Open Source Intelligence (OSINT): merged thread

[davidbfpo]

From The Boston Globe a portrait of American open source analysts, including our own Clint Watts (CWOT) and sub-titled:

A new generation of self-made experts is tracking extremists through their online activity — and rewriting the rules of intelligence in the process

The last sentence refelects the thread discussion on why traditional intelligence in the MENA and Ukraine:

The true lesson of the independent jihadi trackers might be that the intelligence and policy establishment needs to be quicker to follow the culture wherever it chooses to communicate, sometimes leaving secret insights scattered in plain sight.

Link:http://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/201...?event=event25

[davidbfpo]

A really good illustration how open sources can reveal, the main target is one of Putin's "lieutenants", but researching his yacht and girlfriend is the story:https://www.occrp.org/en/investigati...-princess-olga

[AdamG]

Taiwan has asked Google to blur satellite images of what appear to be new military installations on a disputed island in the South China Sea.
Taiping Island, also known as Itu Aba, is part of the Spratly Island chain, embroiled in increasingly tense South China Sea territorial disputes.
Although it is controlled by Taiwan, the island is also claimed by mainland China, Vietnam and the Philippines

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-37436696

[davidbfpo]

Two sites. The first is armament research, I'd call this technical intelligence and with on first glance is a MENA focus:http://armamentresearch.com/

The second, Swiss-based describes itself (in part) as:

The Small Arms Survey is a global centre of excellence whose mandate is to generate evidence-based, impartial, and policy-relevantknowledgeon all aspects of small arms and armed violence. It is the principal international source of expertise, information, and analysis on small arms and armed violence issues....

Link:http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/

[AdamG]

Attention undergraduates.

Wikipedia editors have said they will no longer accept links to Daily Mail stories to support citations because it is too#unreliable.
A fiery debate on its suitability as a source ended with a consensus view that the#Mail, and#Mail Online, were "generally unreliable" and their use "is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist".
The statement added: "The general themes of the support votes centred on the Daily Mail's reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism, and flat-out fabrication."

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-st...-a7570856.html