Difference between revisions of "Eyewash"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m (Text replacement - " Washington Post " to " ''Washington Post'' ") |
(unstub) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
|so_called=Eyewash | |so_called=Eyewash | ||
|constitutes=deception, compartmentalization | |constitutes=deception, compartmentalization | ||
| + | |description=A [[compartmentalization]] technique used by [[intelligence agencies]] such as the [[CIA]], in which senior spooks intentionally deceive other members of the same group by transmitting internal memos that contain false information. | ||
}} | }} | ||
'''"Eyewash"''' is a [[compartmentalization]] technique used by [[intelligence agencies]] such as the [[CIA]], in which senior spooks intentionally deceive other members of the same group by transmitting internal memos that contain false information.<ref name=wp/> | '''"Eyewash"''' is a [[compartmentalization]] technique used by [[intelligence agencies]] such as the [[CIA]], in which senior spooks intentionally deceive other members of the same group by transmitting internal memos that contain false information.<ref name=wp/> | ||
| Line 21: | Line 22: | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
{{reflist}} | {{reflist}} | ||
| − | |||
Latest revision as of 23:47, 2 January 2022
 Eyewash(deception, compartmentalization)   | |
|---|---|
| A compartmentalization technique used by intelligence agencies such as the CIA, in which senior spooks intentionally deceive other members of the same group by transmitting internal memos that contain false information. |
"Eyewash" is a compartmentalization technique used by intelligence agencies such as the CIA, in which senior spooks intentionally deceive other members of the same group by transmitting internal memos that contain false information.[1]
Legality
The Washington Post wrote in 2016 that
“Federal law makes it a criminal offense when a government employee “conceals, covers up, falsifies or makes a false entry” in an official record. Legal experts said they knew of no special exemption for the CIA, nor any attempt to prosecute agency officials for alleged violations. The CIA declined to comment.”
(31 January 2016) [1]
Many thanks to our Patrons who cover ~2/3 of our hosting bill. Please join them if you can.
