It never occurred to me, when I lost the first bureaucratic battle on Open Source Intelligence (OSINT) in 1992, that my innate sense of integrity [do the right thing] would lead me to resign from the Marine Corps civil service in 1993 as a very young GM-14, and spend not five, not ten, but twenty years wandering in the wilderness helping over 66 governments and over 7,500 mid-career officers get a grip on sources and methods the traditional secret services refused to consider and the traditional consumers of intelligence did not know how to do. Of all my student bodies, the USA was the worst, remaining ignorant at the leadership level, helpless at the follower level–butts in seats, no brain required. Hence, as we approach a historic turning point, the possibility that we might have a Secretary of State and a Secretary of Defense that can actually get a grip on reality together, I thought it might be useful to offer up three things I have learned during my 20-year walk-about:
Robert Steele: Introducing Dr. Greg Newby, Director of the University of Alaska Supercomputing Center, and Co-Founder of the Multinational Open Source Arctic Innovation Consortium (MOSAIC)
Today I had the pleasure of sitting down for a second time with Dr. Greg Newby, director of one of America’s top supercomputing centers, this one in Alaska and operated by the University of Alaska. He has some ideas about Arctic information collection, prcoessing, analysis, and SHARING that are breath-taking; I attribute this in part to his also being the current lead for the Gutenberg Project, whose founder died recently. If there is one person on the planet that understands supercomputing, open everything, and the potential of the cloud to radcially empower all members of any M4IS2 endeavor, that person is Dr. Greg Newby. He is in Washington until Friday morning when I drive him to the airport, and can be reached via email at <firstname.lastname@example.org>. Tomorrow he meets with the US State Department representative to the Arctic Council. At this time he has no meetings scheduled with US Navy or US Coast Guard points of contact for Arctic matters and would welcome being contacted directly.
I confess to being delighted by how he has adapted my eight-tribes concept and also with his diligence in pursuing a global initiative to make all data available via a MOSAIC real-world “game” to be created by Medard Gabel, co-creator with Buckminster Fuller of the analog World Game, and architect of both the existing UN Earth Dashboard, and the conceptualized digital EarthGame that needs only a staff of six and an annual budget of $3 million to be created.
Robert Steele: World Brain / Global Game Update with Concept for School of Future-Oriented Hybrid Governance and Centre for Multinational Multiagency Multidisciplinary Multidomain Information-Sharing and Sense-Making (M4IS2)
As the global economy collapses and increasing numbers recognize that no one is addressing our common problems with intelligence and integrity, it seems like a good time to quickly survey the state of the World Brain /Global Game. Here are a few headlines with short comments.
The Network of Global Agenda Councils, launched by the World Economic Forum three years ago, comprises more than 1,000 thought leaders who meet at least four times a year – three times in virtual meetings and once during the annual Summit on the Global Agenda in the United Arab Emirates, arguably the biggest intellectual brainstorming in the world.
RS: This is the World Economic Forum / 1% “front” version of the World Brain. There is a great deal that can be harvested from this endeavor, but it lacks a strategic analytic model, a commitment to open source data access and other fundamentals of the M4IS2 process. It is inherently elitist. Of interest is the fact that all of its community lists have been blanked out
RS: Eugene Garfield with the Institute of Scientific Information (now Thompson Reuters), and then Dick Klavans with Maps of Science, have done more than any other to actually create a structure for identifying strengths, gaps, and emergent possibilities in the World Brain on the basis of published formal knowledge. One of my most prized possessions is the internal massive PDF file (shown here as a snapshot) that allows for drilling down all the way to each and every sub-discipline. Here are two of the seminal works:
RS: Using techniques developed by Garfield and Klavans (much of this done prior to computing advances, by hand), Thompson Reuters now offers a service that can show, by country, region, university, or discipline, where the strengths and weaknesses are on the basis of citation analysis. One example for the USA is shown here to the side. This remains severely deficient for two reasons: first, the persistence of inbred citation cabals; and second, the extremely poor coverage of languages other than English, French, and German. There is a third deficiency beyond that of citation analytics, and that has to do with the identification of unpublished experts of various kinds–I am especially interested in the indigenous experts and the oral historical knowledge they have inherited from prior generations. Finally, there is a fourth deficiency yet to be addressed that will eventually turn citation analytics on its head: most research is isolated from both a strategic analytic model and true cost economics. When these two are eventually factored in, I believe there will be a revolutionary shift in interest away from Western citation cabals and toward those in Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Russia, South Africa, and Turkey, among others.
RS: To the best of my knowledge, and having failed to get Jeff Bezos to think of Amazon as the World Brain is gestation (including reviewers and readers down to the zip code level of specificity), no one, anywhere, is actually putting together a strategic analytic model, global true cost data, and a global grid of published and unpublished experts in all languages. Some of the Earth Science networks have the right idea, but are missing some big pieces.
EarthGame™ is a massively multiplayer online strategic design and planning real-world “game.” It is also a set of tools for recognizing, defining and solving global and local problems onboard Spaceship Earth. It combines the vast and growing wealth of global data available on the web with sophisticate data visualization techniques, embeds these within a powerful strategic planning and design methodology, and places all this into a gaming context.
RS: Medard Gabel, co-creator with Buckminster Fuller of the analog World Game, remains the only person I know of (i.e. in the English language) who is serious about creating the Global Game. Earth Intelligence Network (EIN) funded his definition of the preliminary staffing and cost, as well as the trademarking (in his name) of EarthGame. I have approached one massive multi-player game firm about joining with Wolfam Alpha and EarthGame, but they were not interested. Below is the high-level summary he created for EIN.
RS: I am aware of the World Game as managed by the Buckminster Fuller Institute and commercialized by OSEarth. Neither of these has the mind-set, depth, or breadth that Medard and I have envisioned together. The Global Economics Game has some laudable aspects to it, but accepts so many false assumptions about true cost and corruption and the way the world actually works that it would need a considerable make-over–never-the-less, it is a most impressive endeavor and not to be over-looked.
RS: The whole point of the Global Game is to connect all human minds with all information in all languages — and embedded open source everything tools — so that every person can play themselves, fully informed in a timely fashion, on every issue from local to global. I myself am actively in search of a major university interested in creating a School of Future-Oriented Hybrid Governance with a Center for M4IS2, a World Brain Institute, the Global Game (with Medard Gabel), and a prototype Center for Public Intelligence — all committed to open source software, hardware, spectrum, and OpenBTS as the hand-held standard.
Graphic: School for Future-Oriented Hybrid Governance with World Brain Institute, Global Game, and Prototype Center for Public Intelligence
Creative Commons license applies — no financial exploitation without permission. Robert Steele owns three of the four world-brain urls (net, org, com) and is looking for a university with the gravitas to understand why this concept needs to be implemented in full, soonest.
World Future Society March 11, 2012
Institute for Ethics & Emerging Technologies
Okay. You got me. I can’t really tell you everything you need to know about big data. The one thing I discovered last week – as I joined more than 2,500 data junkies from around the world for the O’Reilly Strata conference in rainy Santa Clara California—is that nobody can, not Google, not Intel, not even IBM. All I can guarantee you is that you’ll be hearing a lot more about it.
What is big data? Roughly defined, it refers to massive data sets that can be used to predict or model future events. That can include everything from the online purchase history of millions of Americans (to predict what they’re about to buy) to where people in San Francisco are most likely to jog (according to GPS) to Facebook posts and Twitter trends and 100 year storm records.
Phi Beta Iota: Big data is most important for what it can tell you about true cost and whole system cause and effect, inclusive of political corruption and organizational fraud. These are past and present issues, not future issues. We design the future based on the integrity present today. This is why “open everything” matters.
With that in mind, here’s the three most important things you need to know about big data right now:
[Editor’s note: This is the first in a new column series from the pragmatic visionaries at the Thornburg Center for Professional Development for edtech digest]
“The availability of technologies to youth is its own instructor.” –Nobelist Herbert A. Simon (June 15, 1916 – February 9, 2001), Author of Science of the Artificial and a Father of Artificial Intelligence
EXTRACT: TOYS MIRROR WHAT’S NEXT IN TECHNOLOGY
In the same way that Erector Sets were patterned after the technologies of the third phase of the industrial revolution, the LEGO MindStorms kits reflect the structure of emerging technology and careers in the 21st Century. In 2006, Nano Quest from FIRST Robotics enabled students to program LEGO robots to mimic biological, chemical, and physical systems across micro-, meso-, and nano-scales.
I have begun drafting my portion of the new Handbook of Intelligence Studies (Routledge, 2013), it is a chapter early on entitled “The Craft of Intelligence.” I pick up where Allen Dulles and Sherman Kent left off. My graphic on Intelligence Maturity captures the essence of my thinking at the strategic level, but of course there is more to come, including the desperate need to restore integrity to all that we do.
In 1988 I ghost-wrote for the Commandant of the Marine Corps an article that he enhanced and signed, “Global Intelligence Challenges in the 1990’s.” At that time my focus was on the difference between the conventional threat and the emerging unconventional threat.
Now my focus is on the purpose and process of intelligence as decision-support. We must — we will — move from secret intelligence for the few to open intelligence for the many; from expensive centralized largely worthless intelligence to free and low-cost distributed intelligence relevant to every person at every level on every issue; from intelligence as window-dressing for channeling $80 billion a year to banks and corporations, to intelligence as an integral element of every aspect of a Smart Nation.
Today Owl sent me a link to an article, Philip E. Tetlock and Barabara A Mellers, “Intelligent Management of Intelligence Agencies,” American Psychologist, 2011, pp. 1-12. I respect Owl, so I printed it and read it twice.
This article is completely out of touch with reality and the authors have not bothered to familiarize themselves with the literatures pertinent to their endeavor. Out of 89 cited sources 12 are non-intelligence-related prior publications of the lead author, 1 is a prior publication of the second author, and 11 are ostensibly about intelligence but truly marginal selections. So 12% sources on the subject, 13% self-citation, and 75% escoteric psycho-babble irrelevant to the actual challenge. As an intelligence professional, I am offended that two ostensibly erudite individuals would dare to publish this trype without even a semblance of understanding of the subject under discussion.
Here are a few comments and additional links: