The business of deep cover should be derived w/o exception from the objective to be achieved, not just from the availability of the operative or the chance for cover, which is kind of the inclination I get from what occurred with the recent Raymond Davis case in Pakistan.

The real issue beyond what Hammes states, is too often in practice, the intelligence agency begins with trying various kinds of cover on the individual for size, and then, more-or-less as an after thought, defines the actual mission for him or her.

Deep cover should convincingly explain the operative’s presence in an area, and in this age of information, I see the best cover in the future, with the best chance of lasting, will be the one that background information doesn’t feed off, but shows a logical/reasonable reason that the person for being there, such as a technician, teacher, even a salesman, etc.

The trick will be to find those people with those documented skill, with the aptitude for such assignments, and convince them to go to work in the world's second oldest vocation, that has less morals than that oldest of professions. : )

...I'm having trouble convincing girls I meet at a bar that I'm a race car driver. Thanks, social networks.

The idea of creating a cover (with an actual web trail) out of thin air is simultaneously intriguing and creepy. I'm sensing a new business venture...

Not necessarily. In my case I was pleased to find that it was rather hard to find details about me even when I give my real name and basic information. Of course that might mean that I stick out a bit more but with some good edited photos and a convincing story that keeps me out of official events I could make a good story with just a small amount of truth*.

*Although my name is attached to my high school and college graduation my photo is not so easy to find and my name is common enough that it can get lost among thousands of others.

I hate to contradict a genius like Col. Hammes (the sarcasm comes from being relative Marine Corps peers), but it's easy for a counterintelligence service to break the cover of Maynard Farquarson. Not so much for John Smith or Paul Jones. Everyone always points to the Israeli assassination of the Hamas operative in Dubai. But those covers were designed to be used one time only, and besides, all of the Israelis got away.

Nowadays it is increasingly odd for a professional NOT to have an online presence of sorts. While it would certainly be a buzz kill to search for John Grant and find out he is someone different than the man in front of you, it is increasingly a giveaway to search for John Grant and find... nothing.

An architect, academic, writer, businessperson, all would be expected to have a blog, or Facebook, LinkedIn profile, etc. Just like in the old days of fake transcripts and phone numbers that rang somewhere, creating a fictional character that will stand up to even Google-level scrutiny is a lot of work.

Peter wemeantwell.com

Yes, it has gotten harder with the expansion of social networking, but every network can be gamed. I've seen active Match.com profiles made from pictures of celebrities and porn stars. As a joke, Cracked.com built dating profiles of the cast of the X-men movies and got responses.

And, as they said in the movies: this isn't mission difficult, its mission impossible.

Its a shame when someone who is not currently linked in to the capabilities of modern law enforcement technology makes statements that are both uninformed and technically incorrect.

Just because someone is not aware of technical and physical capabilities of LE does not mean they do not exist. Worse, to state unequivocally that a situation exists without all of the facts or understanding of the potential solutions is to publicly demonstrate ignorance to those who do.