Classified US Intel Budget Revealed Via Powerpoint 364
Atario writes "In a holdover from the Cold War when the number really did matter to national security, the size of the US national intelligence budget remains one of the government's most closely guarded secrets. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the highest intelligence agency in the country that oversees all federal intelligence agencies, appears to have inadvertently released the keys to that number in an unclassified PowerPoint presentation now posted on the website of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). By reverse engineering the numbers in an underlying data element embedded in the presentation, it seems that the total budget of the 16 US intelligence agencies in fiscal year 2005 was $60 billion, almost 25% higher than previously believed."
Old Jedi Mind Trick (Score:5, Funny)
Guess the DoD changed their security policy (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's been taken down though, slashdotted before the first post even...
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Guess the DoD changed their security policy (Score:5, Insightful)
Except that the "mistakes" like these are done by the government, so that you would think exactly that. You have just fallen into their trap!
Not really, but your logic makes about as much sense as the conspiracy theorists. Just because one idiot who works for the government screwed up, doesn't imply anything about other people, and other agencies? Why would it? Just like saying someone working for one company screwed up, so all companies must be incompetent, and have been for 40 years? Do you not think that sounds screwy as well?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yet somehow the government is also incompetent and inept.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Except that the "mistakes" like these are done by the government, so that you would think exactly that.
I know you're joking, but it's really called misinformation and could easily be used to discourage from people estimating the real number. Maybe earlier estimates were dead on, and the DIA got a little sketched. Bottom line, intelligence like this is very weak because your main source is also your target, god only knows what they're lying and what kind of paranoid off the wall scheme they are going to come up with next.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I also think the real purpose of a lot of our financial aid is to keep nations in africa and other places balkanized and ineffectual.
But I'm just paranoid.
Re:Guess the DoD changed their security policy (Score:5, Interesting)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mincemeat [wikipedia.org]
If they can successfully go to those lengths, how hard is it to accidentally-on-purpose leave some bogus figures in a Powerpoint presentation?
Re:Guess the DoD changed their security policy (Score:5, Insightful)
Right... because some office worker is dumb (or simply didn't know the need to strip the data), it then follows that EVERYONE in the government is just as dumb / incompetent.
Very good logic there.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Really faulty logic there. Just because a government is capable of making incredibly mind-boggling mistakes, does not mean the same government is not capable of conducting other activities extremely well. Let's remember that the US government:
Re:Guess the DoD changed their security policy (Score:4, Interesting)
Do you have to go into a binary editor and see the data?
Seems to me that this shows the dangers of a proprietary file format.
Will the US Government now have to comb through nasty binary formats to check what data is retained and what data isn't?
It would be nice if these file formats where open and documented wouldn't? Sure would make doing security checks on the files a lot simpler.
Just some food for thought.
Re:Guess the DoD changed their security policy (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Committed to Excellence in Defense of The Nation
Notice its "The Nation" and not "Our Nation."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No it isn't. The concept of "security through obscurity" has nothing to do with this, this was not an attempt to hide the actual figure in a haystack and hope no one would find it. What's going on here is called stupidity. Whoever put the slides together didn't think through what actual information was embedded in the PowerPoint, didn't understand how PowerPoint works. This has *nothing* to do with attempting to hide something, it has to do w
Re: (Score:2)
I'm also wondering it this would have been the same problem with any version of powerpoint or is something equivalent to MS power point could have avoided it all together.
It seems to me that we have had quite a few leaks revolving around MS products, the insistence on using them, and under-qualified people using them to do the
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Guess the DoD changed their security policy (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Not really (Score:3, Informative)
That is also how the DOD,
Stargate (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why the hell do you think they're so head over heels with the protection of intellectual property? Because of some industries? Oh c'mon...
Re:Stargate (Score:5, Interesting)
I've always been amused by the premise of this franchise. It comes from one a (supposedly) non-fiction book called The Stargate Conspiracy, which claims that a secret cabal is bringing back alien technology through a portal dug up in Egypt, and trading it for money and power. The amusing thing is that the TV show makes the same people who were the evil conspirators in the book into the good guys!
Re:Stargate (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, if you were behind the evil conspiracy revealed in that book, wouldn't something like this be the ideal way to defuse the book and its accusations?
Duh
In the Words of Nelson: (Score:2, Funny)
take that classified info!
Re: (Score:2)
Link to the actual PowerPoint slideshow (Score:3, Informative)
Outdated link (Score:5, Informative)
It's now been posted [fas.org] by the Federation of American Scientists.
There are, however, a number of other contracting briefs and presentations posted here [dia.mil]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Important information from the article... (Score:5, Insightful)
Not because of incompetence, corruption, waste, or secrecy - though all those are certainly elements to varying degrees - but in reality because of the wide variety of agencies and activities that fall under the guise of "intelligence" [intelligence.gov].
The article itself notes, correctly:
This top line $60 billion figure is 25% above the estimated $48 billion budget for FY 08. It is quite probable that this total figure was not even known by the government until recently. Greater control and oversight of the Intelligence Community budget was a hallmark of the Intelligence Reform Act of 2004 that created the position of the Director of National Intelligence and gave it the mandate to get an overview of the entire amount spent on intelligence government-wide. To this end, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence has recently gathered all parts of the previously fragmented Intelligence Community budget together for the first time as part of its Intelligence Resource Information System (IRIS). In the report from the Select Senate Committee on Intelligence released last Thursday, the committee praised the Office of the Director of Intelligence for creating a "single budget system called the Intelligence Resource Information System." It also recognizes their efforts in helping create what "will be used for further inquiry by the Committee's budget and audit staffs and will be a baseline that allows the Congress and DNI to derive trend data from future reports."
Earlier, lower estimates were most likely only included what fell directly under the Director of Central Intelligence and which would have omitted parts of NSA, NRO. A total Intelligence Community number, with the Intelligence Community as defined by 50 U.S.C. 401a(4), would also now include the various military intelligence services (e.g. Army Intel, Navy Intel, etc.), each with its respective weapon technology intelligence exploitation shop. A total budget would also include a large portion of the budget of the Department of Homeland Security which was previously fragment across multiple government agencies. A $60 billion government-wide Intelligence Community budget is not at all out of line with the post 9/11 organizational reality. It seems that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence is just now getting a clear picture of the fragmented intelligence community budget.
When you're dealing with sixteen separate agencies, including elements from the Department of Defense, to say something like "intelligence budget" is almost meaningless. What's pure intelligence? What's national defense? What is a mix? In fact, it often comes down to what some particular task or program is "anointed" by management. Different areas get reorganized and shuffled into different organizational structures. To say nothing of the fact that the addition of DHS to the Intelligence Community was the largest government reorganization in over a half-century, since the creation of the Department of Defense and CIA by the National Security Act of 1947.
Shuffle more, and you can probably make the "intelligence" budget appear lower. But the truth is that "it seems that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence is just now getting a clear picture of the fragmented intelligence community budget."
And that should be a good thing.
On a different note, revealing classified or sensitive information by improper handling of technology solutions is a perennial problem, and it still floors me that the vetting and release process doesn't properly capture things like this (though they've gotten MUCH better).
Followup (Score:2)
Re:Important information from the article... (Score:4, Informative)
Um, yes, that's what this entire issue is about.
The blog that contains this article [thespywhobilledme.com] is called "The Spy Who Billed Me: Outsourcing the War on Terror", and the presentation itself [fas.org] is titled "Procuring the Future", and is entirely dedicated to contractors and contract acquisition, and the fact that the IC couldn't function or do its job without the variety of speciality contractors and services. The way the IC budget was "deduced" was by seeing dollars spent on contractors, and the knowledge that constituted "70%" of spending.
Yeah, the contract issue in general is one of concern, but, like all things, it's not simply "good" or "bad"; it has benefits, drawbacks, advantages, and problems, and the key is proper management of such resources. Keep in mind that all contractor issues aren't "outsourcing" in the way some like to think: it includes all manner of acquisition of capabilities and services, which also necessarily includes labor.
Compared to? (Score:3, Insightful)
Does anyone know how much that budget was back in 2000?
Re: (Score:2)
RTFA ! (Score:5, Informative)
third column for 100% :
95 1850 2643
96 1950 2786
97 1800 2571
98 1775 2536
99 2150 3071
00 1754 2506
01 2170 3100
02 3140 4486
03 4203 6004
04 4049 5784
05 4200 6000
06 3964 5663
So, from 1995 to 2005, an increase of 227%, correspondig to an annual increase of 8,5%.
And, from 2000 to 2005, an increase of 239%, corresponding to an annual increase of 19,1%.
Re:RTFA ! (Score:5, Interesting)
third column for 100%
Basically, their budget doubled as a result.
Thanks for RTFA and giving me the bit I wanted
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
TFA speaks to this exact point. The biggest increase didn't happen between "1995 and 2005" or "2000 and 2005", but between 2001-2003, when the largest government restructuring in nearly sixty years - since the creation of DOD and CIA with the National Security Act of 1947 - added a whole slew of capabilities and entities to the
At least, insescurity works for the little guy (Score:4, Insightful)
Quote from ID4 (Score:5, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Quote from ID4 (Score:5, Informative)
1. How right you are about the no-bid, money-wasting thing--it's happening right now in Iraq, where millions have been wasted and in many cases, little reconstruction to show for it [coastalpost.com] (sorry about the Coastal Post link--it was in major news publications a couple of weeks ago, but this is the most relevant recent hit in a Google News "Bechtel Iraq" search).
2. Isn't it sad that you have to say "probably," because in so many cases, it seems like these huge taxpayer decisions are made without anyone knowing about them?
Re: (Score:3)
Obligatory (Score:2, Funny)
Reverse Engineered? (Score:2)
I'd hardly call this reverse engineering. The unclassified document was made so by simply removing the scale from a graph.
This is even worse than declassifying documents by putting a box on top of text in a PDF. How can people be so stupid?
Re:Reverse Engineered? (Score:5, Insightful)
To quote Bullet Tooth Tony:
"Never underestimate the predictability of stupidity...."
How can people be so stupid? (Score:2)
Umm... That's classified.
Here's something to consider... (Score:5, Interesting)
Every government on earth (and the "bad guys" as well), knew the size of the budget. Or did someone think Putin was going to look at this powerpoint, smack his forehead with his hand and say "ah ha! now I know!"?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What was secret was the budget for individual pieces of the intelligence community, which can imply underlying specific operations, programs, and technologies on which a nation may be spending money. And that should be secret. This, however, necessarily means that the total exact amount spent on intelligence programs is also secret
running the numbers (Score:5, Insightful)
The only people this was a secret from was the American people.
It's important to remember that $60BN doesn't spend itself, and it doesn't spend itself in small numbers. A whole lot of Americans knew that a whole lot of money was being spent on (essentially) nothing. It's also important to remember that this money mostly goes to defense contractors, and most of that goes to the upper management. Make no mistake: the rich don't spend in proportion to their income. They hoard. This money is being turned into silver spoons for a whole lot of terrorism-profiteers.
Fun trivia: $60BN is enough to give *every* child and adult in the US $200; about half a week's wages for people working minimum wage (before the roughly 1/3rd that goes to taxes, of course.)
It's enough to employ (are you sitting down?) one point two MILLION people in $50k/year jobs.
Now sit there and explain to me why New Orleans is still a disaster area, why 10 million kids in the US don't get enough food to eat, ~1% of the population (3.5 million people) is homeless (third of those are children), and why poor residents living in New England have their federal assistance for home heating cut.
This nation's spending priorities are so out of whack it is abhorrent.
Re:running the numbers (Score:5, Insightful)
Because, sir, if you give a man $200, you feed him for half a week. If you keep up the hegemony status of that man's nation, and use a successful war to spur on the economy (as successful wars always do), you feed him for a lifetime. Remember that although there may be poverty in America, there is nothing resembling an actual humanitarian crisis due to an outright failure of the economy to sell food where it's needed - and there will never be one, so long as America remains the superpower.
As a Louisiana resident, I know the Katrina disaster response was woefully inadequate and an embarrassment to our nation. But that isn't to say that the federal government should have any role in the long-term rebuilding of the city. The worst thing New Orleans, or in fact anywhere, could have is handouts. All they do is provide a source of capital that nobody can compete with, and therefore nobody bothers to work towards restoring an economy.
Re:running the numbers (Score:5, Insightful)
WTF are you eating? I spend $80 a week at the grocery store, and split that with my SO. That's including meat every night, and 2 or 3 6 packs of nice beer. You really need to re-examine your eating habits.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, not THAT tight [nsa.gov].
Name that quote (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Name that quote (Score:5, Funny)
Ooh, ooh, I know!
Part of the "decorative pattern" on Bush's private toilet-paper.
I think the silly, meaningless sentence you quoted comes from the first roll, ninth sheet.
Re:Name that quote (Score:5, Funny)
Surely no government of a free and democratic country would be based on such a radical ideal. Give people information like that and next thing you know they'll want some voice in how that money gets spent, and that way lies anarchy.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's it?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
Only $60B ???!!!
Personally, I'd rather see us spend $120B on intelligence and get it RIGHT than only spend $60B and get it WRONG and end up going to war based on that faulty intelligence at a price tag of $82B up-front and more annually!
Politics and loss of life aside, it's just better economics!
Re:That's it?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's been said before, but I guess I need to say it again: There was absolutely nothing wrong with the intelligence. The Bush administration just didn't care whether Iraq had WDMs or not (nor whether they had any links with Al-Qaida, etc.); they decided to invade, and so they did. All the 'intelligence' they submitted to justify their decision beforehand was stuff that the intelligence agencies had rejected as false or inaccurate again and again. That they say that the intelligence was bad afterwards is only adding insult to injury.
Re:That's it?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials
Of course, a Powerpoint presentation on WMD rarely goes astray.
C'mon, you should know better than that (Score:2)
Not trying to bash our government officials, but you rarely if ever get the "good" people to work there. A lot of people working there do it for a comfortable job with almost infallable job security. There's also rarely any kind of reward for putting more effort into a fed job
Re: (Score:2)
Throwing more money at the Government makes it bigger, not better.
9 women cannot make a baby in 1 month (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It just takes a while to ramp up production
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Right... (Score:2)
Misinformation (Score:5, Insightful)
Megatrends: Cold War Era - 21st Century (Score:4, Insightful)
Great Budget (Score:4, Funny)
Ho Hum (Score:5, Funny)
Secrecy, often as not, is less about keeping the bad guys in the dark than about avoiding public scrutiny.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And yes, I realize we can all come up with more examples of fraud, abuse, illegal or questionable activities, etc. and so on, but it has nothing to do with militarism or jingoism, sorry to say. T
Re:Ho Hum (Score:4, Insightful)
When I worked for the USAF during the cold war, spying on americans was illegal. Evidently, those in charge now believe that spying on Americans is acceptable now. [aclu.org]
Currently, the US intelligence infrastructure seems to have new missions.
It gathers intelligence from and about the American people. [washingtonpost.com]
It makes justifications for actions of the current administration. [tpmcafe.com]
I thinking that we should a lot more information about the amount of our taxes that are being used for these purposes, don't you?
The solution is clear (Score:5, Funny)
Mattered how? (Score:3, Funny)
The number never mattered except to hide it from the electorate. An itemised list of what it was spent on, now, that would have been an issue of national security.
Billions here, billions there... (Score:5, Insightful)
News organizations constantly report million and billion dollar budgets without providing context. On the radio and on TV, for example, the announcer usually takes exceptional care to pause, then spit out the word as if it's a death-defying number: billion.
No one even *knows* what a billion is. Can you conceptualize one billion things? I don't know what a billion is. I can't even fathom it. Anyone who tells you they can is lying. All we know is that a billion is more than a million and less than a trillion.
So, for context, that $60,000,000,000 dollars that was mentioned was for the USA 2005 budget, which was about $2,400,000,000,000.* That's only 2.5% of the budget, and if you're a citizen of the US you'd better hope and pray that your country is spending at least 2% of the budget on intelligence in these times.
* See, you had to think about it for a second to figure out how big that number is. (In newsspeak, that's $2.4 TRILLLLLIIIIONNNN)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why exactly if i may ask? To be assured of oil? To be assured your next president is an moron as well? To be sure this $DEFENSE_CORP gets it's bonus? To be sure the US will have a enemy available when it needs one?
I think it's a lot of money to put into organisation of which the effect is disputable and limited. I bet you'd s
conceptualization (Score:4, Insightful)
A billion things is a thousand millions of things. The decimal orders of magnitude, scientific notation and other notation systems have been developed precisely to represent such large numbers. This is sufficient to allow for some pretty significant conclusions to be drawn about a billion in relation to other numbers.
When you say conceptualize, I think you mean count.
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That depends. If I'm hiring a contractor to destroy countries, assassinate my enemies, kill people, find out other people's secrets, and so forth, I would probably understand if he didn't want to share his methods with me.
Of course, a better analogy is this: we, the taxpayers, are like shareholders of a corporation. Do corporate officers keep secrets from the shareh
Re:I knew it (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
MS is notorious for leaving too much information in the document without being visible to the plain eye.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So what would the advantage of OSS software give? They could modify the program so that this data doesn't get released? Great. So we have a program that magically knows what data is classified, or we have a classified flag that can be added (or forgotten to be added by clerical staff). Would you allow classified d
Re:I knew it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
How hard would it be to add a feature where hidden text, and graph data off the currently-shown scales, caused the program to throw up a big red warning box whenever the document was saved?
Seems that would be trivial for the US intelligence services to add to
Re:I knew it (Score:5, Insightful)
No, while I'd usually agree with you, this is a glaring example of why more people in government should use MS products. Can we get PowerPoint installed on more desktops in the Justice Department?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So, the Director of National Intelligence should be fired because a PowerPoint presentation reveals something that is so broad and vague, given the that fact that the "intelligence" budget is "secret" has been a joke for the last decade?
The reason the intelligence budget has been secret has been so adversaries can't see how much you're spending on any one agency, which can imply underlying operations or technologies and techniques depending on how granular budget breakdowns were. It's never been that
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And all you can do is "sigh".
The budget is secret. Publishing it is a crime. The total number has indeed been secret, and the conventional estimates have been $15B, 25%, too low. Which means that even in just 2005, the "Intelligence" operations were over 30% larger t
Re: (Score:2)
When the fuck will people realize that we are all on the same team here? Last time I checked, America was ONE country, not two.
Indivisable, anyone?
Frankly, I don't care whose "side" you are on. To me, you are the exact thing that is wrong with America. Not because you follow one belief or another, but because you think that YOU and ONLY YOU can possibly be righ
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
50% Troll
50% Overrated
TrollMods think I'm a terrorist, because they can debate as well as Bush can fight terrorism.