Slashdot Mirror
Bazaars in the Government Cathedral
guanxi writes: "This article by James Fallows in The Atlantic is one of the most interesting I've read all year. It describes how innovators in government are applying the concept of the Bazaar: The many eyes of 'Open-Source Intelligence' movement that provides better intelligence than classified sources, and a b2b-like marketplace created by World Bank employees that distributes aid more efficiently than the bureaucratic process."
...buzzword compliant.
Prehaps we could farm out the intellegence space to interested parties.
OS/2 - because choice is a terrible thing to waste.
From what little I've read about the area, for some sorts of intelligence-gathering this gets as much info as cloak-and-dagger stuff.
However, presumably what they're talking about here is using bazaar techniques (mailing lists, whatever) to help share and evaluate intelligence information. That's probably not a bad idea either, if you can manage the security risk.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
not really on topic but-most of the people from asia that i have spoken with dont really like the world bank that much. the y equate them to loan sharks on a global scale. is there anyone here who would care to comment on this? i'm just curious.
-- john
From the article: ... The coordinates of restricted areas and important buildings could be entered into the new guidance system, which could thwart a pilot's
[the] GuideStar controls could be programmed to prevent any airplane from ever going someplace it should not
I've read about this panacea repeatedly since 9/11. The existence of an irrevocable fly-by-wire lockout mode such as this gives hijackers a new physical location (the control room) or software/protocol system to target. I believe the Risks inherent here are great.
Having trained, experienced humans local and ready to override compromised Guidestar-like devices is crucial. The 9/11 hijackers gained easy access to a plane's most valuable assets -- pilots in the cockpit -- due to a lack of Sky Marshals, security doors, and cameras. That was a tragic case of cost cutting by the airlines.
I'd hate to think that similar cost cutting measures could lead to adoption of this automatic flying device with an intention to deskill or replace pilots. The implementation of such a device requires careful human factor analysis. Perhaps a periodic, probabilistically triggered interrogation of pilot credentials (created for one-time-use during a single flight) according to flying patterns and location?
Da Blog
I just hope the information isn't passed through too many hands (or too many languages):
> They will strike the White House on the 27th of September.
> Ils heurteront Maison Blanche sur le 27ème septembre.
> Sie werden sich weißes Haus auf 27. September stoßen.
> ih biti njoj samoj bjeloa dom da 27. rujan aktivnost.
> áü á áëçí îí÷ííé îí âî ä äëü 27. íáü äí ü.
> ay 27. .
> Their close amplitude modulation her six flower bone territory ay reservation 27. September attack.
Bah, I'll probably get modded down for this.
[PowerPoint] is a tool for capitalist presentation
I got the sense from the article that the whole point is still a "we are better than them" pat on the back. Look at all the freedom we have, we can make a self powered balancing unicycle, and then use it to control weapons. We have the freedom of email to communicate information that is publicly available to another group of people to get their ideas on it.
Yes, it is amazing what some freedom of speech can do for a country, imagine what would happen if there was more. Because, most of the sources listed in there are all centered around either war or business. Both things our country seems to be good at. It makes no mention of any protesters or activists showing up at the world bank's Bazaar. Did they? Did they get money, or were they just ignored.
It touches on the fact that in an open society, it is really hard to keep secrets (the fact that Boston was/is a no fly zone, hmmmm, maybe because of the big dig, any terrorist setting off a biochemical weapon would be extremely successful because of the cities horribly transportation system. And the boston T could be a wicked way to spread it).
If having an open society is so key to our ability as a nation to defend itself, wouldn't that mean that anything that inhibits the free flow of information (the basis of an open society in the article, the idea of the AI email list) should be considered a threat to open society? Of course, that shouldn't be a problem as long as the media conglomerates and mega corporations are on our side. But wait! Didn't the author mention that news one person wouldn't think as important, another person would be able to get some vital information from? So they are still a problem, even if they are on our side, they could be ignoring information that is vital to our survival!
Something to chew on.
Can anyone get to g2-forward.org? That's where the Access Intel mailing list seems to be based on a quick googling (there's scarce mention of it as it is...), but the domain's nameservers aren't being very helpful. Does anyone know if the list has moved (and to where)?
Thanks in advance.
:wq
Every tool has its application. Obviously, some secrets are worth keeping: for example, the code for the President's briefcase that launches the nukes is something best kept off Slashdot, or the open-source intelligence listserv. At the same time, I think this intelligence listserv shows how much of our gov't secrecy may be counter-productive. It's long been asserted, and not with tongue-in-cheek, that better intelligence is available from the newspaper than the CIA. There is a significant cost to our government keeping secrets (besides the obvious one that it prevents citizens from monitoring gov't behavior): A very prominent former Senator, Daniel Patrick Moynihan wrote a book called Secrecy ,where he describes classification by the gov't as counter-productive on the whole, and nothing more than another form of regulation. He says it impedes the flow of valuable info, and allows ridiculous ideas to take hold in the intelligence community because only a few people ever know about them -- i.e. they never get exposed to the 'many eyes' of public debate.
A significant source of secrecy was explained by a well-known sociologist, I think Max Weber (can someone confirm/correct?), who said the main occupation of bureaucrats in a large organization is to keep to themselves as much information as possible and trade it with other bureaucrats, like currency. It's a natural consequence of humans working in bureaucracies.
I've also read that it's a status thing in D.C., to have higher security clearance than the other guy. And of course, people keep secrets to cover their a**'s. Overall, I think democratic gov't is the most important place to utilize open, free information.
Being that open source information is relatively easier to acquire, more of it can be gathered and pieced together to make a more complete picture than scattered pieces of classified information.
In the Bazaar, as I read it, alot of open source information is being shared. I'm a little apprehensive, especially after that seminar, that if the wrong people are allowed to acquire alot of this information, they can eventually piece together and learn an awful lot about the future systems, processes, etc. of our government.
In light of the current conflict abroad and at home, I don't think making all this information available is necessarily a Good Thing (tm).
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
Pfhor said: If having an open society is so key to our ability as a nation to defend itself, wouldn't that mean that anything that inhibits the free flow of information should be considered a threat to open society? [...] But wait! Didn't the author mention that news one person wouldn't think as important, another person would be able to get some vital information from? My wife once said "the Atlantic doesn't actually care what you think, they care that you think". I think Mr. Fallows had done a very good job for his slightly unusual magazine (as usual!) --dave
davecb@spamcop.net
One of the discoveries that led to the open source intelligence gathering methods was the discovery (by the Washington Post, IIRC) that they could get several hours advance notice on U.S. military operations merely by asking local pizza delivery shops to inform them when late-night pizza orders from the pentagon and the White House skyrocket.
they can't trust the sources. Having performed collection missions it's obvious to me that the AI list is a misinformation magnet. Since _anyone_ can submit, people who were interested in subverting the collection effort would be anxious to post erroneous or misleading information. The quality of the various sources would be completely random (even among the truthful sources), and there would be no guarantee that further information on any of the posts would be available (you can't give assignments to the submitters and they might not give important updates on their own).
Even assuming that all of the reports were factual (ie. actually came from a newspaper or witnessed first hand) it would take a great deal of analyst time to separate the signal from the noise (s/n in the media being quite low), which is why "open source" intelligence is generally viewed with skepticism even after analysis. Trusted networks are already in place for watching CNN and the various newspapers, and there are teams dedicated to their analysis, so an untrusted network doing the same thing isn't likely to get a lot of respect.
I'm very skeptical of the professionalism of anyone who would brief one of the posts on the AI list to a general. Generals usually want summaries and analysis of collected data, not the raw data itself - especially if it's of potentially dubious origin. It would be appropriate to attach the post to an information report, describe its source, and forward it to analysts; but to present it as final, analyzed intelligence is misleading and dangerous.
Further, in the big scheme of things, open source intelligence counts as one "discipline" in the minds of the analysts, just as all data derived from imagery collection platforms are lumped into the "image intelligence" discipline. Giving it undue credit (especially to the detriment of other intelligence disciplines) would be bad policy, even in a perfect world.
Open source intelligence doesn't "[appear] less valuable than classified information because it does not carry the classification mystique", it is generally less valuable because of its unpredictability, poor information quality, and high susceptibility to subversion.
Travel the Galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms...
It's like when the studios release movies in January, then blazon across their advertisements "One of the best movies of the year."
Open source in the intelligence community means getting intelligence from sources that everyone knows about instead of from someone that had just gone through some ``tactical interrogation.'' I can give examples to make this open source intelligence clear.
During the second world war, allied planes would bomb railways in France in order to interdict German supply lines. Now this was before the era of Key Hole Satellites --- the only way to know if the bombing did distroy the railway is to send somebody to look it over.
It is reported that scores of lives were sacrificed to obtain and send information about the state of the targeted rail line to headquarters. Most of the intelligence is gathered by French patriots. But when the information gets to headquarters it is thrown away because HQ already knows what the reports are saying. It turns out that the effectiveness of the bombing is easily gauged the next morning from the prices of basic goods on the Paris market.
Allied intelligence never told French Resistance about the redundancy of the intelligence-gathering the patriots are engaging in because HQ doesn't want to make it obvious that their efforts were unneeded.
Also during the second world war, intelligence about the affectiveness of bombing raids on Hitlers factories can be determined from the length of the German womens skirts.
Hell I knew 5 years ago the value of open source intelligence. Simply put the United States intelligence network would not function without open source information.
Think about it. Who hit the beaches of Somalia first? Not the Marines, CNN, who somehow got ahold of classified operational information and knew the location and time before most of the Marines did(that pissed off alot of the Marines there).
In the wake of 9/11, the first thing my intelligence officer did was set up a TV and turn on CNN. For that whole week that tv was running 24/7 on either CNN or MSNBC.
Open Source intelligence is nothing new... this article makes it seem revolutionary. Its not.
Not too long after that quit his government intelligence gathering job to create Open Source Solution which provides most of the same data to the same agencies at a much lower price point, saving taxpayers millions of dollars a year.
I don't like most of those three-letter-acronym agencies, but I think this is a Good Thing.
The antidote for misuse of freedom of speech is more freedom of speech.
-- Molly Ivins
Well, yes, but I think any presentation from the NSA will get these terms mixed up, due to no fault of their own.
From http://www.opensource.org/advocacy/faq.html:
By default, an NSA person would hear their own definition, not the programming community's definition. Related, but not the same thing.You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
Hey!
The grammer & spelling improved!
Google has performed the impossible!
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK