Most intelligence services conduct detailed psychological profiles of potential recruits to determine the person's motivation for defecting."They want more money, fine, I got money but how do I get it to them? The same way I get the intelligence drops from them? Hell no, that's not safe. "If they're ideological or ego in nature it's going to be an endless hassle of reassuring them they're brilliant or whatever." 'Now we have to work out some very complex way to give them money they're going to immediately take to a strip club or buy a car and get us both arrested' "Most of the time it's not the money that's a problem, it's the hassle of running the agent," said a retired American CIA officer, who rejected requests to go on the record. It's clear and logical and not about feelings and ego. They will always want more faster than you want to give. "Legal leverage is the best but money is clear and simple. I'll take greed every time," said one EU police official, who recruits undercover assets. Agents that spy for ideology or ego become much harder to handle over time. Multiple current and former intelligence officials contacted for this piece repeated a version of the same thing: Agents that spy for greed alone are the easiest to manage because their handlers only have to fight about the slow dispersal of money. But never so much that it's suspicious and never so much that they start thinking they can stop spying now." Agents prefer assets motivated by cash rather than ego or politics "So you have to reward them with enough cash that they feel important and can spend it on their lives in a way that's nice. "So if it's that stressful, it's even more stressful and risky when giving them a large wad of cash on each pickup - but that's what almost all of them want. "Safely communicating with your agents is the most difficult, time-consuming and risky part of intelligence operations," said a retired European intelligence officer, who doesn't want their name used because of ongoing consultant contracts.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |