When Intelligence Methods Go Out of Bounds
February 21, 2011
For many years, the ArnoldIT.com team has supported different next-generation technology firms. It is important to go “beyond search”, but the question is, “How far should an organization go to get work to keep revenues flowing?” We have worked from some interesting US government agencies. We built plumbing for a couple of information “push” systems that bridged the gap between search and actionable intelligence. In the course of that work, we have been successful in separating commercial work from the intelligence work.
Fact is, most of the companies with which we have some knowledge operate in a similar matter. Keeping the commercial application of technology distinct from the non-commercial application of technology has been a standard practice. No one told me to keep the work distinct. The learning was imparted by culture, first at the nuclear unit of Halliburton and later at the technology unit of the original, pre-break up Booz, Allen & Hamilton.
In search and content processing technology, life has become more complicated for three reasons. First, there is intense pressure on firms with next generation technology to generate revenue. Information processing software is among the most costly to develop, enhance, and enrich. With that pressure for funding comes some different expectations about what to do to pay the bills.
Second, there is more awareness of what can be done with flows of data processed by next generation systems. Even the least sophisticated Web search user recognizes that the ads are either related to the subject of the search or reasonably pertinent to the particular user.
Source: My home town newspaper. The Peoria Journal Star.
Going after the ball when out of bounds.
Third, the cultural boundaries of distinct information communities is becoming more porous. Information technology osmosis is now a fact of life.
When one combines these three factors, one consequence has been the disquieting disclosure that a number of firms appear to be using certain types of information technology in ways that run counter to expectations. The example fresh in my mind is the disclosure of emails, PowerPoints, and chit chat about the use of next generation information technology to “bring down” Wikileaks and individuals associated with that Web site.
Sure, we have mentioned Wikileaks in this Web log, but I have made a decision not to chase that particular rabbit. I know that when boundaries are crossed and the permeable membrane separating certain types of information work is torn, certain problems arise. The example is the media interest in companies like Palantir, HBGary, and a couple of other outfits. Not surprisingly, the Huffington Post has jumped on the band wagon with its story “Spy vs. Spy As Hackers Square Off Over DC Dirty Tricks.”
In the past, we have worked with i2 Ltd. (Cambridge, UK) and more recently with Digital Reasoning (Franklin, Tennessee). What impressed me about these two firms was their executives’ view of the importance of separating commercial information work from non commercial information work. With the unpleasant information about the “spy versus spy” ripple, ArnoldIT.com recognizes that today’s rules are different from the rules in place 10, even five years ago.
The problem, of course, is that information is difficult to call back. Once the systems and methods migrate from one sector to another both sectors are irrevocably altered. Perceptions are changed. Sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse.
The view at Beyond Search is that compartmentalization is important, particularly in certain types of information work. Technology is neutral. The systems and methods are applied to particular problems. For specialists, the application of technology requires judgment and other “soft” skills. When technology is used as a blunt instrument to get a project regardless of the consequences, certain conventions are stretched.
Has the Palantir, HBGary matter ripped the membrane between commercial and non-commercial work? We don’t know, but we think that sensitive systems have been given a jolt. Not only is the shock uncomfortable, the shock may perturb other activities. Some find comfort in destabilization. Others do not. At ArnoldIT.com, we prefer the in bounds approach, boundaries, and non-permeable membranes. Just our opinion.
Stephen E Arnold, February 21, 2011
Freebie
Comments
2 Responses to “When Intelligence Methods Go Out of Bounds”
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
Stephen,
As a party that does a lot of work in this nexus – I’m glad you wrote up this piece. There is a major responsibility on those of us that work these kinds of problems not to exploit that credibility in ways that bring dishonor to ourselves or our customers. Sometimes in the excitement to go at new lucrative markets, that can be lost. Companies that endure, however, are companies of character and competence.
At Digital Reasoning, we’ve tried to set certain principles into place that will endure and can be counted on by those customers that we have now and those that we hope to have. We’ve tried to prioritize honesty in how we present our capabilities – particularly in telling people what we can’t do as much as what we can. When we recruit people on board the organization, we don’t just want to have some of the most talented people (that’s a necessity) but also the most humble. Given the nature of the problem and the true honor and privilege to serve in support of these types of missions – how can you not be humbled?
Every person and every company has stumbles and makes mistakes. The character of who we are comes through in the honesty in disclosing what the real mistake was, taking responsibility for it, and working to rectify it with concrete, tangible actions. For those that are watching this, let’s learn the right lessons and be humbled by what has transpired.
-Tim Estes
[…] I learned from one reader that the presentation by Tim Estes, the founder of Digital Reasoning, caused some positive buzz at a recent conference on the west coast. According to my source, this was a US government sponsored event focused on where content processing was going. The surprise was that as other presenters talked about the future, a company called Digital Reasoning displayed a next generation system. Keep in mind that i2 Ltd. is a solid analyst’s tool with technology roots that stretch back 15 years. (I did some work for the founder of i2 a few years ago and have a great appreciation for the case value of the system for law enforcement.) Palantir has some useful visualization tools, but the company continues to attract attention from litigation and brushes with outfits with some interesting sales practices. Beyond Search covered this story here and here. […]