# Canadian intelligence/security community, general thread



## MarkOttawa (7 Nov 2016)

Perhaps a start:



> Anyone Care about Canadian Intelligence Analysis? Plus C-22 and Parliamentary Review
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/11/07/mark-collins-anyone-care-about-canadian-intelligence-analysis-plus-c-22-and-parliamentary-review/



Plus:



> The Scope of Canadian Forces’ Intelligence Activities (including HUMINT)
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/06/27/mark-collins-the-scope-of-canadian-forces-intelligence-activities-including-humint/
> 
> Canadian SIGINT: “CSE: What do we know? What do we need to know?”
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/10/13/mark-collins-canadian-sigint-cse-what-do-we-know-what-do-we-need-to-know/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## mba2011 (7 Nov 2016)

Mark,

I would say that the links to your blog presents a picture of the CF and its Intelligence capability that is somewhat flawed. 

That said, as a whole, this site would not be the place to have an open discussion about out intelligence capabilities.

Just my  :2c:


----------



## MarkOttawa (7 Nov 2016)

NeverDismount: Only working from open sources, most official with respect to the Forces.  But if too sensitive mods can close down.

One has some background, some time ago:
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/10/13/mark-collins-canadian-sigint-cse-what-do-we-know-what-do-we-need-to-know/

Mark 
Ottawa


----------



## Journeyman (7 Nov 2016)

NeverDismount said:
			
		

> I would say that the links to your blog presents a picture of the CF and its Intelligence capability that is somewhat flawed.


Perhaps it is; that alone would call out for an open discussion to confirm/deny/amend as necessary.



> That said, as a whole, this site would not be the place to have an open discussion about out intelligence capabilities.


Why not here?  In a democracy, there is a vast amount of transparent oversight (as noted, if people are interested).  Yes, some issues are classified justifiably; but some may be "hidden" because there are embarrassing short-comings that some folks don't want aired in public.  I understand OPSEC quite well, but I also understand the occasional need to point out the emperor's lack of attire.

I'm _guessing_  that the current interest is tied to Quebec journalists and FBI involvement in the US election.  As such, most interest will be on SIGINT.  Try not to limit yourselves.


----------



## mba2011 (8 Nov 2016)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Perhaps it is; that alone would call out for an open discussion to confirm/deny/amend as necessary.
> Why not here?  In a democracy, there is a vast amount of transparent oversight (as noted, if people are interested).  Yes, some issues are classified justifiably; but some may be "hidden" because there are embarrassing short-comings that some folks don't want aired in public.  I understand OPSEC quite well, but I also understand the occasional need to point out the emperor's lack of attire.
> 
> I'm _guessing_  that the current interest is tied to Quebec journalists and FBI involvement in the US election.  As such, most interest will be on SIGINT.  Try not to limit yourselves.



Journeyman,

Not at all, it has nothing to do with embarrassing short comings, its just difficult to have an open and informed discussion about how it is actually working when you can't fully discuss the realities of the topic.

In terms of my first post, the CF Int community faces the same issues as the rest of the CF. Budget, manning, etc. Its too bad, but the CF is all in the same boat no?

As far as oversight, I would guess its a balancing act, just like other aspects of the CF. The systems set out but the CF arent perfect when it comes to oversight in so many other aspects, so I would think its probably very similar when it comes to the Intelligence Branch, and its many functions.


----------

