All news, All about Intellipedia!

Why is it news that Google sells to the Intelligence Community? Would it be news if Google sold servers or donated (for that matter) to a group that is looking to end world poverty?

Or are they just piggybacking on Intellipedia's success (not that Google needs it)?

Or could it be just opportunistic PR for Google. Personally, I think it's the latter since I doubt that Google only recently started pursuing government work. 

It also helps to have a CIA Intellipedia expert, like Sean Dennehy, comment about Intellipedia in the same article (though he does not necessarily endorse Google). It adds to Google's credibility (again not that they need it).  

Don't get me wrong, I like Google. I just wanted to point out their cleverness! :) Looks like their innovation does end in the server room! ;-)

Posted by eMarv at 12:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Looks like the Intelligence Community is trying to be a bit more transparent. Always positive! Anyway, thought this AFCEA class might be interesting for Intellipedia blog community members. Let me know how it goes if you decide to go. Or if you have any thoughts on the Intelligence Community's (the US or others) transparency, please share!

Dates: Dec-11-2007 - Dec-13-2007

Classification: Unclassified

Fees:
$1260 Industry/Contractor Rate
$1008 Government/Military Rate

Location: AFCEA Headquarters - Map and Directions

Note: Unclassified! Great for those who need to know how the many intelligence agencies are organized but who don't have a current clearance!

COURSE DESCRIPTION
The U.S. Intelligence Community is faced with new challenges. This top-down course provides an up-to-date understanding of the new and still changing structure and functions of the Intelligence Community and its components. The changing threats and challenges with which they must deal, as well as resources and processes used are covered. The course addresses intelligence programs and provides insight into relations between intelligence producers and policy, military and other consumers, as well as useful information about the interaction between U.S. Intelligence and industry.

WHO SHOULD ATTEND - INDUSTRY AND GOVERNMENT
This course is suitable for industry managers, designers and producers of security and intelligence systems and products, including software and special purpose products. The up-to-date coverage of the changing intelligence community is equally suitable for intelligence professionals proficient in their own services or specialties who have or expect to have responsibilities involving other agencies and services, overview functions or supervision of interfaces between various agency efforts. Past attendance has been divided about equally between students from the government and from industry.

COURSE OUTLINE: The U. S. Intelligence Community: Who Does What, With What, For What?

    Intelligence, Practice and Issues

        * Background of U.S. Intelligence
        * Definitions of Intelligence disciplines
        * Intelligence Process
        * Relationships between Intelligence and Policy
        * Intelligence Issues

    Components and Coordination of the Intelligence Community

        * Organization and Components of the U.S. Intelligence Community
        * The Role of the DCI
        * DNI Staff and Centers
        * Community Management
        * The National Intelligence Council
        * Intelligence Oversight and Management within the Executive Branch
        * Civilian Intelligence Organizations
        * Military Intelligence Components
        * Counterintelligence

    Intelligence Budget Structure

        * NIP (National Intelligence Program)
        * MIP (Military Intelligence Program)

    The Central Intelligence Agency

        * Structure and Functions of the Changing CIA
              o Relationships between CIA and Other Components of the Intelligence Community
        * Intelligence Collection, Analysis and Dissemination
        * CIA Support to Military Intelligence
        * CIA Support to the White House
        * Counterterrorism

    Military Intelligence

        * OSD Oversight
        * Structure and Functions of the Defense Intelligence Agency
        * Support for OSD, JCS, and Operational Commands
        * Military Intelligence: Organization, Roles and Missions
        * Impact and Trends Resulting from Changing World Situation and Operational Experiences

    Reconnaissance and Surveillance

        * National Reconnaissance Office (NRO)
        * Airborne reconnaissance

    The National Security Agency and Central Security Service

        * Role in the Community
        * SIGINT, Infosec, Information Operations
        * US Cryptologic System

    National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA)

        * Origins and Role in the Community
        *
        * Geospatial-intelligence Management US Commercial Imagery

    Federal Bureau of Investigation

        * FBI Organization and Functions
        * Intelligence Functions
        * Counter-Intelligence
        * Relationships with CIA and Other Components of the Intelligence Community

    Nuclear Intelligence and Role of Department of Energy

    Intelligence Community and the Congress

        * Functions of the Oversight Committees
        * Legislation Affecting the Intelligence Community
        * Trends

    Intelligence and Industry

        * Relationship Between Intelligence Components and the Private Sector
        * Intelligence Research and Development

Blogged with Flock

Tags: afcea, intelligence community, nga, nro, military intelligence, cia, dni, counterintelligence, fbi, nsa, sigint, osd, intelligence history, US intelligence

Posted by eMarv at 02:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I referred to the INSA Analytic Tansformation conference in a previous post and a friend sent me a link to the INSA Analytic Transformation presentations in video. (Thanks friend!)

I haven't had a chance to watch them yet, but feel free to take a look at them and post your thoughts and comments (good or bad) here. 

The one that might be interesting is: A-Space: Bringing Web 2.0 to IC Collaboration by Robert Cardillo

I'm listening to it and one interesting stat is that 61% of employees at DIA have been at DIA under 5 years. Interesting!

Another quote (which is kinda scary, but true) is "we don't know what we know." 

One question that was presented was curious: "What tests have been done to demonstrate the utility of A-Space?" 

My answer: how can you really test a social network? You can test its features, but the most important part of social software is the people that will on the network. A social network could have the greatest features in the world, but if noone uses it, it's worthless.

another question presented to Mr. Cardillo: "Do you see a place for a Second Life-like concept in the IC?"

his answer: "That's where these people have these fictitious lives on the Net. I don't think so, I hope not."

my answer: He probably doesn't really know what it is so he may have been a little premature in stating that he doesn't think especially since Sean Dennehy, the CIA's Chief of Intellipedia development, recently was in FCW article:

Dennehy added that some users are asking for a virtual world for the intelligence community similar to Second Life.

“I think it is a no-brainer,” he said. “We could use it for training and other things.”

Hey if the CDC has Hygeia Philo, the virtual public health worker in the "virtual CDC" (in Second Life), why can't the IC have virtual workers?

An even better reason why the US Intelligence Community should be on Second Life is here. Scary... The US IC may need to speak with their Aussie counterparts...

Posted by eMarv at 11:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

Briefing on ‘The Intellipedians’ The social software movement within the U.S. Intelligence Community

from the Federal Computer Week website:
In this Web audio-slide presentation, Chris Rasmussen, Knowledge Management Officer, Intellipedia, National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, Department of Defense, talks about what it’s like to work as an Intellipedian, the rules they live by, and how the new tools are helping transform the ways of the intelligence-processing for good. Rasmussen made this presentation at FCW’s recent Spring Government CIO Summit, in Ft. Myers, Fla.

comments:
This is a very interesting presentation from one of the forward-thinkers in the government. It shows what some folks in the government are really doing to collaborate and create a better government and in reality a better place to live for all of us.

BTW, I do hope that General Clapper has signed into Intellipedia so that he doesn't get his Intellipedia shovel taken away... ;-)

Great work Intellipedians!

UPDATE June 2008: You may also be interested in our exclusive interview with Chris Rasmussen. Enjoy!

Posted by eMarv at 12:22 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I just saw this story on AlwaysOn with a link the ABC News blog post. Here's an extract that sums up the main point of the post:

The CIA recently updated its policies on Freedom of Information Act requests to allow bloggers to qualify for special treatment once reserved for old-school reporters. And last August, the NSA issued a directive to its employees to report leaks of classified information to the media -- "including blogs," the order said.

My initial question is how can I get on the list so I can receive classified report leaks ;-), but seriously, this is good news for bloggers. Go bloggers!

My second thought is: Would internal (meaning CIA/NSA or in general, Intelligence Community) bloggers and for that matter Intellipedians be allowed to request information for their blogs or Intellipedia using FOIA or would they already have that information available?

BTW, I wonder how they define blogger. Would someone that set up a blog a couple of weeks ago be able to have the same privileges? (I'm not saying that they shouldn't, especially if in those 2 weeks that person has been an excellent blogger.)

Just food for thought while I create a real Intellipedia-related post...

Posted by eMarv at 01:25 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I just saw this Yale Daily News article by Michael Seringhaus, a sixth-year graduate student in the Department of Molecular Biochemistry and Biophysics: ‘Intellipedia’? CIA jumps on wiki wagon

Below are some quotes and comments:

Here's the positive:

At a basic level, the new system makes sense. With 16 different agencies, shared goals and many areas of overlap, the intelligence community could likely profit from a comprehensive, communally updated information depository. Ideally, such a system would automate information collation and offer a pre-synthesized crock pot of high-test tattle. Preparing the National Intelligence Estimate would then become simply a matter of bulk-dumping the wiki's contents to a file and whisking it to the president.

And now for some not exactly positive quotes: 

...I doubt Intellipedia will nurture or reward dissenting voices within the intelligence establishment anytime soon. If it doesn't, we've just affixed a multi-agency rubber stamp to the work of the same warmongering misinformation artists who designed and implemented the Iraq war. Jolly good.

Even if we are satisfied with the motives of intelligence staff, the Intellipedia system still raises security concerns. Is it wise to publish sensitive documents en masse to a digital network, and then make them available to thousands of workers from assorted agencies?

The Transportation Security Authority and national laboratories can now access Intellipedia. There is talk of inviting Britain, Canada and Australia to contribute, and even of granting access to China, allegedly so doctors there can comment on avian flu. All this seems like a recipe for trouble. Then again, I've always secretly hoped to see airport baggage handlers and rural Chinese doctors weigh in on American strategic defense policy, so why not? Let the media leaks begin.

Eric Haseltine, chief scientist for the Director of National Intelligence, recently bragged: "We are using wikis, we are using blogs, we are using chat, we are using instant messaging." Impressive haul, Eric: the Four Horsemen of Internet time-wasting, right there. Just add Facebook and you'll have a full house.

It is gratifying to note that Mark Foley's very public loss to instant messenger-fueled temptation last month seemingly has not curbed government enthusiasm for fun Internet distraction.

In a sense, Intellipedia is a sobering reminder of just how ho-hum the intelligence community really is. We glamorize the business: Spies are patriotic charmers with high-tech gadgets, and analysts are devoted and omniscient eggheads with advanced computers and top-secret software. It's deflating, then, when the CIA squeals over publicly available open-source hand-me-downs like a child on Christmas morning. Yeah, wikis are cool. We know. We use them.

Sigh. Does this mean there's no laser watch?

Sigh. The world is not always really not like how Hollywood presents it... (Digression: Though sometimes Hollywood does tell true stories. I just saw "Catch a Fire." An eye-opening story and excellent movie!)

Posted by eMarv at 10:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

I found this article after seeing it bookmarked in kirbyp's del.icio.us bookmarks. Thanks kirbyp!

Now for the quotes and comments:

"...officials from the 16 U.S. spy agencies — and even some beyond that — are increasingly using a new internal website called 'Intellipedia'..."

"...even some beyond that..." Interesting! At least one of the beyond that is the TSA which they refer to further down in the article.

"All of these tools ... are in their Model T stage," conceded Sean Dennehy of the CIA's Directorate of Intelligence, who helped develop the Intellipedia.

Congrats Sean! (You will be in the history books, for sure.) Regarding the Model T comment, it is great to hear that the Intelligence Community is not waiting to develop a perfect solution (which doesn't exist) and wait to deploy it (when it is obsolete). Agile methodology at its best! Throw something out there, let people pound on it, massage it, throw it out there again and repeat. BTW, it looks like Sean is becoming the king of the memorable sound bite. Remember his other quote in the LA Times article: "It moves us away from homogenized intelligence..." (I also saw an interesting quote in Influence: The Pyschology of Persuasion that extends Sean's comment: "Where all think alike, no one thinks very much." Walter Lippman. I wonder if that is what happened in the past...)

"When New York Yankees pitcher Cory Lidle crashed his plane into a Manhattan apartment building this month, officials from the Transportation Security Administration and eight other agencies updated information on the accident 80 times in two hours."

Can you say success story? Imagine if this were to happen with any other potential terrorist event. Actually, who's to say it hasn't happened already?

"Don Burke, a CIA officer from the Directorate of Science and Technology, said more than 3,600 users have created log-ons to use the site..."

I wonder how many are active users or what percentage of the registered users are actually active. My guess is that they haven't tapped into the Long Tail yet since as mentioned further in the article there are "tens of thousands of users."

Getting some traditionalists to contribute takes encouragement. Intellipedia's architects have resorted to sending small, black garden shovels to contributors.

"I dig Intellipedia!" says the handle. "It's wiki, wiki, Baby."

Want to see what it looks like? That you'll have to Google.

Why not just get rid of the traditionalists? (Just joking, I know there will always be traditionalists but it doesn't hurt to ask... :) As you all know, you need not look further than this blog's Intellipedia shovel category to see the pic. We also know that they aren't giving them only to traditionalists as Kevin is proof.

Posted by eMarv at 10:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

The article is titled Oogle und Intellipedia. I looked at the Google translation and could get the gist of it, but could anyone provide a better translation of the article or at least the first line below:

Was ist das Beste, was man über Medien sagen kann: dass voneinander gelernt wird.

One question: Is it that google indexes German sites more or is that not many other folks are writing about Intellipedia in the rest of the world?

Posted by eMarv at 07:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

This post is not to different from the LA Times post. There are a couple of additions.

One: "The system is based on the software used by millions of Internet users to create encyclopedia entries at www.wikipedia.org."

The Intellipedia Wikipedia article has that info too. 

Two: "But unlike that largely anonymous environment [Wikipedia], the individuals who add material to pages on the intelligence system have to attach their names to their contributions."

I actually see this as a good thing! Full attribution is good especially with regards to intelligence. What do you about full attribution in wikis?

On a side note, one thing that I want to know is how the Intelligence Summit got to participate. Good for them!

Posted by eMarv at 01:11 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

As I mentioned in the last post, mainstream media is starting the onslaught of Intellipedia articles. The LA Times article is one of them.

Here's some interesting quotes from the article:

After being criticized for downplaying dissenting views on Iraq's alleged weapons programs, "we're trying to transform the way we do business," said Michele Weslander, a senior official overseeing the initiative for the director of national intelligence, John D. Negroponte.

Transformation in the Intelligence Community is good. Don't ya think? (BTW, in case you didn't know, Michele Weslander is the Deputy CIO of the ODNI.)

Here's another excerpt:

Officials said that the program is still under development and has not replaced existing procedures used to create intelligence reports delivered to President Bush and other policymakers. But it is being used to assemble preliminary judgments for a forthcoming National Intelligence Estimate on Nigeria and could someday supplant the more cumbersome mechanisms used to create such reports.

I wonder why it hasn't replaced existing procedures and why it hasn't already "supplant[ed] the more cumbersome mechanisms?" If you had a choice on whether to select a process that was more cumbersome or efficient, what would you choose?

Another quote:

"I think in the future you'll press a button and this will be the NIE," said Michael Wertheimer, assistant deputy director of national intelligence for analysis.

Hooray for Dr. Wertheimer! We need more forward thinking leaders like him in the government! Imagine that press a button and out pops the NIE. Who woulda thunk?

Another: "In a meeting with reporters at the Office of the Director for National Intelligence..."

So this must have been the by-invitation-only meeting on 31 October 2006, which the Homeland Security Watch referred to and that I wrote the last post about.

Another: "...officials showed how analysts from multiple agencies had used the network to post frequent updates on recent events, including the crash of a small plane into a New York City apartment building last month and North Korea's test of a missile in July."

Awesome! Real-time intelligence!

Another:

Officials said they were not making the network available to members of Congress or other policymakers, largely because of a reluctance to disseminate material that analysts view as a work in progress.

If the material expressly states that it is a work in progress, what's the problem? Anyway, isn't everything a work in progress?

Another:

But they stressed that disseminating material to the widest possible audience of analysts is key to avoiding mistakes like those that contributed to erroneous assessments that Iraq possessed stockpiles of banned weapons and was pursuing a nuclear arsenal.

"erroneous assessments": I'm not going to comment on this since I really don't want to start a political debate, but we'll see where the blog takes us... :)

And the final and most awesome quote:

"It moves us away from homogenized intelligence," said Sean Dennehy, a CIA official involved in creating the new system.

I was going to say that the only thing I want homogenized is milk, but I drink soy milk. ;-) Being different and diverse is good, especially, IMO, when dealing with intelligence!

So what do you think about the government officials comments? 

Posted by eMarv at 12:03 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Intellipedia. Many of the hottest online tools now in use turn out to be ideal for sharing intelligence, officials say. Two years ago, the CIA launched its own wiki. (A wiki is an online site that allows users to collectively add and edit content, like Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia.) Dubbed simply the CIA Wiki, it now boasts some 10,000 classified pages. In January, the DNI followed with a communitywide wiki, dubbed the Intellipedia. The DNI's National Intelligence Council-which produces the government's weighty National Intelligence Estimates on key topics-has just launched an experiment to produce the first NIE by wiki. The subject: Nigeria. Top experts on the oil-rich African nation are working together on the Intellipedia to help chart its future. "I don't know if it's going to work," says Thomas Fingar, the chief of analysis for the DNI. "It might; might not."

Blogs have also caught on among specialists across the intelligence community. Encouraged by the CIA's Directorate of Intelligence, home to the agency's corps of analysts, CIA officials in the past year have signed up for some 200 group blogs and 1,500 individual blogs. After all the early excitement, however, the number of active blogs is now down to about 125. And as on the outside, the intelligence blogosphere is not without controversy. In July, a CIA contractor was summarily dismissed after posting her views that U.S. interrogation techniques violated the Geneva Conventions.

Government censors aside, intelligence blogs sound surprisingly similar to their more public cousins on the Internet. Classified blogs, complains one insider, range from "incredibly stupid" to "a few good ones" that are widely read.

Posted by eMarv at 01:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)