If they consciously or unconsciously classify entire religions as inherently risky, they may miss the individual loonies that can be found in every religious and social group. From what I've read, Dr. Ivins (whether guilty or not) identified as a devout Christian.

As for good security measures, anyone smart enough to work in a high-level lab should be able to beat almost any surveillance technology. On the other hand, low-tech (and admittedly annoying) approaches like a "buddy system" for lab workers might be a way to fight the various temptations and pressures Dr. Hunt outlined.

It wouldn't be a problem for me at least, to get all sorts of things out with those camera systems.

Basic security says that the reasons why people do things are primarily four:

A. Foozle - They have financial problems, and can be approached to do something for money. This is not the primary way it happens though, because for the agent doing the approach, it is extremely high risk. Instead, these people volunteer. They seek out parties they think would pay. (Yes, foozle is a word from auditing.)

B. Ideology - People who have a world view that tells them to commit acts are very high risk. If a person holds an ideology that supports it, they will do amazing things. The best acquisitions are ideological agents. With Islam, the agents can be expected to die for the cause. Even the UNABOMER had an ideology - he was his own thought leader. And everyone who commits an act, for any reason, will rationalize what they do.

C. Blackmail - This is why it used to be that homosexuality was a disqualification. Now that it is out of the closet, it isn't a big problem. People with secrets will do things. This is a more reliable tool for agents seeking unwilling recruits. Get the goods, and then get them going. Once they commit once, then the blackmail is more secure. There was man and wife team of soviet agents who worked the Washington D.C. orgy circuit with tremendous success.

D. Love - This is a remarkably effective method used by agents for thousands of years. What men and women won't do for love has not been invented. This goes for people of all ages. Generally, the love object is much more attractive than the one manipulated by it. But sometimes it is just plain loneliness. Scientists can be expected to be extremely vulnerable to this compromise. A lot of older scientists are lonely people.

So that is how I would rank them, in roughly increasing order of risk. If BU is thinking they are tightening security by just looking for financial motive, they aren't doing anything very important.