True, I didn’t pursue that, Perhaps the triple question marks in the beginning and the couple of smileys threw me. I think that must have been it. Such items tend to have that effect on me.
OK, you’ve worked on a few research & development projects (one secret), and you get to know people when you all go out for beer every once in a while. And you think that would make it hard for someone to hide their nefarious agenda from the rest of the gang? Well, perhaps that agenda is simply to make analyses of the project’s progress and evolution and submit their reports to their handlers? Perhaps those who receive these reports have access to a full survey of all academic research that has ever been made on why good projects fail? (Perhaps there is a specific discipline inside the social sciences, perhaps where they interact with “business science”, that studies this solely, with professorships and doctoral theses…) Perhaps they possess perspicacious understanding of the various mechanisms that are involved, perhaps very subtle and indirect mechanisms, perhaps involving interpersonal interaction of specifically identified and categorized personality types. Perhaps they have this down to a fairly precise science and know how injecting certain inconspicuous stimuli can cause friction, can cause certain key people to go tired and quit (perhaps even with a public exchange of recriminations, a nice bonus). Just to elaborate on one such possible angle, I’m sure there must be several.
Perhaps they know how making a series of structurally characteristic decisions will invariably cause a project to become drawn-out beyond the endurance-limit of many people?
Those are my immediate thoughts on how a truly intelligent intel community (as opposed to the fumbling, incompetent one you envisage) might attack their derailing task.
And what’s more, speaking of fumbling and incompetent intelligence agencies, should we even use that as a tentative premise for our discussion? I think not. Quite contrarily I must assert that we should clearly reject and rebuke anyone attempting to introduce that as a premise, even a would-be premise. Because it makes us less vigilant, oblivious to facts and events that ought to trigger in us reflection and consideration (not to mention suspicion), and pointed discussion. Who would be the sole beneficiary of a general appraisal of intelligence agencies as oafish, slow-moving, blunt, not really very intelligent at all? Well, the intel community itself, naturally. Cui bono!
Thus, our axiomatic attitude towards infiltration and corruption from actions by malevolent powers (and they could be private also, who destroyed the Occupy movement?) should be one of clear and present danger (by assumption if not evidence).
And, of course, “fumbling and incompetent intelligence agencies” could hardly be expected to distinguish the SAFE Network project from “10000+ crypto projects”…
Are you kidding me?
ARE YOU KIDDING ME???