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"