Talk:Signals intelligence in modern history

Spawning and truncating, or something like that

First, the article is getting long enough to consider splitting. I have been working in a good deal of recently declassified NSA material from Vietnam, which has stimulated some backtracking. Shifting gears tonight, I did some work on updating SIGINT space platform introduction, although I still need to work on the NSA Vietnam material.

For all of the NSA material that was supposedly declassified, it often seems like a very large part of that which was released were the already unclassified part of the TS-CCO overall document. Nevertheless, some of the redactions, perhaps where section titles were left, gave me enough clues not to do OR, but to go searching for sources that would fit nicely into the redacted sections. The NSA volume isn't strictly chronological, and I've drawn some timelines and uploaded them just to follow things.

Anyway, two points on which feedback is requested:

1. Where would be decent points to split the article?
2. Is there a point in "recent history" at which I should cut off additional content? As I look at the more recent sections, they converge more and more with SIGINT platforms, since current SIGINT content is highly unlikely to be in open sources at any reasonably comprehensive level of detail. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 05:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Can someone clear up some of the more obscure jargon in this article? For example the abbreviation NRO is left unexplained, and if possible all abbreviations should be spelled out at least once to make them more intelligible. ocf81 (talk) 10:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you referring to jargon or abbreviations? I found NRO, but very few other abbreviations, that were not expanded. Quite a number of things that are in all capitals are code names or equipment designations that cannot be spelled out. This article also assumes the main SIGINT article as a prerequisite. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 14:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Abbreviations are part of jargon aren't they? The NRO abbreviation was one of them. Other words written in capitals could be explained differently, i.e. by explaining their meaning in a short explanation of 4 to 7 words. or linking to an article describing the matter. (like having a link to every INT type when they're first mentioned?)

When reading this artice for the first time I also read the main SIGINT article to get the info about the missing pieces, but not everything is explained properly, maybe it's better to structure the article so that less prerequsite knowledge is required to understand this article? (like the example I just gave) I already knew what SIGINT meant when I tried to read the article, but it still was quite hard for me to understand this article without looking up on all of the references or actually searching for explanations of some of the jargon terms by hand. The article contains a lot of info, but it lacks the structure and explanations to make it accessible to everyone. Requiring extensive prerequistite knowledge is not helping this article.

Perhaps this article should not be as factual as it is right now, but split up into a general description of the development of SIGINT throughout time (not just recent history) and have references to separate articles where certain time periods are discussed?

ocf81 (talk) 12:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

This article is part of a set of articles

Within the constraints of Wikipedia, I don't know how to make it accessible to everyone, any more than I can make an article on the mathematics of Hibert spaces or fast Fourier transforms, or the molecular mechanisms of antibiotic resistance, or any of a number of technical subjects in Wikipedia. By the constraints of Wikipedia, I mean that the writing must be sourced and neutral. Further, this was intended as a reference, not as an article to be read in one sitting. Even the main SIGINT article, for any real understanding, needs a substantial background in electronics and applied mathematics.

David Kahn wrote a less technical and more entertaining book, The Codebreakers, but it's full of anecdotes, original research, and vivid descriptions, none of which are generally acceptable under Wikipedia standards. Increasingly, it is being trapped between not being able to use my own writing to improve readability, and the desire to have comprehensive coverage, that is making me believe that Wikipedia is not a good venue for such topics as this.

Yes, it needs to split for size. No, it doesn't make sense to go back before modern times if the subject is SIGINT rather than cryptanalysis, because SIGINT only began to exist with early field telephones, and really came into its own with the widespread use of radio. I do not have the time to make it more general as you suggest, and frankly, I don't think that can be done within Wikipedia constraints under which I am willing to write. → Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 10 March 2008

So the interception of postal pigeons and the like is not SIGINT? Spies are of all ages, and I think that logically SIGINT probably is too, but I'm no expert at this, so I'm not very willing to edit this. I'd probably mess things up if I did. After reviewing the whole inteligence project structure I'd have to say that to me it looks like a lot wof I can understand that it's a lot of work, and it's all voluntary of course. I respect the fact that you actually compiled all of this data into an artivle btw. It's just a bit hard to read for someone with only superficial knowlegde of the intel business. (as it stems from my interest in warfare) ocf81 (talk) 17:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Most national definitions of SIGINT make it fairly clear that it involves the interception of some sort of signaled energy, usually electromagnetic (including light), but sometimes other phenomena such as sound waves. There are various kinds of information that can be carried by the signal, from its location to a message.

When you get into the analysis of message content, the definitions get difficult. Cryptanalysis and traffic analysis are indeed forms of message analysis. Some agencies, such as NSA, do both signal interception and message analysis. Reading encrypted computer files on a disk is also cryptanalysis, but most practitioners in the field consider computer security, when one has access to the computer, as a different problem than SIGINT. Even in NSA, the National Computer Security Center is quasi-autonomous, and also deals with things such as access controls and authentication that can apply just as well to a computer as to a manually generated signal. So, I'd suggest that the analysis of the pigeon-borne message is only loosely within the scope of SIGINT; I mention it more for a means of introduction than as a serious example of SIGINT. While the scytale is a means of sending messages, at the time it was used, no one thought of it as we would today: a transposition cipher.

Spies indeed are ancient, but some intelligence collection disciplines are recent. The main divisions of SIGINT are COMINT and ELINT, and, while COMINT does include encryption, it's hard to think of ELINT much before the advent of radar and electronic navigation in the Second World War. MASINT is even harder to categorize, because while there were things in the First World War, such as sound and flash ranging of artillery, it was only 1986 when the U.S. actually found a common definition for the very wide range of MASINT techniques.

The relationships among MASINT, COMINT, and ELINT get very complex, and usually require a knowledge of electrical engineering, especially antennas and transmission lines. For example, understanding the image-forming and jamming sensitivity of a radar is ELINT, but learning the unintentional "sidelobe" radiation that helps identify a specific radar transmitter is MASINT. Analysis of a Morse code message is COMINT, but analysis of the operator's keying pattern, which is incidental to the message, is MASINT. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 18:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The article is indeed big, as befits a large and complex topic. I notice that about half the material discusses United States efforts in the Cold War, which suggests a fairly obvious WP:SPLIT. Most likely the non US participants in that struggle should also be included in the new Signals Intelligence in the Cold War article, or perhaps there is something to be said for the new article to be created as something like United States Signals Intelligence in the Cold War. Either way, of course proper Wikipedia:Summary style should be followed so everything hangs together. Jim.henderson (talk) 03:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Freedom of fish

I think there might be some vandalism in the wwii section, e.g. freedom of fish? —Preceding unsigned comment added by KiernMoran (talk • contribs) 23:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Jellicoe

Nice story, but its wrong. I see it has a source citation, which presumably means that source is wrong too. Jellicoe absolutely definitely was not the responsible party for this mixup over whether the German fleet had left harbour, he was on a ship in the north sea with no direct access to room 40 decoded information. Only the shore staff had access to this and Jellicoe had to rely on whatever they sent him, which was the incorrect messages. There is currently some argument about whether the whole anecdote is accurate. The person normally cited as the guilty party was The Director of Operations Division, Rear Admiral Thomas Jackson, but as I say there is currently argument amongst historians whether the story is credible at all. Although it is widely reported in the literature the explanation of how the erroneous message came to be sent seems to come from a very limited original source. As I inserted, the Germans were also taking deliberate steps to confuse the british by transferring the same wireless operator, so listeners would recognise his 'touch' (which they could). This is documented in German material: they were also listening in to british signals. It would not amaze me if the british signal was sent out in full knowledge it was wrong, for the benefit of listening germans who we wished to deceive about our own interception abilities, in the expectation it would make no difference to Jellicoe's actions. Thats just an opinion, the available facts simply seem to discredit the accepted version of what happened without supplying an alternative explanation. Jellicoe went a bit slower than he might, for example had they told him Scheer had definitely left harbour, but otherwise he continued as planned the interception attempt. The real intelligence failure came in the night, when it was quite clear to Room 40 how scheer was trying to escape, but the weight of information they had about this was not impressed on Jellicoe. Sandpiper (talk) 08:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Axis Sigint in WWII

The current content is PoV and does not reflect currently available declassified documents from NSA (http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/declass/european_axis_sigint.shtml) nor already published memoirs on Hitler's knowledge of and use of sign and wiretaps (especially in David Irving's controversial histories). can someone add something better to this section ? Friendlyyours137 (talk) 09:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Feel free... Brycehughes (talk) 22:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Signals intelligence in modern history. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100108030414/http://www.bletchleypark.org.uk:80/content/bombestops.pdf to http://www.bletchleypark.org.uk/content/bombestops.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://http
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080430142924/http://www.wired.com:80/science/discoveries/news/2006/04/70619 to http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/04/70619

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:27, 12 January 2017 (UTC)