The OSINT Epidemic: Ignorance, Misinformation, Propaganda

Everyone is an OSINT expert these days. Twitter is swarming with OSINT accounts purporting expertise on Russia-Ukraine War and/or Israel-Palestine conflict. Businesses are seeking applicants with expertise in “OSINT tools, techniques and methodologies” and “HUMINT tradecraft” for sundry “threat intelligence” positions. Most OSINT experts have no intelligence or military background. They often supply propaganda, misinformation, or “confirmation bias” through ignorance, or, to satisfy the demands of their followers and/or paymasters.

OSINT: Background

OSINT, “open-source intelligence,” is a multifaceted approach to extracting information that is publicly available. OSINT can be passive (e.g., search the surface web and dark web using one or more investigative tools) or active (by, say, participating surreptitiously in a Discord group’s chat room to monitor their discussions). Governmental organizations engaging in OSINT independently or in partnership with private organizations are bound (in theory) to following ethical practices.

OSINT: Tools and Techniques

Different tools and techniques are used to solve different problems. Put simply, one does not crack an egg with a hammer. A framework is below:

OSINT: Technical Expertise

Technological expertise is indispensable to competently perform searches using electronic and other tools; however, linguistic, economic, scientific, cultural, geo-political, and historical expertise are necessary to understand the target(s) of OSINT investigations and to interpret information acquired. Intelligence collection and intelligence analysis have historically been two separate but related units of intelligence services. Two different skill sets; but some intel officers possess both skills.

OSINT Accounts

OSINTDefender is a stellar example of the OSINT Epidemic. The account is run by a child living in his mama’s basement in Georgia (the U.S. state). This child cannot even properly capitalize words in a sentence, but he has 1.1 mil. followers. He purports expertise on the Ukraine-Russia War; and since October 7th, has become a self-anointed expert on the Israel-Palestine conflict. He earns from reader tips—and possibly other sources (e.g, the U.S. Government). He supplies misinformation, as Matthew Gault of Vice magazine demonstrated in “Verified Twitter Accounts Spread Misinfo About Imminent Nuclear Strike.” OSINTDefender faithfully follows the U.S. Gov’s “party line”: Russia bad; Ukraine good. Putin awful; Zelensky great. Russia losing; Ukraine winning. The formula extends to Israel: Palestinians bad; Israelis good. Israel good; Iran rotten. You get the drift. But this is what his readers—and possibly his governmental paymasters—expect from him.

Confirmation Bias:

Confirmation bias is the “tendency to process information by looking for, or interpreting, information that is consistent with their existing beliefs. This biased approach to decision making is largely unintentional, and it results in a person ignoring information that is inconsistent with their beliefs.”

OSINTDefender’s followers include supporters of Ukraine; they obtain satisfaction at having their views confirmed by an “expert.” For this OSINTDefender is rewarded by tips through payment apps (“Buy me a coffee”). Whereas OSINT experts with military and/or intelligence expertise (and Russian language skills) who offer contrarian views have few followers (e.g., X/@ArmchairWarlord has 102k followers). Other experts have fewer followers (10k to 80k range). Accounts that report war and intel news have high follower rates, but the accounts usually offer little analysis.

Telling the boss what he wants to hear:

This is an old phenomenon. How many junior Army officers and intel officers will raise their hands and say, “general, you are wrong”? David Petraeus, who headed U.S. military missions to Iraq and Afghanistan, and also led CENTCOM and CIA, exemplifies the problem. He was told while planning his failed “Afghan Surge” that it will fail because “the war in Afghanistan is lost but you don’t know it yet.” He was similarly informed by Col. Gian Gentile (and others) that his counterinsurgency theory would fail in Iraq, but went ahead anyway. As I have shown in an article, “Conceptual failure, the Taliban’s Parallel Hierarchies, and America’s Strategic Defeat in Afghanistan” (Small Wars & Insurgencies 25, no. 1, 2014: 91-121), the Afghan War was lost; that other approaches were required. But Hillary Clinton and David Petraeus wanted a Surge, so, they had a Surge. How did that work out?

Closing

Picking an OSINT analyst to follow online or to employ is like picking a doctor or dentist or criminal defense attorney. Do your research and make an informed choice.