Spycraft - Melton [244]
Smith knew that at that point he would be momentarily out of sight of any trailing surveillance. If an agent was waiting at the top of the stairs and just inside the entrance, Smith could pass a newspaper to the agent, who would quickly turn around and head down into the subway while Smith proceeded straight ahead into the hotel. It worked so well that, in a training exercise, even when the surveillance team was looking for the move, as long as they were following Smith from behind, the pass could not be detected.8 Only in the unlikely chance that the hostile surveillance team had somehow anticipated Smith’s travel path and arrived ahead of him could the exchange be spotted. The counterintelligence surveillance team was never certain where Smith, who varied his routes and timing, was going and could not “set up” on him in advance. Case officers and techs identified similar locations in cities around the world where the same technique could be used.9
In a variation of the brush pass, the moving-car delivery technique allowed an agent to drop a package covertly into the handler’s slowly moving vehicle through an open window.10 The travel route selected by the handler was consistent with his normal evening routine and included a number of right-hand turns on dimly lit side streets. Following each right-hand turn, the handler’s vehicle was out of sight of the trailing surveillance vehicle for a few seconds; the CIA referred to this brief window of time as being “in the gap.”11 The agent was instructed to stand in the shadows at the corner and watch for the handler’s car to complete the turn. When the car was briefly out of sight or in the gap just following the turn, the driver would dim the car’s lights as a signal to the agent. The agent then stepped to the curb and dropped the package through the open window. Immediately after making the exchange, the agent receded into the shadows and remained motionless until the trailing surveillance vehicle passed. A concealment cavity built into the car’s dashboard or floor mat was used to hide the package until the driver and vehicle returned to a safe compound.
A higher-risk variation of the moving-car delivery occurred when the agent and handler both drove vehicles to the same traffic signal and pulled up alongside each other. With the agent’s car on the right and the passenger window of the handler’s car opened, the agent tossed the package into the empty seat. A moving-car exchange required thorough planning and excellent timing, but when executed properly was virtually undetectable.
Impersonal communications, those not requiring face-to-face meetings, were employed when personal meetings were excessively risky or impossible. Impersonal communications separated the agent and handler by time, space, or location.12 During the initial phases of agent recruitment, face-to-face meetings between the case officer and target were often necessary, but would be phased out when the target accepted the clandestine nature of the relationship. The more hostile the operating environment, the greater was the need to shift to using impersonal communications to protect the agent. 13
Impersonal communications using either dead drops or electronic devices offered advantages to the agent and handler and when properly executed were difficult for counterintelligence to detect. Dead drops avoided the necessity for the agent to possess an electronic transmission device, but required time-consuming surveillance detection runs by the handler. Conversely, electronic exchanges usually obviated the requirement for lengthy surveillance detection on runs but the technology could fail, and in its early years of use, often did. Other disadvantages to using impersonal communications included the handler being unable to directly assess the emotional and physical condition