Why 10 years? Why wasn't this done 60 years ago at the CIA's founding?

Because of its glamour and mystery, overemphasis is generally placed on what is called secret intelligence, namely the intelligence that is obtained by secret means and by secret agents. In time of peace the bulk of intelligence can be obtained through overt channels, ... through the world press, the radio, and through the many thousands of Americans, business and professional men and American residents of foreign countries, who are naturally and normally brought in touch with what is going on in those countries.

A proper analysis of the intelligence obtainable by these overt, normal, and aboveboard means would supply us with over 80 percent, I should estimate, of the information required for the guidance of our national policy.

-- John Foster Dulles, testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, April 25, 1947

Oops Allen Dulles. Don't know why my mind always switches those 2.

Huh?

Why has CIA been hiring for "Open Source Officer" for years, then? (http://www.cia.gov/employment/jobs/open_source_off.html)

Do they trick them, and force them to translate classified stuff?

Let me see if I have this right, Dan: The fact that it should have been done sooner makes it bad idea? Do you hate the CIA so much that they can't possibly do anything right in your view? Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

They have always had this. The only change is to make the information unclassified and release it to the public.

I thought that this was what the Redford character in Three Days of the Condor did for a living.

Larry: The "excellent idea" part of my post should tip you off that I think this is a good idea.

Sean and spencer: Yes, the CIA has had open source analysis. But, as the report says, more funds will be devoted to the activity, and in the federal government, more money tends to lead to more influence.

This has downsides, too Now the other guy knows what open items we have translated and which we haven't. They can also keep tabs on how much we translate in any given period and what we're paying attention to and what we're not. I can't see why the Tehran phonebook translation needs to be made public.

Why should this be a separate unit? Should the analysts who read public information be kept in one room, and the analysts who read secret information be kept in another room, and the two should never talk to each other?

"This has downsides, too Now the other guy knows what open items we have translated and which we haven't. They can also keep tabs on how much we translate in any given period and what we're paying attention to and what we're not."

Unless we want them to know, in which case it's working perfectly.

How would the other guy know anything? I mean, just because I'm reading a book you wrote, that doesn't make you automatically aware I'm reading it. Unless it is an electronic book with digital restriction management.

They have been translating this sort of thing for years. If they're not making it public, why the big hoopla unless it's just to get a budget increase.

Isn't this what Robert Redford's office did in Three Days of the Condor?

Way back in the 70's, when I had reason to know, there was a service called Foreign Broadcast Interpretive Service (FBIS, pronounced Feebis). This stuff came daily to local military commanders and diplomats. It came from Washington, although I don't know if it came from the CIA.

It contained direct interpretations of important broadcasts (often from state-controlled outlets), without comment, and was unclassified.