Comments on: About

By: Robert Steele

Robert Steele — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 13:56:31 +0000

USG is still not serious about OSINT, we have to wait for Rob Simmons to be elected as Senator and then in 2012 (he has to be silent for a year as a junior Senator) we can get back on track. I appreciate your offer but frankly, between CIA and the unwashed so-called OSINT “owners” in DoD that are protecting their old turf with zero interest in Multinational Engagement, it’s not worth the angst of trying to help. Wikipedia page is a mess as well. This is the only web site where you can find comprehensive competent access to all that I and 750 others have built up on OSINT these past 21 years. Our “leaders” are not really leaders, more like administrators who just want to keep budget share. There are no real innovators in the IC or DoD that I can see. I will gladly help individuals on a case by case basis, and I welcome funded invitiations to speak to classes outside DC, unfunded is fine inside the NCA. Semper Fi, Robert

By: Don Abbasi

Don Abbasi — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 04:13:53 +0000

Mr. Steele,

I’m currently researching OSINT for a class at AMU. I attempted to look up OSINT and Open Source Intelligence on the MILWiki site and found that it hasn’t been written yet. The Army is promoting the use of MILBook, MILWiki and MILBlog. Just wanted to make you aware of that in hopes that you would be interested in submitting the entry for OSINT to the site. The site is located at:

https://www.kc.army.mil/wiki/Main_Page and can be accessed with an AKO login and password or CAC card. I’m guessing you have or can gain AKO access, but if you need me to sponsor you, please let me know.

V/R

MAJ Don Abbasi
S6 158 MEB

PS – The back and forth between you and Mr. Hamilton Bean in your published papers has proved to be very interesting reading.

By: Robert Steele

Robert Steele — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 18:07:26 +0000

Posting link to the suggested site now. Primary point of Holistic Darwinism for me is that we are all in this together and it is not just genes, but culture, interaction, everything all together all the time.

I respect the Unitarian tradition as well as the Quakers. Happy to engage, and also happy to offer you posting privileges here as long as it stays at the “worth a look” level rather than proselytizing.

By: Roy Reynolds

Roy Reynolds — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 17:26:37 +0000

Dear Mr. Steele,

I am using this email to contact you because it seems the simplist way to reach you. I found you by reading your review of the book “Web of Inclusion,” which was a very intriguing review; compelling enough for me to search you out.

It is quite apparent that you are an intelligent, massively informed, and have shown the initiative to create this Public Intelligence Blog site, which appears encyclopedic.

I have found considerable concurrence with authors you recommend and those who have inspired and informed my thinking (for example, Tom Atlee, Jim Rough, and David Korten).

However, I also sense an intellectual habit that I want to check out with you. It appears that you think, for example, in your remarks regarding “Holistic Darwinism,” that the logical options available are either reductionism (eg, Dawkins) or holism. That is not the case. I refer you to the recent work of the British scientist, Alan Rayner. FOr example, check out his web site at http://www.inclusionality.org

If Alan’s thinking intrigues you, I will gladly engage in dialogue with you.

Respectfully,
Rev. Roy Reynolds
Unitarian Universalist minister in Georgia (USA)

By: Robert Steele

Robert Steele — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 15:51:08 +0000

Wikipedia is great except where editing wars break out and the morons outnumber the experts–see for instance the page on Open Source Intelligence (OSINT). You can look at the literature on Collective Intelligence to gain the larger insights, my next book has the subtitle of Clarity, Diversity, Integrity, & Sustainability. Here are my two insights:

1) EVERYONE has something to contribute and hence diversity is the bottom line for adapting to reality in a sustainable way.

2) INTEGRITY is NOT a common denominator, therefore we should embrace all creation but only allow the top level council of elderes to “destroy” or sideline. What happens now, on Wikipedia to take the same example, is that agenda and gamesmanship beat out substance every time when there are enough trolls to overwhelm. The serious people do not have time to contribute more than once. Destroy their work and never see them again.

Over a decade ago I was at a Hackers Conference in Silicon Valley and we discussed this idea, someone else suggested the Birds of a Feather session, and we talked about reputation being the new currency in the future. Similarly more recently Joe Nye of Harvard has talked about reputation and credibility as being the key criterion for ATTENTION in the face of information overload. HOWEVER, the problem we have is that in Washington, DC “credibility” is based on ideology rather than reality.

Happy to answer specific questions if you wish.

By: Bob Calder

Bob Calder — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 14:53:39 +0000

I admired a review you did on an information book at Amazon and saw your comment about the political sniping driving you away.

I am studying the development of reputation systems and wonder if your activity on the Amazon site has given you perspective on security and reputation systems you would be interested in sharing.

Thanks,
Bob