Saturday, August 26, 2006
You probably know what cratology is, even if you think you don't.
While I agree that cratology is interesting, I am not in agreement with the timing of the release of the USA Today article that gave rise to the post you link to. I also am very opposed to using sources, as John Diamond did, who blab about security matters under conditions usch as these: "The episode was detailed by one U.S. intelligence official who saw a report on the incident. It was confirmed by a U.S. official from a second intelligence agency and by a diplomat with a foreign government. They did not want their names used because they were not authorized to discuss the incident."
And it's not that the concept of cratology is not well-known, but the revelation of specific instances of success can only assist the bad guys and make intel work harder than it already is. See here.