I'm not sure I agree with you, but that only means that I'd like some more discussion from you on this. How can "evil" result from "lack of education"?
Cheers
Scott
Ok try this on:
A guy like racing so he goes out and buys himself a race car and takes it to the track. The light turns green he floors it not realizing the true amount of power he has at his disposal. The car goes wildly out of control and bounces into the spectator stand killing innocents.
A guy like racing so he goes out and buys himself a race car and takes it to the track. The light turns green he floors it not realizing the true amount of power he has at his disposal. The car goes wildly out of control and bounces into the spectator stand killing innocents.
Could be considered evil.
I doubt it. That's an accident, regardless of whether or not he knew what he was doing.
I'm not sure I agree with you, but that only means that I'd like some more discussion from you on this. How can "evil" result from "lack of education"?
Cheers
Scott
Maybe that's the wrong choice of words. Maybe I should have said faulty education.
Like was said bad things that happen to you can be perceived as evil. Intent and perception play a role here.
I disagree. If perception plays a role AT ALL, then the concept of Evil is utterly meaningless. I mean, I could perceive a papercut as evil, but that doesn't make it anything like the intentional cause of harm.
Evil requires intent and action (or inaction) by another party.
--
Don't get me wrong. I don't actually believe in the notion of evil. But this is an interesting discussion, nonetheless.
Extreme neglect can be considered evil, IMO. This applies to SH with his treatment of his people as it applies to the oil for food program.
Well according to the definitions given evil can be anything bad. But evil also can mean morally wicked. That is the definition I apply to SH and the like.
I find it hard to not believe in evil, especially if you believe in the concept of good. Evil would be the opposite of that.
Well according to the definitions given evil can be anything bad. But evil also can mean morally wicked. That is the definition I apply to SH and the like.
I find it hard to not believe in evil, especially if you believe in the concept of good. Evil would be the opposite of that.
As I indicated in my response, those definitions seem to me to pretty clearly require agency and action by another party. And evil probably does mean morally wicked (which is, of course, also a matter of perception).
The problem is that we have other words for different gradations of misfortune. Evil is a whole 'nother thing.
Well that certainly is a huge subject. But to make it simple. If you truly believe there is a god, and that god is all powerful, has he neglected us? The rain comes and goes the earth produces sustenance and the earth revolves around the sun perfectly. This will happen long after we are dead and gone. So I guess if you believe god made these things he really has not neglected us.
Well that certainly is a huge subject. But to make it simple. If you truly believe there is a god, and that god is all powerful, has he neglected us? The rain comes and goes the earth produces sustenance and the earth revolves around the sun perfectly. This will happen long after we are dead and gone. So I guess if you believe god made these things he really has not neglected us.
No, I don't believe in God. But it's a question I like to wrestle with.
As far as the rain and sun, these things were always there, yet God intervened in man's affairs. So I don't think the sun and rain were the reasons for God's intervention or lack of in the past 2000 years.
*still waiting patiently for the source of the "95% of the CIA's intelligence is from open sources"* claim.....
I like how you said claim. You're funny.
Well, it's been a while since I dealt with the source of that, so I'm a little rusty. The main study that got us in that ballpark was the Aspin-Brown Commission, which pitted Open Source Solutions against the CIA. BTW, you might want to avoid the OSS site if you are politically queasy. Steele's books are actually great, though they are very textbooky, dense with information and diagrams. I've read his three big ones and they are good The New Craft of Intelligence: Personal, Public & Political, On Intelligence and Intelligence: Spies and Secrecy in an Open World (well, the only one I read cover to cover was On Intel, but I read all of the important part of the other two). Anyway, the study came up with ~95%, though it's actually quite a bit more complex then that. In the study, each group had different strengths, as expected. But the CIA still used open sources for 95% of the info, IIRC
What basically happens is that a question comes up and intel analysts first go to open sources. Open sources are everything from something a leader says in a speech to a village to scientific research that helps shed light on whether a particular nation could have a specific technology. I would consider Wilson's trip borderline, for instance. Much of the info he got on the Niger Uranium industry could probably have been uncovered through research. I wonder how much of the decision to send him there was based more on time and 'because we can' than on necessity. Anyway, if open sources are exhausted, the analyst then goes to secret ones.
I do have to say that I think it's not too good of an idea for people without very much background knowledge to try to interpret the discussions on OSINT. For instance, there are enough problems trying to compare economic intel and military intel, but without knowing the various roles and functions of each system, the debate just becomes empty speculation. When attempting to answer the question of the exact role of open sources in intelligence gathering, it's very important to have a bird's eye view of the discussion in the community, so, please, before you or anyone else start to argue just to argue, do a good chunk of research on this. Is that too much to ask?
To understand what I mean by this, all one has to do is notice that at the end of every discussion of the merits of open source, everyone ends with a nice little, "Regardless of everything we have just said, the fact is that 90-95% of CIA intel already comes from open sources." In fact, I've seen it claimed (though I don't remember where) that even in the cold war it was still something like 85%.
Anyway, here's a little taste of the discussion as it has been since the little experiment:
Quote:
While the use of secret information distinguishes finished intelligence from other analysis, no analyst can base his or her conclusions solely on secret information without considering what is on the public record. Indeed, analysts must have command of all relevant information about their subjects, not simply command of secret information.
As the volume and availability of information from "open sources" has multiplied as a result of the revolution in information technology, ascertaining what relevant information may be on the public record has become more difficult. In CIA alone, the amount of open source information has grown by a factor of ten over the past four years.
To cope with this situation, the DCI established a Community Open Source Program Office in 1992 to coordinate the collection, processing, and dissemination of openly available information to CIA and other elements of the Intelligence Community. Two new computer networks have been established: one provides CIA analysts on-line access to over 1200 open source publications; the other provides consumers access not only to the CIA open source data base but also to other unclassified and classified data bases maintained within the Intelligence Community.
While the development of open source data bases is growing, intelligence analysts have only limited access to them. Given the amount of open source information that is readily available to the public over computer networks, the effort of the Intelligence Community to structure and make available to analysts pertinent open source data bases seems inexplicably slow.
During the course of its inquiry, the Commission conducted an impromptu test to see how readily information could be obtained exclusively from open sources on a subject of current national security interest and how that information compared to what could be obtained from the Intelligence Community. The information obtained from open sources was substantial and on some points more detailed than that provided by the Intelligence Community. On the other hand, the information that came from open sources took longer to produce, required validation, and failed to cover many key aspects of the situation important to policymakers.
In any event, it is clear that open sources do provide a substantial share of the information used in intelligence analysis. In some areas, such as economic analysis, it is estimated that as much as 95 percent of the information utilized now comes from open sources. With more and more information becoming available by electronic means, its use in intelligence analysis can only grow. Indeed, knowing what is publicly available enables producers and collectors of intelligence to better focus their efforts on that which is not. So crucial is this determination to the overall intelligence process that the Commission finds it surprising that more emphasis has not been given this aspect of the Intelligence Community's operations. An adequate computer infrastructure to tie intelligence analysts into open source information does not appear to exist. In the view of the Commission, the creation of such an infrastructure should be a top priority of the DCI and a top priority for funding.
[B]1) Rather than read Strauss, would'nt it be more direct to simply read what Irving Kristol, Bill Kristol, etc. say about him ? Most neocons are prolific writers, and I'm sure they have eulogized his ideological meaning to them extensively, if they have taken beyond simple admiration.
Been there, done that. I even have the last two revisions of the PNAC site with all the pdfs saved to disk. Hell, I can tell you what they each did their dissertations on.
Quote:
2) Would'nt it also be more direct to simply read what neocons think they are; i.e. their tenats, their system, their theory or doctrine than trying to imput beliefs from a trail of putative mentors ?
Like I said, been there, done that. I'm working backwards.
I could name one thing you need to work on that would be a much better use of you time than acting like a flea, but for some reason I feel compelled to be gentle with you.
It's sad too, because you actually look like a nice guy. I guess you can't judge a book by its cover.
This is just classic. "That is where the real meat is." Oh reeeaaaallly? How could you possibly know one way or the other when you can't even name 7 collection disciplines? Oh yeah, inferences based on limited knowledge.
from your own link:
Quote:
The information obtained from open sources was substantial and on some points more detailed than that provided by the Intelligence Community. On the other hand, the information that came from open sources took longer to produce, required validation, and failed to cover many key aspects of the situation important to policymakers.
isn't that implying that the 5% really is where the meat is?
isn't that implying that the 5% really is where the meat is?
Absolutely not. That's a fundamental misuderstanding of the point. Both groups produced results that were overall equal, though each had strengths.
And also note that when we talk of intel in general terms, this includes intel at the DoD, where Open source has seemed useless but is growing greatly.
Anyway, here is some more info:
Quote:
What was true for the highly structured Soviet material?where even a slight change in phrasing or placement of material had meaning?also proved true for the far more volatile, ambiguous and often unstructured information from Third World governments, dissident and insurgent groups, commercial and private organizations and individuals as well. Alan Tompkins, who made invaluable contributions to the development of open-source exploitation methodologies and training, explains the value of multiple sources: "A skilled, experienced journalist, a foreign academic researcher, a local government official and a 10th grader from Wichita all write reports describing the same event. Each report is published electronically. Zealots from a small religious sect and members of the Flat Earth Society also publish reports. A skilled analyst will be able to form a balanced picture from these different, often contentious points of view."6
In the immediate postCold War period, the growing value of open sources for addressing traditional security problems and a host of new or revitalized security challenges led to more formal definitions. A Director of Central Intelligence defined "Open Source Information" (OSI) more precisely:
" . . . publicly available information (any member of the public could lawfully obtain the information by request or observation), as well as other unclassified information that has limited public distribution or access. OSI also includes any information that may be used in an unclassified context without compromising national security or intelligence sources and methods. If the information is not publicly available, certain legal requirements relating to collection, retention and dissemination may apply."7
Subsequent developments further highlighted the role and values of OSI. By middecade this led to the appearance in Joint Doctrine (Joint Publication 102) of the newly designated Open Source Intelligence (OSINT), which linked OSI and intelligence as "information of potential intelligence value that is available to the general public."8 The OSI's value on the eve of the new millennium is enhanced by four fundamental factors.
First, key national security-related OSI information is more available than ever. This information is readily accessible, relatively inexpensive, growing in volume and well suited for systematic exploitation and incorporation into products based on a variety of sources. Second, new information-management technologies have substantially increased the value of open-source information by enabling its rapid and effective organization, evaluation and integration. Third, early changes in post
Cold War security challenges have accelerated at the end of the century, creating national, international and transnational security problems. Understanding these developments depends on systematically exploiting primary open sources. Fourth, a range of new techniques and procedures helps analyze enduring and nontraditional security challenges. Open sources provide such specific background as:
Early information on emerging crises and regional instability.
Voluminous biographic details on key leaders, dissident and opposition leaders and others, including terrorists and criminals.
Basic security implications of geography, demographics and national infrastructure.
Tip-offs that domestic and foreign policies, as well as perceptions of the United States and its allies, are changing.
Information on the organization, equipment and deployment of regular and unconventional military forces?including nongovernment armed groups?and the operational concepts underlying their potential employment.
Detailed insights into the security dimensions of nationality, ethnicity, religion and ideology.
Foreign information-warfare approaches and research and development programs designed to offset US technological advantages.
Insights about organized criminal organizations and activities.
Complex security environments around the world increasingly require joint and interagency use and assessment of open sources, drawing on the expertise and perspectives of the academic community, foreign governments and nongovernment organizations. In particular, open-source programs effectively use RC resources for research and analysis.
Overall, military planners and analysts should use open sources first. The low cost, reduced risk and high return are clear today, and new information-management technologies promise to make these features even more valuable. These kinds of considerations spawned, then validated the WBIL project. The next development phase?emphasizing emerging and transnational threats and interpreting regional open-source material?is under way. Before looking at the construct for assessing emerging threats, it is necessary to add more details about the WBIL project.
"OSI also includes any information that may be used in an unclassified context without compromising national security or intelligence sources and methods."
This article/letter points out basically that with the overabundance of information floating around that it is easier to get basic info in a lot of people and things without having to use expensive government resources. It comes across to me as a reminder to the intel community to use cheaper and readily available info first and build upon that.
"national security-related" is not equal to classified information.
You are fighting so hard to make us all believe that OSI can replace the current Intel as gathered by the CIA, FBI, NSA and such, or so it seams. Maybe you are claiming that you can use it as your only source and determine what the government is holding as classified info. I am not sure. It seems that you want really bad to believe that.
The fact is OSI is being used as a viable tool by the government does not mean that it is the only tool. And then, you forget that all that intel gathered is open to interpretation. So for you or anyone to think they know what the government knows is fooling themselves.
Ok fine you can get close to making an informed conclusion, but you are missing critical information not available to you.
Really, I do not think that you would get so much flack if you just presented what you know without jumping to such claims like, "The president lied to the american people." or "This war was based on faulty intel, and they knew it." or whatever. Give us the info and let us decide. I think you will make more allies that way.
Comments
Originally posted by midwinter
I'm not sure I agree with you, but that only means that I'd like some more discussion from you on this. How can "evil" result from "lack of education"?
Cheers
Scott
Ok try this on:
A guy like racing so he goes out and buys himself a race car and takes it to the track. The light turns green he floors it not realizing the true amount of power he has at his disposal. The car goes wildly out of control and bounces into the spectator stand killing innocents.
Could be considered evil.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Ok try this on:
A guy like racing so he goes out and buys himself a race car and takes it to the track. The light turns green he floors it not realizing the true amount of power he has at his disposal. The car goes wildly out of control and bounces into the spectator stand killing innocents.
Could be considered evil.
I doubt it. That's an accident, regardless of whether or not he knew what he was doing.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by midwinter
I'm not sure I agree with you, but that only means that I'd like some more discussion from you on this. How can "evil" result from "lack of education"?
Cheers
Scott
Maybe that's the wrong choice of words. Maybe I should have said faulty education.
Originally posted by midwinter
I doubt it. That's an accident, regardless of whether or not he knew what he was doing.
Cheers
Scott
Like was said bad things that happen to you can be perceived as evil. Intent and perception play a role here.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Like was said bad things that happen to you can be perceived as evil. Intent and perception play a role here.
I disagree. If perception plays a role AT ALL, then the concept of Evil is utterly meaningless. I mean, I could perceive a papercut as evil, but that doesn't make it anything like the intentional cause of harm.
Evil requires intent and action (or inaction) by another party.
--
Don't get me wrong. I don't actually believe in the notion of evil. But this is an interesting discussion, nonetheless.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by NaplesX
Like was said bad things that happen to you can be perceived as evil. Intent and perception play a role here.
Extreme neglect can be considered evil, IMO. This applies to SH with his treatment of his people as it applies to the oil for food program.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Extreme neglect can be considered evil, IMO.
Hmm,..
God has neglected us for 2000 years. Is God evil?
Originally posted by NaplesX
Extreme neglect can be considered evil, IMO. This applies to SH with his treatment of his people as it applies to the oil for food program.
Well according to the definitions given evil can be anything bad. But evil also can mean morally wicked. That is the definition I apply to SH and the like.
I find it hard to not believe in evil, especially if you believe in the concept of good. Evil would be the opposite of that.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Well according to the definitions given evil can be anything bad. But evil also can mean morally wicked. That is the definition I apply to SH and the like.
I find it hard to not believe in evil, especially if you believe in the concept of good. Evil would be the opposite of that.
As I indicated in my response, those definitions seem to me to pretty clearly require agency and action by another party. And evil probably does mean morally wicked (which is, of course, also a matter of perception).
The problem is that we have other words for different gradations of misfortune. Evil is a whole 'nother thing.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by aapl
Hmm,..
God has neglected us for 2000 years. Is God evil?
Well that certainly is a huge subject. But to make it simple. If you truly believe there is a god, and that god is all powerful, has he neglected us? The rain comes and goes the earth produces sustenance and the earth revolves around the sun perfectly. This will happen long after we are dead and gone. So I guess if you believe god made these things he really has not neglected us.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Well that certainly is a huge subject. But to make it simple. If you truly believe there is a god, and that god is all powerful, has he neglected us? The rain comes and goes the earth produces sustenance and the earth revolves around the sun perfectly. This will happen long after we are dead and gone. So I guess if you believe god made these things he really has not neglected us.
No, I don't believe in God. But it's a question I like to wrestle with.
As far as the rain and sun, these things were always there, yet God intervened in man's affairs. So I don't think the sun and rain were the reasons for God's intervention or lack of in the past 2000 years.
Originally posted by alcimedes
*still waiting patiently for the source of the "95% of the CIA's intelligence is from open sources"* claim.....
me too
Originally posted by alcimedes
*still waiting patiently for the source of the "95% of the CIA's intelligence is from open sources"* claim.....
I like how you said claim. You're funny.
Well, it's been a while since I dealt with the source of that, so I'm a little rusty. The main study that got us in that ballpark was the Aspin-Brown Commission, which pitted Open Source Solutions against the CIA. BTW, you might want to avoid the OSS site if you are politically queasy. Steele's books are actually great, though they are very textbooky, dense with information and diagrams. I've read his three big ones and they are good The New Craft of Intelligence: Personal, Public & Political, On Intelligence and Intelligence: Spies and Secrecy in an Open World (well, the only one I read cover to cover was On Intel, but I read all of the important part of the other two). Anyway, the study came up with ~95%, though it's actually quite a bit more complex then that. In the study, each group had different strengths, as expected. But the CIA still used open sources for 95% of the info, IIRC
What basically happens is that a question comes up and intel analysts first go to open sources. Open sources are everything from something a leader says in a speech to a village to scientific research that helps shed light on whether a particular nation could have a specific technology. I would consider Wilson's trip borderline, for instance. Much of the info he got on the Niger Uranium industry could probably have been uncovered through research. I wonder how much of the decision to send him there was based more on time and 'because we can' than on necessity. Anyway, if open sources are exhausted, the analyst then goes to secret ones.
I do have to say that I think it's not too good of an idea for people without very much background knowledge to try to interpret the discussions on OSINT. For instance, there are enough problems trying to compare economic intel and military intel, but without knowing the various roles and functions of each system, the debate just becomes empty speculation. When attempting to answer the question of the exact role of open sources in intelligence gathering, it's very important to have a bird's eye view of the discussion in the community, so, please, before you or anyone else start to argue just to argue, do a good chunk of research on this. Is that too much to ask?
To understand what I mean by this, all one has to do is notice that at the end of every discussion of the merits of open source, everyone ends with a nice little, "Regardless of everything we have just said, the fact is that 90-95% of CIA intel already comes from open sources." In fact, I've seen it claimed (though I don't remember where) that even in the cold war it was still something like 85%.
Anyway, here's a little taste of the discussion as it has been since the little experiment:
While the use of secret information distinguishes finished intelligence from other analysis, no analyst can base his or her conclusions solely on secret information without considering what is on the public record. Indeed, analysts must have command of all relevant information about their subjects, not simply command of secret information.
As the volume and availability of information from "open sources" has multiplied as a result of the revolution in information technology, ascertaining what relevant information may be on the public record has become more difficult. In CIA alone, the amount of open source information has grown by a factor of ten over the past four years.
To cope with this situation, the DCI established a Community Open Source Program Office in 1992 to coordinate the collection, processing, and dissemination of openly available information to CIA and other elements of the Intelligence Community. Two new computer networks have been established: one provides CIA analysts on-line access to over 1200 open source publications; the other provides consumers access not only to the CIA open source data base but also to other unclassified and classified data bases maintained within the Intelligence Community.
While the development of open source data bases is growing, intelligence analysts have only limited access to them. Given the amount of open source information that is readily available to the public over computer networks, the effort of the Intelligence Community to structure and make available to analysts pertinent open source data bases seems inexplicably slow.
During the course of its inquiry, the Commission conducted an impromptu test to see how readily information could be obtained exclusively from open sources on a subject of current national security interest and how that information compared to what could be obtained from the Intelligence Community. The information obtained from open sources was substantial and on some points more detailed than that provided by the Intelligence Community. On the other hand, the information that came from open sources took longer to produce, required validation, and failed to cover many key aspects of the situation important to policymakers.
In any event, it is clear that open sources do provide a substantial share of the information used in intelligence analysis. In some areas, such as economic analysis, it is estimated that as much as 95 percent of the information utilized now comes from open sources. With more and more information becoming available by electronic means, its use in intelligence analysis can only grow. Indeed, knowing what is publicly available enables producers and collectors of intelligence to better focus their efforts on that which is not. So crucial is this determination to the overall intelligence process that the Commission finds it surprising that more emphasis has not been given this aspect of the Intelligence Community's operations. An adequate computer infrastructure to tie intelligence analysts into open source information does not appear to exist. In the view of the Commission, the creation of such an infrastructure should be a top priority of the DCI and a top priority for funding.
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/int012.html
Originally posted by MaxParrish
[B]1) Rather than read Strauss, would'nt it be more direct to simply read what Irving Kristol, Bill Kristol, etc. say about him ? Most neocons are prolific writers, and I'm sure they have eulogized his ideological meaning to them extensively, if they have taken beyond simple admiration.
Been there, done that. I even have the last two revisions of the PNAC site with all the pdfs saved to disk. Hell, I can tell you what they each did their dissertations on.
2) Would'nt it also be more direct to simply read what neocons think they are; i.e. their tenats, their system, their theory or doctrine than trying to imput beliefs from a trail of putative mentors ?
Like I said, been there, done that. I'm working backwards.
Fast reader, good multitasker.
Originally posted by NaplesX
me too
I could name one thing you need to work on that would be a much better use of you time than acting like a flea, but for some reason I feel compelled to be gentle with you.
It's sad too, because you actually look like a nice guy. I guess you can't judge a book by its cover.
This is just classic. "That is where the real meat is." Oh reeeaaaallly? How could you possibly know one way or the other when you can't even name 7 collection disciplines? Oh yeah, inferences based on limited knowledge.
from your own link:
The information obtained from open sources was substantial and on some points more detailed than that provided by the Intelligence Community. On the other hand, the information that came from open sources took longer to produce, required validation, and failed to cover many key aspects of the situation important to policymakers.
isn't that implying that the 5% really is where the meat is?
Originally posted by alcimedes
isn't that implying that the 5% really is where the meat is?
Absolutely not. That's a fundamental misuderstanding of the point. Both groups produced results that were overall equal, though each had strengths.
And also note that when we talk of intel in general terms, this includes intel at the DoD, where Open source has seemed useless but is growing greatly.
Anyway, here is some more info:
What was true for the highly structured Soviet material?where even a slight change in phrasing or placement of material had meaning?also proved true for the far more volatile, ambiguous and often unstructured information from Third World governments, dissident and insurgent groups, commercial and private organizations and individuals as well. Alan Tompkins, who made invaluable contributions to the development of open-source exploitation methodologies and training, explains the value of multiple sources: "A skilled, experienced journalist, a foreign academic researcher, a local government official and a 10th grader from Wichita all write reports describing the same event. Each report is published electronically. Zealots from a small religious sect and members of the Flat Earth Society also publish reports. A skilled analyst will be able to form a balanced picture from these different, often contentious points of view."6
In the immediate postCold War period, the growing value of open sources for addressing traditional security problems and a host of new or revitalized security challenges led to more formal definitions. A Director of Central Intelligence defined "Open Source Information" (OSI) more precisely:
" . . . publicly available information (any member of the public could lawfully obtain the information by request or observation), as well as other unclassified information that has limited public distribution or access. OSI also includes any information that may be used in an unclassified context without compromising national security or intelligence sources and methods. If the information is not publicly available, certain legal requirements relating to collection, retention and dissemination may apply."7
Subsequent developments further highlighted the role and values of OSI. By middecade this led to the appearance in Joint Doctrine (Joint Publication 102) of the newly designated Open Source Intelligence (OSINT), which linked OSI and intelligence as "information of potential intelligence value that is available to the general public."8 The OSI's value on the eve of the new millennium is enhanced by four fundamental factors.
First, key national security-related OSI information is more available than ever. This information is readily accessible, relatively inexpensive, growing in volume and well suited for systematic exploitation and incorporation into products based on a variety of sources. Second, new information-management technologies have substantially increased the value of open-source information by enabling its rapid and effective organization, evaluation and integration. Third, early changes in post
Cold War security challenges have accelerated at the end of the century, creating national, international and transnational security problems. Understanding these developments depends on systematically exploiting primary open sources. Fourth, a range of new techniques and procedures helps analyze enduring and nontraditional security challenges. Open sources provide such specific background as:
Early information on emerging crises and regional instability.
Voluminous biographic details on key leaders, dissident and opposition leaders and others, including terrorists and criminals.
Basic security implications of geography, demographics and national infrastructure.
Tip-offs that domestic and foreign policies, as well as perceptions of the United States and its allies, are changing.
Information on the organization, equipment and deployment of regular and unconventional military forces?including nongovernment armed groups?and the operational concepts underlying their potential employment.
Detailed insights into the security dimensions of nationality, ethnicity, religion and ideology.
Foreign information-warfare approaches and research and development programs designed to offset US technological advantages.
Insights about organized criminal organizations and activities.
Complex security environments around the world increasingly require joint and interagency use and assessment of open sources, drawing on the expertise and perspectives of the academic community, foreign governments and nongovernment organizations. In particular, open-source programs effectively use RC resources for research and analysis.
Overall, military planners and analysts should use open sources first. The low cost, reduced risk and high return are clear today, and new information-management technologies promise to make these features even more valuable. These kinds of considerations spawned, then validated the WBIL project. The next development phase?emphasizing emerging and transnational threats and interpreting regional open-source material?is under way. Before looking at the construct for assessing emerging threats, it is necessary to add more details about the WBIL project.
http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1999/09/turb.htm
And to realize the complexity of this subject, just poke around the fas site: http://www.fas.org/irp/program/index.html
And last, all you have to do is look at the intel on Iraq leading up to the war.
This article/letter points out basically that with the overabundance of information floating around that it is easier to get basic info in a lot of people and things without having to use expensive government resources. It comes across to me as a reminder to the intel community to use cheaper and readily available info first and build upon that.
"national security-related" is not equal to classified information.
The fact is OSI is being used as a viable tool by the government does not mean that it is the only tool. And then, you forget that all that intel gathered is open to interpretation. So for you or anyone to think they know what the government knows is fooling themselves.
Ok fine you can get close to making an informed conclusion, but you are missing critical information not available to you.
Really, I do not think that you would get so much flack if you just presented what you know without jumping to such claims like, "The president lied to the american people." or "This war was based on faulty intel, and they knew it." or whatever. Give us the info and let us decide. I think you will make more allies that way.