Compartmentalized to death?

This might have been covered somewhere else, in which case I apologize. This was just an idea that hit me in the shower one day. It goes like this: A good conspiracy requires the participants to know only what they need to know (compartmentalization). Now, in the case of an older or larger conspiracy, could it be that there is no longer anyone at the top who knows everything? Could holes in knowledge have developed as those who knew a particular piece of information die or otherwise become unavailable? Might there be elements of an organization working against one another and they don't even know it because their supervisors were kept in the dark? Thoughts?

Of course that is possible. The best criminal conspiracies consist of pawns who don't even know they are an extension of something much larger. The compartmentalization part is meant to keep secrets & technology in the hands of a small group of top elites. It has worked well for the U.S. Only a few people knew they were working on the Atomic bomb. but there were literally thousands of people directly involved in it's work from top scientist all the way down to secretaries who were mailing official letter heads that were dis information. They had no idea. Just doing their job. Project Paperclip shows just how much unbelievable stuff was happening right under our noses

a reply to: Evergreen

If the conspiracy is big enough it's maintenance will not be jeopardized by information loss.
Those who need to know will be well informed as will those who follow them.

I've seen something like this in the small. Like required data collection on certain types of projects that is a real butt pain. It gets sent off and you never hear about it again. After I finally became both tired and curious, I traced it down.

The data had at one time been ordered to be collected for a study that had ended years earlier. The team doing the study was disbanded and went their merry ways. In the time since, the group they had worked for had hired a clerk to file all this data that no -one wanted or would ever use. And they had forgotten why the stuff was arriving.

originally posted by: Evergreen
Might there be elements of an organization working against one another and they don't even know it because their supervisors were kept in the dark? Thoughts?

I was thinking 9/11 and the 3 letter agencies who couldn't/wouldn't work together to stop the threat.

a reply to: Bedlam

And they had forgotten why the stuff was arriving.

at least that is what you had been led to believe.....

interesting none the less

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

After we found what had happened, the data collection ended. It was some arcane antenna data, took forever to instrument.

a reply to: EA006

If the conspiracy is big enough it's maintenance will not be jeopardized by information loss. Those who need to know will be well informed as will those who follow them.

Well, that's assuming those at the top care what happens when they're gone. There's also the issue of whether the successors are as competent as those who came before them. That said, I don't mean to totally shoot down your point, which is good.

a reply to: Evergreen

Absolutely. From what my grandfather explained to me, this is precisely how sensitive compartmentalized information works. The individual at the top may have an objective--make it so; however, if there is the risk of criminality that may occur, they might say "Don't tell me how you did it but make it so". In that sense, if there is any fallout from whatever is done that may be viewed by the public at large as criminal, then the effect is minimized on the greater whole. It is the core principle behind "need to know" and "plausible deniability". This doesn't just happen in a governmental agency. It can happen in that small corporation that has a problem that needs avoiding or what have you and the head protects itself by saying "don't tell me what you did".