Begin forwarded message:
From: Mario Profaca <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: September 16, 2008 9:34:27 AM PDT
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [SPY NEWS] Analysis: Classifying open source intel?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.metimes.com/Security/2008/09/16/analysis_classifying_open_source_intel/d166/
<http://www.metimes.com/Security/2008/09/16/analysis_classifying_open_source_intel/d166/
>
*Analysis: Classifying open source intel?*
<http://www.metimes.com/Security/2008/09/16/analysis_classifying_open_source_intel/d166/
>
By SHAUN WATERMAN
(UPI Homeland and National Security Editor)
WASHINGTON, Sept. 16 (UPI) -- Intelligence from open sources like the
Internet is now recognized as an essential part of the work of U.S.
agencies -- but one leading expert in the field says much more of it
should be secret.
"Open source intelligence is widely recognized as both an essential
capability and a formidable asset in our national security
infrastructure," CIA Director and retired Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden
told a conference in Washington Friday.
Hayden quoted the strategic plan issued this year by Director of
National Intelligence Michael McConnell: "No aspect of (intelligence)
collection requires greater consideration or holds more promise than
open source information."
But the conference, organized by the DNI's Open Source Center, the
agency based at the CIA that provides analysis of open sources for U.S.
intelligence, also heard counterintuitive calls for more of its product
to be classified.
Jennifer Sims, director of intelligence studies at Georgetown
University, told United Press International there was another rationale
for classifying intelligence reports, other than the traditional one of
protecting sources and methods.
She said under the definition of classified information -- data the
release of which would damage the national security of the United States
-- intelligence could, and should, be classified even when the source
was open, "because of the insights you derive for the decision-maker
from that source."
"That requires classification because the release of it tells people
what decision-makers find insightful about the open source analysis."
In other words, if it is worth knowing, it is worth preventing
adversaries from knowing.
"If you don't classify" open source intelligence products, she argued,
"what you're saying is that you're not providing any particular insights
that matter to the competition."
Sims also cited the DNI's strategic plan, which defined the key role of
the sprawling collection of U.S. agencies known as the Intelligence
Community as providing "decision advantage" in a dangerous and quickly
changing world.
"What's new and exciting about the use of the term 'decision advantage'
is that it reminds everybody that the core business of intelligence is
not gathering secrets. The core business of intelligence is providing
insights for decision-makers who are engaged in life-or-death
competitions, and those insights require classification wholly apart
from any need to protect sources and methods."
But Sims also argues against the widely held assumption that open source
intelligence gathering requires no protection of sources and methods.
All intelligence collection involves at least five elements, she
explained: command and control, sensors, platforms, processing and
exploitation, and finally data exfiltration.
Even in open source, she said, "You will want to classify your command
and control, because you don't want people to know what your
requirements are." Processing and exploitation should also be secret "at
least in part … because you want to keep your methods for deriving
insights from the data away from anybody else."
Steven Aftergood, a government-transparency advocate at the Federation
of American Scientists, said Sims "made the most coherent argument for
open source secrecy I have heard."
But, he said, in actual fact, very few of the analyses produced by the
Open Source Center fitted Sims' picture of material that conferred a
vital advantage over the country's adversaries.
"Only a small minority of OSC analytical products fits that
description," he told UPI. "The overwhelming bulk have no operational
relevance. They are at best contextual," he added, comparing them to the
research backgrounders prepared by the Congressional Research Service.
"They are not inputs into strategic decision-making."
According to Aftergood, Sims' argument was "misleading to the extent
that it presented the exception as the rule."
Aftergood's conclusion was echoed by Kim Robson, the center's deputy
director, who told UPI that "the vast majority of what we produce is not
classified … and doesn't have to be."
"In some cases," Robson added, OSC reports end up being classified
"because of the sensitive nature" of their conclusions.
"If the information will … reveal intentions and capabilities, then it
ought to be protected in some way, even if the (underlying) information
is unclassified," she explained.
But in most cases the restrictions on the circulation of OSC reports was
a matter of copyright, not classification, she said.
Robson acknowledged there might be times when even unclassified
information should be protected -- for instance, by being labeled as
"Controlled Unclassified Information."
She gave the example of a young al-Qaida operative who was revealing
operational vulnerabilities on a blog or social network site. "That
could provide us with a decision advantage," she said. "Maybe we don't
want to tell al-Qaida that one of their operatives is out there blogging
about their vulnerabilities. So that would be something you'd want to
keep in sensitive channels, even though it's unclassified."
© 2008 United Press International. All Rights Reserved.
This material may not be reproduced, redistributed, or manipulated in
any form.
------------------------------------
-__ ___ _ ___ __ ___ _ _ _ __
/-_|-0-\-V-/-\|-|-__|-|-|-/-_|
\_-\--_/\-/|-\\-|-_||-V-V-\_-\
|__/_|--//-|_|\_|___|\_A_/|__/
SPY NEWS is OSI newsletter and discussion list associated to
Mario's Cyberspace Station - The Global Intelligence News Portal
http://mprofaca.cro.net
http://spynews.byethost13.com
Since you are receiving and reading documents, news stories,
comments and opinions not only from so called (or self-proclaimed)
"reliable sources", but also a lot of possible misinformation
collected and posted to Spy News for OSI purposes - it should be
a serious reason (particularly to journalists and web publishers)
to think twice before using it for their story writing, further
publishing or forwarding throughout Cyberspace.
To unsubscribe:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*** FAIR USE NOTICE: This message contains copyrighted material whose
use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Spy
News is making it available without profit to SPY NEWS members who
have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information
in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence and law
enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, techniques,
human rights, civil liberties and other intelligence related issues,
for non-profit research and educational purposes only. We always
mention the author and link the original site and page of every
article. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the
copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S.
Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for
purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain
permission from the copyright owner.
For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
SPY NEWS home page:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/spynews
Mario Profaca
http://mprofaca.cro.net/profaca.html
e-mail: mario.profaca[at]zg.t-com.hr
SPY NEWS owner & editor
Yahoo! Groups Links
