Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!iuvax!purdue!decwrl!eda!jim From: jim@eda.com (Jim Budler) Newsgroups: comp.misc Subject: Re: Soviet Access to Usenet Keywords: Espionage arpanet Message-ID: <379@eda.com> Date: 30 Nov 88 08:46:37 GMT References: <8081@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> <2672@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> <348@kps.UUCP> <2304@ficc.uu.net> Reply-To: jim@eda.com (Jim Budler) Organization: EDA Systems,Inc. Santa Clara, CA Lines: 37 In article <2304@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: | Let's get these intelligence organisations straight: | | Country Internal External | (spycatchers) (spys) | | USA FBI CIA | USSR KGB GRU | UK MI5 MI6 | | I think that's correct. The Brits seem to have the most logical naming scheme Say what? MI5 and 6 most logical? From the Glossary in Spy Catcher, by Peter Wright, former Assistant Director of MI5: "British Security Service (Formerly Section 5 of Military Intelligence) . . . British Secret Intelligence Service (Formerly Section 6 of Military Intelligence) A civilian organization..." They are both still known by MI5 and MI6, but for historical, not *logical* reasons. Ever wonder what happened to MI 1,2,3 & 4? Mrs. Thatcher isn't very happy with Peter Wright. Publishing memoirs about dirty deads inside MI5 and MI6 is a no-no. The book's banned in Britain. -- Jim Budler address = uucp: ...!{decwrl,uunet}!eda!jim OR domain: jim@eda.com #define disclaimer "I do not speak for my employer" #define truth "I speak for myself" #define result "variable"