1 The Tribune is not disclosing the identities of any of the CIA employees uncovered in its database searches, the searching techniques used or other details that might put agency employees or operatives at risk. The CIA apparently was unaware of the extent to which its employees were in the public domain until being provided with a partial list of names by the Tribune. Amazing what you can find on the Internet these days.

2 The Tribune is doing something my colleague Chris Mcnab, and author of the book "Network Security Assessment" (Oreilly) did for a whitepaper, over two-three years ago now: Internet Counterintelligence - CIA Not only did he mine whois/ipblock/zone records/email headers/ which also turned up around 2 pages of employee names/email/phone numbers/extentions He was also able to create a internal map of how their network looked on the inside.

3 I really don't see how the CIA being retarded and having all sorts of supposed-to-be-secret information (its not secret, you see, if you can google the frickin' stuff) makes "outing" a CIA agent any better. This is supposing Plame was outed and not just some random code monkey employee.

4 Think of some information as being inside a spiders web, and imagine strumming some of the strands -- the spider knows who you are. sorry for the cryptic analogy.

5 We have Jimmah and Bubba to thank for gutting the CIA and the military, and when the next attack happens, as it surely will, we should find them and hang them.

6 I take umbrage (or whatever) with the Tribune's headline and sub: "Internet blows CIA cover: It's easy to track America's covert operatives. All you need to know is how to navigate the Internet." Tne Internet didn't blow anyone's cover. The idiot CIA employees who put down "CIA" as a place of employment on public record forms. Or worse, they'll write "CIA Agent" or something equally stupid on forms requesting only a general term for "Profession" or something similar.

7 "Or worse, they'll write "CIA Agent" or something equally stupid on forms requesting only a general term for "Profession" or something similar.' Asgerd, you're assuming that's true. It was merely mentioned as an off-chance possibility in one sentence in a two page article and you turn it into a near fact. Frankly, if one were a real "spook" and not just an employee, I find it hard to believe they would put "Sooper Sekrit Agent" on any application for anything. They didn't get to their position by being so ignorant.

8 Oyster, I agree with you that the men and women who work the NOCs or other clandestine positions are smart enough not to write "NOC" on a job form, but the CIA is a bureaucracy, with many, (too) many bureaucrats working non-lethal jobs. Those folks don't need to be very bright; they just need to pass a polygraph. Many of those employees are careless, and do careless things with their identities.

9 Just pass a polygraph? you are joking right -- my friend has to give way more than that, and take a polygraph for a position as a dispatch clerk for the local police municipality. I think you're over simplifying, all analysts, and managers all have to have the required security clearance for the documents they're reading/working on be it "Top Secret" or "TS/CI" etc. The CIA employs thousands of employee's that do not work with confidential data, so their name is hardly a security leak. I think by the comparison of the CIA appearing in search engine, or other Internet sources qualifies confidential data leakage, we can also say anyone viewing the parking lot at Langley can find out who works there. They do have procedures in place to insure confidentiality.

10 another manufactured controversy? The article is somewhat misleading...