Intelligence And Crowdmapping

I realized today that, while I had written in the past about the idea of crowdmapping, I had never actually used that term in a post before.

That was a mistake.

Don't get me wrong, Group editable maps have been around for some time and are quite successful.  We have used CommunityWalk, for example in a number of projects and it has served its purpose excellently.

CommunityWalk Map - North Caucasus Violence Sep-06 to Nov-06



Likewise, automatically edited maps are also quite helpful.  The comprehensive map at RSOE EDIS, for example, just recently got some new competition with Google Public Alerts.

Crowdmapping, though, is something a bit different.  Here, dozens and sometimes hundreds of people are providing information from a variety of sources (including the web, of course, but also through SMS and Twitter) that are then mapped in real time.

Right now, this space is occupied almost exclusively by Crowdmap.com, an offshoot of the much admired Ushahidi project.  It is not too hard to see a time, however, when other companies and organizations will enter this space with competing offerings.

I, along with a small group of intrepid students, have been experimenting with this system for a few months and, while managing the input has proven to be more challenging than expected, the potential (and the relative sophistication of Crowdmap) is enormous.

The best way to get a sense of the value of a crowdmap, however, is to look at them.  Below are three of my favorites:  Syria Tracker (a map tracking eyewitness accounts of missing, killed or arrested people in Syria in English and Arabic), China Strikes (a map tracking instances of labor unrest in China), and Energy Shortage (a map tracking reports of energy related issues worldwide).  You can see all of these maps below (Syria Tracker is live; the other two maps need to be clicked on to get to the live versions).

Intel Legend Art Hulnick On The Future Of OSINT (ISN)

The ISN, on one of its recent podcasts, scored a very good (if too short) interview with Professor Arthur Hulnick (see picture at right). Art currently teaches intelligence related courses at Boston University and has for a number of years. Before that he was at the CIA for several decades and has contributed significantly to the open body of literature on intelligence through his books (including Keeping Us Safe: Secret Intelligence and Homeland Security (2004) and Fixing the Spy Machine: Preparing American Intelligence for the 21st Century (1999)) and many articles.

Art is one of those guys who has been around, as we used to say in the army, "since Christ was a corporal" and is always worth listening to. Unfortunately, the ISN did not make an embeddable version of the podcast but you can get it on iTunes, download the MP3 or just go to the ISN site to listen to it.

Part 7 -- Beyond Borders: Europe, India And South Africa (How To Get A Job In Intelligence)

Part 1 -- Introduction
Part 2 -- The Intelligence Job Market From 20,000 Feet
Part 3 -- The Good News!
Part 4 -- Even Better News!
Part 5 -- Beyond The Big Three
Part 6 -- Beyond Borders

It has been my pleasure over the last several years to get to know a number of intelligence professionals in other countries. I recently reached out to some of them to ask them what the job market was like for intelligence professionals in their neck of the woods. I received some good replies that I thought were worth sharing.

(Note: I have lightly edited these responses for length and clarity (ie spelled out abbreviations, etc). Chris, Nimalan, Dalene; if I messed up what you were trying to say in the process, please take me to task in the comments)

Europe
by Chris Pallaris, Head of Open Source Intelligence at the International Relations and Security Network, Zurich, Switzerland

For my part, jobs are certainly to be had in Europe, both in the public or private sector. One caveat: the economic crisis has meant more people staying in university longer. The research positions in a great many university-affiliated think tanks are tough to land and are likely to remain so for a little while longer.

The problem, however – and this has been echoed by a number of people I have spoken to - is not attracting applicants but rather finding those with the qualities and skills that are really in demand. The problem here is as much one for the employer as it is for the employees.

Students may leave university with good subject or region specific knowledge. But they lack the IT and information literacy skills that will allow them to jump in at the deep end. More notably, many lack the tact to deal with the sensitive issues that invariably cross their desks (a consequence of letting it all out on Facebook as a matter of course perhaps?). It’s a little unfair to expect them to have these skills from the word go, but in the current climate... My advice as an occasional recruiter: a little old school courtesy would go a long way towards making up for any skills shortages.

Also, it’s important for young graduates to note that intel jobs increasingly come in lots of different flavors: as information officers/knowledge managers, in policy planning units, as market researchers etc. All make use of intelligence skills. Moreover, there is a growing call for people who can think about the future (scenarios, foresight, etc.) without having smoke pour from their ears.

In the “competitive intelligence” domain, my (albeit limited) experience suggests that the best “spooks” and strategists have served a long(ish) apprenticeship in one or more departments (research, planning, marketing etc.) before graduating to a competitive intelligence role. Knowing the business or industry you’re in is part and parcel of being able to survey the market, identify trends, anticipate threats, etc. That may be something worth passing on.

I would also proffer the following advice: a good job as an analyst, researcher, desk officer, etc. in a lowly but effective department is far better than a sexy sounding intelligence job in a dysfunctional agency. The important thing for young graduates is to be around people who can teach them how to get things done and not just how to navigate the political rapids.

India
By Nimalan Paul, Manager, Infiniti Research, Mysore, India

Regarding the job market for intelligence analysts in India, I am no expert but here is my take based on what I have seen, read and heard.

National security -

Analyst jobs are possible through positions in RA&W or the IB. Entry into these organizations, like other Indian government organizations is through the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC). The UPSC recruits people for government services ranging from typists to scientists all year round through written tests and interviews across various cities and towns.

I haven't been tracking this for long but have never come across specific requirements for IB or R&AW. What I understand is that people, once selected through the UPSC for a certain "grade" of employment, are then moved on to junior level positions in IB or R&AW. So, in effect, what I understand is that the UPSC recruits for a certain grade of officers who can get drafted into the IB/ R&AW or if luck has it, get into the Indian Postal Service as well (incidentally an ex director of R&AW was previously head of the Indian Postal Service).

Apart from this, the senior officers of R&AW and IB get deputed from the Indian Police Service (IPS) and to some extent from the IAS (Indian Administrative Service). The IPS is the point of entry for someone to reach the upper echelons of the Indian police force. An IPS officer, for instance, starts much higher in the hierarchy and moves ahead faster than a police officer who started as, say, a constable. Entry to the elite IPS / IAS is by means of a rigorous examination and interview.

Once selected, these officers are trained in an exclusive training school and are considered the creme de la creme of Indian youth and groomed for top government roles. Having an IPS or an IAS tag to your name is also highly prestigious. The point is, if you have an IPS tag you might serve in a local police force but then there are very high chances of being deputed either to the R&AW or IB. R&AW and IB have their own training programs for analysts, operatives, and the like which the IPS officer would undergo.

R&AW is also supposed to have its own cadre system like the IPS / IAS called the RAS (Research and Analysis Services) but I have never seen an advertisement or heard anything much about it.

Law Enforcement -

Apart from the police force with its various divisions, we also have the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) which is something similar to the FBI. Recruitment to the above is also through the UPSC. They have their own training academy in Gurgaon near New Delhi. In the end since its all government service, CBI officers can be deputed to IB and R&AW and vice-versa.

Corporate -

This is, by far, the easiest way to get into intelligence analysis and very transparent - unlike the others. However, not many companies have a competitive intelligence (CI) division and it is only big multinational corporations who have a team of approx. 4-5 people to take care of their intel needs. Examples that come to mind are Oracle, SAP and so on who have teams of less than 10 people to take care of intel needs.

However, from what I understand, recruitment is essentially internal - mainly from the sales / marketing teams because they would know the competition better. A CI executive from a big corporation whom I had the chance to speak to said his job mainly involved helping Sales close deals and since he himself had worked in Sales in the past, it helped.

The other option is to work for market research firms, otherwise referred to as KPO firms (Knowledge Process Outsourcing firms). They need analysts and India has a lot of these KPOs (the biggest being Evalueserve which, incidentally, exhibited at the SCIP Conference this year). These are not pure play CI firms (the word CI is relatively unknown here) and do a lot of market research and other activities for European and US clients. So, in effect, you do not have a specific CI analyst but an analyst who also does CI! Therefore there are very good chances that there are no dedicated CI processes, tools and techniques in these organizations.

To sum it up, in India, there is no clear field of work called "intelligence analysis" nor is there a clear tribe of people called "intelligence analysts" except for government service and they never talk about it.

South Africa
By Dalene Duvenage, Owner, 4Knowledge Analysis Solutions, Johannesburg, South Africa

Glad you asked, but as you would expect, we're in a totally different position. We have no academic programs in intel here...I'm starting an African intel college with Don McDowell in the new year, but it might be only 2011 that we actually present accredited courses. Which means that we're not in the position that graduates from Mercyhurst would be, looking for jobs in intel per se. Also, our analytic cadre is way smaller in "statutory intel" (i.e. domestic, foreign, police and defence intel). I would say it is not bigger than perhaps 400 (most probably nearer to 300).

What is growing is the private sector's investigation or "intel" units. They would normally have investigators with support personnel at the beginning, until they realize or are told about the benefit of having dedicated analysts. Sometimes people from statutory intel will be appointed as managers in these units and they have experience with the benefits of dedicated analysts.

Those in the private sector having the job description of analyst can be found in the banking sector or competitive intel market, with all the variants of names for what they are actually doing. The biggest growth is in the counter-corruption, crime investigation and risk management units of our local, provincial or national government departments or even the private security sector, because our police capacity is so dismal.

These units are separate from the police and have the mandate to secure and prevent crime/corruption in their department or company. Most of these units at this stage do not have dedicated analysts, only investigators, but I'm busy penetrating this market (it sounds a bit self-serving, but it will benefit the profession in the end).

So, if you put the previous number of about 400 in statutory intel and these quasi analysts together it might run up to 1000? Serious thumb sucking here...

The typical scenario at such a private or government investigation unit will be: A manager who has heard about intelligence, is not sure what it means and what it can do for the unit, investigators and support personnel. But it sounds sexy enough, or they have intel background and want someone from the outside to come and convince their employees that this new approach is the best. When I give intel awareness workshops to such a combined group, we go through the intelligence process, they realize what intel can do, how they can work better together to create knowledge and impact on the decision-making level. This bird's eye view course provides everyone a sense of what intel is.

Thereafter, we coach and mentor throughout the career progression of the analyst or manager. (The learning pathway is on my website http://www.4knowledge.co.za/training.html) Those identified to be analysts or do analysis type of work will then do a proper intel analysis course. There are investigators who also attend this course, which helps a lot with the dynamics and post-course inculcation.

As they progress as analysts (and I stress the professionalization of intel analysis), they would come for further courses according to their needs and the learning roadmap. Now the idea with the college is that they could 1) do the diploma or certificate or whatever or 2) they attend these short courses which will then be accredited towards that qualification.

More about the analysts in the statutory environment: Due to our history of amalgamation of all the different intel services after 1994, you will have people with a Masters degrees in anything from social sciences to physical science to people who have no qualifications. Of course, it has an impact on the quality of analysis and all sorts of other ramifications. We also have the same problems re: the long vetting process. I have heard of excellent candidates who just could not wait for a year to be approved and took a job at a private company.

Also, the poor state and stigma of our intel services is definitely something that the connected and inquisitive new generation keep in mind. As with the US, we're also bleeding 45 -60 year old veterans as well as some of the new generation that just could not fit into the paranoid, stove pipe, restrictive culture of our intel. This for me, is the saddest. Which just reinforces that intel has to change, and FAST!

Hope this helped. I'm just starting to scratch the African market, and it seems as though there are only a few analysts and that the same process needs to be followed to let the people realize firstly the benefit of intel-led policing/security/business/risk/intel;) and then see the benefit of dedicated analysts.

Next: Going It On Your Own

List Of 300 Alleged Iranian Intelligence Officers (Necenzurirano.com via Opensourcesinfo.org)

Open Source Info has recently published a translated (and abbreviated) version of an article by a Croatian blogger/journalist writing at Necenzurirano.com which purports to "out" 300 Iranian intelligence agents who received visas from the Bosnian embassy in Tehran to travel to Bosnia.

What makes the article particularly interesting is that it makes the list of 300 "agents" publicly available for download (the good people at Open Source Info have also uploaded the file to EmbedIt so you can view the 21 page document online). The screenshot below gives you a feel for what the document actually looks like. It is a real eye chart which is why I strongly recommend you download it or view the EmbedIt file if you are interested in actually being able to see the content.

With apologies to my Serbian and Croatian teachers, the first column appears to be some sort of internal tracking number, the second column is the name of the person, the third column is the date of birth, the fourth column is the place of birth and the fifth column is the country of birth. The sixth column is a "PI" number -- maybe a passport number -- and the seventh column is the "agreement number" (whatever that means, though it may be date related). Column 8 is the type of visa issued while column 9 is the dates the visa is valid from and to. The final column is the place the person either entered or intended to enter into Bosnia (the context is unclear to me).

The source of this data is un-named (of course) but the author implies that the source knew that the people listed in this document are agents travelling, the author claims, as "athletes, scientists, writers, [and] cultural workers."

My own experience with the press in the Balkans suggests that this is either spectacularly right or spectacularly wrong -- with special emphasis on the word "spectacle". Sometimes the stuff that comes out of southeast Europe makes the Weekly World News sound tame. At the same time, Iran and Bosnia share a complicated history dating back, at least, to the Balkan Wars of the 1990's.

From my perspective, it is a good case study in the strengths and weaknesses of open sources. Such a document would never have had such a wide dissemination without the internet but the mere fact that it is on the internet has to give one serious pause as to its authenticity.

As an interesting side experiment, I decided to use Dax Norman's work on evaluating the credibility of a website to see what a more objective analysis might come up with. I was very conservative in my scoring and the site scored as one with low credibility. Had I been even a bit more liberal with my scoring, it would have come in at the medium level. I recommend the experiment to anyone who is interested. You can find the tools to do it and the research to back it up on Dax's website.

Bin Laden Found! (MIT International Review)

...according to two UCLA geography professors in the MIT International Review. Using what sounds a lot like IPB, they figured out where Bin Laden couldn't go, probably wouldn't go and narrowed down their estimate to one of three building complexes in Parachinar, Pakistan.

The image of the buildings is taken from the report (which is free to download) but they are just Google Earth pictures. All of the analysis is based on open sources and some reasonable assumptions and is getting some massive play on a variety of sites right now.

It reminds me a bit of what Jeff Carr did with the Grey Goose Project...

"And The Winner Is..." (DNI Open Source Innovation Challenge)

As many regular readers of this blog already know, the Mercyhurst College team of Mike Butler, Shannon Ferrucci, Ray Wasko, Drew Brasfield, Dan Somavilla and Chris Hippner (sponsored by MCIIS Director Bob Heibel) won the DNI's Open Source Innovation Challenge last week at the OSINT Conference in DC. The Mercyhurst answer is embedded below:

MCIIS DNI OSINT Challenge -- Winning Entry - Upload a Document to Scribd

Read this document on Scribd: MCIIS DNI OSINT Challenge -- Winning Entry

A few quick notes on the doc. First, it is uploaded to Scribd, so you can download it there. Second, the document here is a PDF. The submission was in MS Word which meant that the embedded video worked directly in the doc. With the PDF version, you have to click on the link in the caption to see the video in the document on YouTube (or you can just watch the embedded version below:



In addition to the 3 page (max) document, the team had to put together a six slide presentation in case they won. The team's presentation is actually a slide show, complete with narration, animation, music and embedded videos and other do-dahs and knick-knacks. Very cool but bandwidth hungry. Don't try watching the video of the entire presentation below unless you are on a fast connection.




Final Notes From The Open Source Conference:

• I understand that iJet, the other team that won the challenge, had at least one Mercyhurst alum, Bradley Perry, on their team. Congratulations to them and to him as well!
  
• There are several great blog posts out there about the conference if you missed any of it. The DNI's blog has, presumably, the official word but HOTS provided an extensive series of notes and Cryptome did a great job with pictures of the conference. I suspect that there are others that I have not seen. If you know of any, please post them to the comments.
• Speaking of posts about the conference, you have to feel sorry for this guy....

Congratulations once again to the team for their excellent performance!

We -- All Of Us -- Won! (DNI Open Source Conference)

According to the DNI's official blog for the Open Source Conference going on in DC right now, Mercyhurst College had one of the two winning entries in the Conference's Open Source Innovation Challenge!

As most of you already know, the challenge was to tackle one of two analytic questions using only open sources and to do it in one week. The Mercyhurst team consisted of Mike Butler, Ray Wasko, Shannon Ferrucci, Dan Somavilla, Drew Brasfield and Chris Hippner and was sponsored by the Director of the Institute of Intelligence Studies here at Mercyhurst, Bob Heibel. They addressed the question: "Using the best open sources to inform your answer, is Al Qaeda a cohesive organization with strong and centralized control, intent and direction?" The other winning entry came from iJet Intelligent Risk Systems but I don't have any additional details.

The students involved were all unpaid volunteers and gave up their Labor Day holiday and the week before classes started in earnest to participate in the challenge. Their ability to self-organize, manage the collection effort (more on that in a minute), synthesize and analyze the vast amount of information that streamed in and produce an innovative and original document amazed both the faculty and their peers.

(Note to employers: One of the biggest advantages of hiring a Mercyhurst grad as an entry level analyst is also one of the most difficult to explain: By coming here and staying in the program, these students self-select to become analysts. Typically they do so because they really like doing intelligence analysis. They like the time pressure, they like difficult problems and they shoulder the responsibility of "getting intelligence right" very well. We told these students at the outset that the competition would be fierce and that their chances of winning were slim. We knew that this would not matter because we have 350 more students here just like them...)

One of the cooler things this team did, of course, was to crowdsource their efforts. I helped them put out the call for input right after Labor Day and many thanks to HOTS, IntelFusion, Soob and all the other bloggers that picked up the call and re-broadcast it. Also thanks to the members of IAFIE, INTELST, all of the alumni and all of the friends of the program for all of their help getting the word out and contributing to the process. I have not yet seen the list of all of the contributors but I have been told it is lengthy. If, as the DNI's new Vision 2015 document tells us, commitment, courage and collaboration are the core values of the intelligence community then everyone who offered a bit of advice, analysis or information without any expectation of reward deserves some of the credit, in my opinion.

On the analytic side, the team was clearly standing on the shoulders of giants. They benefited enormously from a wide variety of previous authors on the topic and their meticulously sourced document gives full credit to them. I also think they benefited from the expertise of Mercyhurst's own experts, Bob Heibel, former deputy director for counter-terrorism at the FBI and Steve Marrin, who had many, if not all, of these students in his terrorism class last year.

The presentation of the products and the slide show they put together along with it are due to be presented later today at the conference. Sometime after that, I will post both the document and the slide show here for anyone interested in the results.

DNI's Official Open Source Conference Blog Up And Running (DNI)

The DNI has a top secret blog (no links from the main conference site to the blog that I could find) and a couple of staffers (presumably) roped into live blogging the events at the ongoing Open Source Conference in DC. If you are interested in the conference but were not able to attend, the live-bloggers are doing a reasonably good job of keeping up with the content. Comments are enabled as well so it is a good way to be there without being there...

Puttin' The Open Into Open Source: MCIIS Innovation Challenge Team Looking To Do Some Collaborating!

The ODNI's Open Source Innovation Challenge set off a brief wave of excitement here at Mercyhurst late last week. There were a lot of pumped up students ready to take on the two challenge questions (Really -- they live for this kind of thing). Then everyone realized that you had to have a registered conference attendee on the team to submit an entry and registration was already closed...

The students set up one team anyway (under the sponsorship of Bob Heibel, our only registered attendee) and have been hard at work on their submission since then. Realizing that there was a ton more good open source info out there than they could possibly get at in a week, and taking full advantage of the rule that sets no size for the teams, the students have adopted an "innovative" approach to the problem: crowdsourcing.

They have asked me to help them get the word out that they are looking for anyone with anything relevant to the Al Qaeda challenge question: "Using the best open sources to inform your answer, is Al Qaeda a cohesive organization with strong and centralized control, intent and direction?"

You can send any info you think might be relevant to mciis.innovationchallenge@gmail.com, their group account, but they need the info ASAP as they have to submit their final report by 5 SEP 08.

Specifically, they are looking for reliable open source information from any source (academic studies, think tank reports, social network analyses, first hand observation, whatever...) that is relevant to the question of AQ and the level of centralization in its command and control. They have a few specific collection requests as well for anyone out there who might have something or know of something:

1. Instances of documented conflict between Bin Laden’s al-Qaeda and other al-Qaeda affiliated terrorist groups.
2. Instances where ties with Bin Laden’s al Qaeda existed but terrorist groups were documented as autonomous and conducted independent acts of terrorism.
3. Instances of terrorist groups taking Bin Laden’s al Qaeda propaganda techniques and adopting them for their own purposes.
4. Instances of self radicalized terrorists forming independent self generated terrorist groups (other than the London and Madrid bombers).
5. Instances of groups that had sworn their allegiance to Bin Laden’s al Qaeda shifting to pursuing their own agendas that may have even run contrary to the wishes or mission statement supported by Bin Laden and al Zawahiri.
6. Links to quantitative lists of attacks by al-Qaeda and affiliated groups/splinter groups etc.
7. Differences in standard operating methods and tactics between Bin Laden’s al-Qaeda and splinter groups.

Many readers of this blog are already working on their own entries, I know, but if you are one of those people who got closed out of registration or aren't going to get to go to the conference for other reasons, you can still play by helping the students out (they will give full credit to everyone that submits something). If you can't help but you know someone who can, don't hesitate to refer them to this post.

Win or lose, they have also agreed to let me post their final product here on SAM when the results are in, so stay tuned...

Another Very Strong Open Source Link List (Onstrat.com)

Looks like the Easter Bunny brought loads of link lists this year... Ran Hock at Online Strategies has to rank up there with the amazing Marcus Zillman when it comes to putting together a useful link list. Worth checking out and bookmarking...

Debating Open Source Intelligence In Australia (The Age)

One of Australia's oldest and largest newspapers, The Age, recently published a lengthy article (Thanks, Chris!) on the potential value of open source information to the Australian intelligence community and bemoaning the fact that open source isn't used as much as it should be. Sounds familiar...

In Praise Of Open Source (Wired and Haft Of The Spear)

Michael Tanji of Haft of The Spear and Wired's The Danger Room, has posted a good explanation (and a little history) of the value of open source intelligence.

My own thoughts run close to his but I have a few additional ideas that I think are worth considering. First, when most people think of open sources, they think of the internet and all of the information that is now available. This thought, particularly among some of those of a certain generation, it typically followed by the thought that you can't believe any of it; that little or none of it is credible.

That, of course, is just plain false.

The truth is that there is a vast and growing body of highly credible open source information available through the internet and countless other open sources. To get it you need to be trained in how to use the tools of the trade and be well equipped with critical thinking and critical reading skills. Several good academic libraries -- such as the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee and Cal Berkeley -- have taken up the challenge and posted a good set of guidelines for assessing source reliability on the internet.

Second, open source information is just a small part of what open source intelligence can do. Adding a complete analytic capability to the wealth of open source information creates a powerful tool for assisting decisionmaking. Here are a couple of examples:

• Alternative Analysis. The recent CRS report highlighted the potential value of conducting an open source review in addition to a classified review of important intelligence questions. First, such a document would be a worthy test of the classified intelligence. Second, if the analysis was consistent with the classified view, then the open source version could be used to ensure that the estimate received the widest possible dissemination (highly classified documents often come with so many bureaucratic obstacles to using the intelligence that they may not be read at all). If the open source analysis was not consistent with the classified view (i.e. the classified view not only passed the test but was clearly better), then it would help justify the 43.5 billion dollar US intelligence budget.
  
• Stretching Limited Resources. Even with a 43.5 billion dollar budget, it is still a big world. That money can run out very quickly and many parts of the world get little if any coverage. For a fraction of the cost of most classified operations, the intelligence community could contract with academia (yeah!) and other commercial vendors to track important but unresourced intelligence requirements. Such a program would also go a long way toward supporting the intelligence studies programs starting up across the country.
  
• Some would say that the community already does this through its own, very capable OpenSource Center and by contracting with such vendors as Janes, Stratfor, Oxford Analytica, the Economist Intelligence Unit and the amazing Australian telecoms research firm, Budde.com. While these services are very, very good, what I have in mind is different. I am talking about a fully loaded intelligence system that is capable of both watching and producing routine analytic products in its assigned requirements but also of surging to meet short term demands. Such a system, consisting of a series of centers around the country would not cost much but would add perspective and diversity to the intelligence analysis equation and could respond to a much wider variety of decisionmakers including law enforcement, businesses, non-governmental organizations and even private citizens.
• Providing A Starting Place. Classified systems, by their nature, have to keep intelligence collection operations focused and intelligence products in restricted channels. Open source can cast a wider net. Particularly useful in a crisis, analysts using just open source information can rapidly build a useful conceptual model upon which, at a minimum, other analysts can layer classified intelligence to add nuance.
  
• Take Maximum Advantage of Technology. There was a day when the intelligence community had the latest technology. That advantage is all but gone. In fact, because of security requirements, today's technology often comes to analysts very late and is often very expensive. Open source, in this environment, is very nimble. It can test and adopt new technologies quickly and can evolve to meet new challenges with the latest tools.
  

These are reasons for the intelligence community to push the boundaries of what we can do with open sources today, while the classical view of intelligence is still considered relevant. The future, whether the current crop of intelligence professionals sees it, believes it or understands it, belongs to open source.

Open Source Intelligence: Issues For Congress (CRS)

The good people at OpenCRS have made a December 5, 2007 report on OSINT available to the public on their website. The report contains quite a bit of good background info including a summary of the debate on the value of open source to the intelligence community. According to the report, while "Intelligence professionals generally agree that open source information is useful", there are three main positions within the community with regard to the true value of open source information:

• "The first holds that policymakers simply derive less value from such information than from clandestinely-collected secrets."
• "The second view asserts that open source information should be viewed not only as an important contextual supplement to classified data, but also as a potential source of valuable intelligence, in and of itself."
  
• "Proponents of the third view adopt a “middle-ground” position, arguing that open source information probably will never provide the “smoking gun” about some issue or threat, but that it can be instrumental in helping analysts to better focus or “drive” clandestine collection activities by first identifying what is truly secret. Open sources therefore should be viewed as an analyst’s “source of first resort.”
  

Also of interest are the laundry list of current obstacles to analysts trying to using open source and the recent history of criticism of the community's failure to use open source more extensively (it is a lengthy parade of horribles...). Probably of most interest is the list of things the CRS mentions that Congress could do to help the open source movement. These include, according to the report:

• "One way is to examine specific budget areas in which spending on open source currently can be identified."
• "Another opportunity occurs when the DNI submits to congressional intelligence committees an annual report reviewing analytical products. Arguably, these annual reports should address the use of open source information. However, oversight committees could ask for additional information on open source utilization if needed."
• "...an approach that might be considered in some situations would be a request for an alternative analysis of a specified topic solely based on open sources in order to compare it with all-source analyses." (Note: I'll do it!)
  
• "Some may argue that Congress should consider an amendment to copyright law that would cover the open source efforts of intelligence agencies. Removing uncertainty of the extent of copyright would facilitate open source efforts and facilitate the widest possible use of the information by public officials."
• "Some have proposed making the Open Source Center a component of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) while essentially retaining its current roles and missions."
• "The advantage of placing the NOSC directly under the DNI would be to enhance the prestige of the open source discipline by raising its profile, fencing the funding, and ensuring its independence from shifting priorities within the CIA where human intelligence collection inevitably makes heavy and continuing demands on senior officials."
• "Placing the NOSC within the ODNI could also facilitate the NOSC’s ability to support law enforcement agencies and state, local, and tribal entities." (Note: Good point.)
  
• "A more radical, approach would be to establish an Open Source Agency completely outside the Intelligence Community (in addition to the existing Open Source Center). The goal would be to provide open source information not just to intelligence analysts but to all elements of the Federal Government including congressional committees." (Note: The basis for the PIA -- Public Intelligence Agency. Where do I sign up?)