Next Level OSINT Considerations - Part 2

Media Thumbnail
  • 0.5
  • 1
  • 1.25
  • 1.5
  • 1.75
  • 2
This is a podcast episode titled, Next Level OSINT Considerations - Part 2. The summary for this episode is: <p>We invited some of our most popular guests back to take us to the next level of what everyone needs to consider for their OSINT and why technology, ethics, culture and empathy are increasingly important.</p>

Speaker 1: Welcome to The World of Intelligence, a podcast for you to discover the latest analysis of global military and security trends within the open source defense intelligence community. Now onto the episode with your host, Harry Kemsley.

Harry Kemsley: Hello, this is Harry Kemsley. And if you haven't listened to the first part of this podcast, I sincerely suggest that you do. The introduction to the topic, the guests, and getting the conversation started is really worth listening to. It's about another 30 minutes. If you have listened to it, then welcome to the second part, which I hope you'll enjoy as much as you did the first. And thanks for coming to the second part. Thanks again. So look, I'm going to move us now from a discussion about how we begin to integrate these things to the third big topic here, which is governance and accountability. So when we talk about tradecraft, certainly in government organizations, we talk about the ability to produce good decision support, good enough decision support to allow decisions to be made as effectively and as efficiently as possible, which requires us to govern and to be accountable for what it is that we've analyzed and recommended. And that there needs to be an audit trail through that allows us to reverse what we discussed if we need to, and come up with an understanding of why we made the decisions that we made. Consequently, in this discussion we've been having around more subjective, more human dynamics of the rigor we're looking for. I'm curious to discuss and find out more about how do we impose some sort of governance and accountability for things we've agreed now in this conversation are important? Culture, ethics, empathy, understanding how the technology works, how do we actually start to do this? What would we say to the intelligence agency we're talking to tomorrow about how they should be governing and being accountable for these things, these human in the loop things? Because at the moment I don't see that, I don't know if you've seen that, Sean, but I don't see those things being part of everyday conversation. I recognized the point that Emily made earlier that in her days she was absolutely considering the human dynamics of the leadership that she was analyzing. I don't know that that's necessarily true across the entire spectrum of intelligence tradecraft. So the question is how do we govern these more human in the loop aspects? How do we actually look for it and account for it?

Sean: As with all the questions, there are so many elements to it. And so the reason I'm struggling at the moment is because there's almost a dichotomy there. As you know, Alison and I are working quite hard to formalize the very, very good Janes tradecraft that is out there right now. But in doing so, are we actually taking away those extra elements? Because I'm an ex- military guy, I'll like see things structured. If I'm getting an intelligence analysis, I want to in a certain way, in a certain time with certain language because we recognize that and certainly for back to what Amy was saying for our customers, if you like, the government customer. They expect it in a certain way and if you don't give it a certain way, you don't get listened to. But in doing that, and I'm still... We've got to have a repeatable process so we can go through an audit trial and say, " This is why I came up with that assessment." But in doing so, do we filter out the softer parts that actually add that extra value added? And I still go back to a lot of the assessments I've ever seen. I've been the ones that have actually got the least amount of assurance if you like, because it requires the human being to actually think about why things are and all the rest of it. And I would come back also to Alison's point that I haven't thought of, so well done, Alison. But in the way that we vet people, do we actually exclude part of the population that could really help us understand and they will have the empathy and they will have the ethics. Even though we try to be diverse, and let's face it, at the end of the day, just because of the framework we're working in, and then we expect people to behave in a certain way and to have a certain background. And if you haven't got that background, you're not getting in, not so much. And this might be a value of the open source because we are a little bit more diverse in terms of who we will take. And I think that's a real strength of open source. So the governance and the assurance is quite a difficult one actually. And I'd say that we probably play a bit of lip service to it because it's so difficult. We're having a PhD level discussion as I knew we would here. So you imagine your junior analyst coming in who's just learning about the particular subject they've got to discuss, learning all the vocabulary, having to write at pace, and then somebody comes and say, " Right, make sure you have an ethical approach and you've got empathy towards the people you're looking at." I mean that's just going to blow their minds.

Harry Kemsley: Maybe.

Sean: Sorry, my last point, and I'm just going to reflect what Amy always says, it's the baking in piece. If you're going to do it, you've got to do it at the start and make it part of the process.

Harry Kemsley: Before I go to Emily, because I think you had a point you wanted to make, I just want to forewarn Claire, I'm going to come to you in a second because one of the things that I think we're going to need is definitions. I think we're going to need something for the military audience to coalesce around in terms of what does this mean? Give me a definition. So I'll come back to you about that in just a second. Emily, you had a point?

Emily: Yeah. If your listeners could see me, I was nodding firstly the whole time that Sean was talking. This point in particular about trying to hire people and trying to hire a diverse set of people that bring a diverse set of views is something that when I was at CIA, we struggled with mightily. And it was always the intention to try to pull in people, especially who were first generation Americans who really brought this combination of the US viewpoint and then also the viewpoint from the family that they come with. But getting them clear is always a real challenge. And what country do we find ourselves trying to struggle with the most? China. Which country is it that we really desperately need to understand? China. Whose people are the absolute hardest to clear, people who have extensive family? In China. And it's a challenge that we, I think, are going to definitely need to grapple with and just accept some risk. Your point, Sean, about open source information. If you're not sharing classified information with people, it's much easier to bring them into the fold at least to begin with and have a more extensive vetting process. And one of the things I recommend in the Oscar paper is that you hire people, you train them on the open source intelligence while you're waiting for their security clearance to come through. And then once it comes through, then you can add in the exquisite classified intelligence and hopefully get the best of both worlds. On the point of incorporating the AI into analysis, I think that there's no other way to do it than slowly. One of the first things you do when you walk in the door in the intelligence community is they send you off to training and they basically erase everything that you think you know about critical thinking and writing and then they flashy thing you and then say, " Okay, here's how you're going to critically think and write from now on." And it's an intensive retraining. I had just walked out of grad school and then walked into this training program and I was like, " I've been in school for the last two years, can I please just get to work?" But it was actually hugely useful and I think that what you're going to have to add to that training is this is how you ask AI capabilities a question. This is how you evaluate the answer that you get out of AI, and this is how you incorporate it in an intelligent product. And it's one data point. For a long time it's going to be one data point and a whole series of other data points. Maybe eventually in the future we get to a point where you can say, " Hey, classified version of chatGPT, write me a SitRep and then I will read it, evaluate it, slice it up, and then rewrite it and send it off." But to begin with, I think it's going to be according to open source information provided by data point and a bigger piece.

Harry Kemsley: Yeah, fantastic. Claire, I was going to come to you because as I started to say earlier, one of the things about military doctrine is it likes to capture things in nice tight stent sentences that allows the person reading it to understand the fundamentals of what it is they're doing and why that's the right approach is kind of inferred. I wonder if it's actually feasible to capture in the written word in" doctrine" what ethics, what empathy, what even culture means in an intelligence process. Is there a way of doing that that would make it possible for the reader to really understand it and then apply that to their work?

Claire: Oh, it's such a good question and before I get to answering it, I want to reaffirm this belief and the importance of cognitive diversity as Alison and Sean and others have said, because it's in this richness when you get not just the data scientists, but you get humanities students, you get social scientists, you get artists, musicians, people who look at the world in very different ways give you that richness. And that's one of the dangers of going too far down this idea that data is the answer is you get only people who can do algorithms and maths, and you miss people who have other ways of viewing the world that you need because they will reveal, like your example also showed this very different approach that you would never have imagined. On defining empathy, yes, it's hard to get it to one sentence. One of the easy ways for military doctrine to get into it is that idea of Sun Tzu, " Know your enemy, know yourself and victory will never be in doubt." The problem with that is you need to then expand it a little bit. And I actually think it's important to use the term empathy, because we try to remove emotions again from these spaces. But by using this idea of empathy, it's saying we are humans. So you have to understand the full facets of what it means to be human and that range of experience and emotion and perspective and where we attribute meaning. So a definition of empathy would be to attempt to understand because you'll never have perfect knowledge the way the world looks from perspectives of another. And that means understanding their experiences, their socioeconomic cultural context, their history, their feelings, their motivations, their interests and their intent. But there's another way that might help to approach it, which I was thinking about, because you gave me warning, in some of the writing on empathy that was done during The Cold War by people like Ralph K. White. And it's been added to by people like Robert Jervis, but also General McMaster. They've all talked about this importance of empathy. There are certain obstacles to empathy, and I'm wondering if actually the way to help people to internalize it is not necessarily by approaching it through the lens of empathy, but approaching it through the obstacles to empathy. Are we using an enemy image here? Are we projecting an idea of an enemy onto another in a way that distorts an accurate perception of what they're actually about, what their intentions are? Are we blinded by moral righteousness? Are we blinded by a sense that our cause is just and our cause is right and therefore, we miss the capacity to see where they may have certain realms of validity in their approach? That doesn't make them right, that doesn't legitimize what they're doing, but are there certain ways in which maybe they see it as their moral right what they're doing too and that we are blinded too? Are we demonizing the other side to the perspective, to the point at which we no longer can access their perspective? And that also it clouds our perspectives. It gives us a range of emotions that cloud our judgment, that is hate or rage or anger or pride that therefore inhibits your capacity to see it from another perspective. Are we projecting onto them? Do we have an idea? And this is what people like White and McChrystal have spoken about, that you project an idea of China, but do we really know China? Do we have the people in the room, as Emily said, who actually have experience as a language and the culture and the history and the meaning that they're giving to the events that are occurring to them as well? And do we have an accurate means to understand ourselves through their eyes? So are we able to listen when people in the field who maybe have spent a lot of time there say, " Well look, this is how you look to them." You need to know that your actions are interpreted this way. And I think that might be one way that you could approach it in maybe a more pragmatic way where you're not just using empathy, you're using, have we assessed and acknowledged the hurdles to our understanding and what does that mean for the criteria and the way in which we approach it?

Harry Kemsley: Wow, there's so much in that answer, Claire. That's fantastic. Thank you. Amy, I'm going to ask you what's probably an impossible question to ask and then answer, but I'm going to start with you and then we'll see if the rest of us can help. So what I think we've heard in the last few minutes, our range of considerations and factors that we need to bring into the mind of the analyst as they're doing the work that they do. But how do we select the right person who can take all of that? We talked about diversity. That's certainly a possibility in terms of recruitment, but if you said clearances make that challenging, how do we train them? How do we take a blank piece of paper that is straight out of school, knows how to write an essay or two, does analysis, but how do we actually bring them up from that base level that they'll arrive to a point where they're rigorous analysts who understand the objective, the subjective, the human elements? How do we do that? How do we even begin to build the analyst up? Is it that different to what we're doing today or is it a complete redo on the arrival and onboarding of an analyst? Amy, I'm going to ask you to start.

Amy: Thanks, Harry, for that incredibly impossible question. I think this has been such a rich conversation, I would tease out a couple of things. What do we need in individuals and what do we need in organizations? So as we think about who do you want to hire as an individual analyst, I think there are three things. Ability, which I think current government organizations do really well; agility, which is hard to test for; and humility. And that humility piece then gets at empathy, gets at ethics. It's the understanding that I probably never know enough. Now, you have to actually come to a judgment and you have to produce a product. But the recognition that there could be other things that could change my mind, that openness, that humility comes with openness. And we know from Phil Tetlock's work that that is the key that differentiates super forecasters, those who are much better able to anticipate the future, from the average bearer. It's that openness, that humility to updating. So that's the individual piece. As an organization, what do you need? You need, as Claire has said and Emily has said, you need teams, teams of people that bring different analytic perspectives, cultural perspectives, disciplinary perspectives so that the whole is greater than sum of the parts. And I think you need two other things. You need red tape and red teams. So Sean mentioned the standardization, the benefits of bureaucracy so that everyone is not going in all different directions. Red tape has its benefits, that people actually produce a product in the same way, in a standard way over and over again. There's quality control, there's vetting, there's standard language. That's incredibly important and we don't want to lose sight of that. But with the red tape, you need the red team, a structured process to challenge those assessments in a systematic way.

Harry Kemsley: Wow, you did an amazing job of answering the impossible question. Thank you. Emily, your turn.

Emily: I find myself in fierce agreement with Amy, as usual. I would add to her... The two things that I wrote down when you asked the question were humility and curiosity. The humility piece, I think is critical and that is a cultural setting that I found very comfortable when I was at the agency. And then when I left CIA and went out into the wider world, I was kind of shocked that the rest of the world was so not humbled. It was a really interesting culture shock for me. When I was at the agency, I had this fabulous colleague who had spent his entire career working on the Middle East, spoke Arabic like local, brilliant. You could ask him anything and he could tell you anything and he would never describe himself as an expert, because he was eminently humble about how much he still had to learn. And then I went down to work on Capitol Hill and you would meet a 20- something who had read a couple books and suddenly was an expert on their topic. And I found it just shocking that the lack of humility that existed in the outside world. And I think the cultural piece there is really one of asking a lot of questions and then the cultural expectation is that you're going to be open to that new information and that you're going to be willing to take on board in a really honest way, somebody who disagrees with you. And that's okay, that's how it's supposed to go. People are supposed to disagree with you and you're supposed to think about it. The curiosity piece I think is the best analyst who were the ones who stayed curious. There were people who thought, " Well, I know everything and I've seen it all before and this isn't interesting." They quickly sort of faded off onto the distance. The people who stayed curious and stayed hungry, I think that speaks to what Amy was talking about with the agility too. If you learn about one topic and then you're like, " You know what I'm curious about? I'm curious about this topic," and then you can blend those experiences in a really powerful way. So that's what I saw being successful when I was an analyst too.

Harry Kemsley: Ability, curiosity and agility. Claire, can you add anything to that?

Claire: I agree with all of those. I think they're such brilliant answers. I would add intuition and acknowledging that that is also slightly subjective. But often connected with curiosity, you get that moment of, " I think there's a thread to pull here. Let me just see what's behind it." And that again, speaks that curiosity perhaps given my own area, emotional agility, the ability to be informed and intelligent about your emotions. So you know today is a bad day, I am really feeling this way and it's going to cloud my judgment. I'm going to distort what I read. I'm going to have an extreme response to something. I say that like it's easy, but some people who are emotionally intelligent is really key to that, to be able to understand the lens, that how that lens maybe affects your objectivity and your reasoning.

Harry Kemsley: Let me just ask you a follow- up question quickly on that, Claire. Is that something that can be trained? Is that something you can give somebody tuition and guidance on, or is that an innate skill? The ability to have emotional intelligence, is that something that in your experience or your research is something that can be trained to somebody or is that really something that they get born with nature or nurture question, I guess?

Claire: Absolutely. Some people may have a more innate capacity to be more emotionally intelligent than others, but you can certainly learn, absolutely. It's about not being scared of those emotions. That again is the challenge with believing they have no space in this domain, is that we then don't talk about them and then we misunderstand them. But actually if you lean into them and you really say, " What is going on? What am I feeling? How does that impact how I respond and engage with the world?" That then is a form of data. The more you are able to acknowledge, you get this a lot in meditation, and the Headspace app will repeat this constantly. You are not your emotions. They are things that you experience, but you are not them. So the more you can observe and acknowledge the way that they are shaping your mood or your perception in that moment, the better you get at being able to disconnect and read them. I can see Sean thinking a lot there.

Harry Kemsley: I'm going to throw the ball into Sean's corner in just a moment. I can see he's getting warmer and warmer around the collar, but not just yet. I'm going to keep him on a leash just for a second. So I think what I've heard from that, Claire, is yes, people have been more tuned to the necessary soft skills we've been describing, and they can be trained. They can be elevated in a person. Alison, I'm going to make it even more difficult for you because you're the fourth person I've asked the same question. Anything you want to add from a cultural perspective or from your own analytical experience? And Emily, we'll come back to you. I saw your hand up a second ago.

Alison: I think I'm just blown away by everything that's been said already. I've learned so much. And in terms of a list of qualities, I have nothing to add. But I think responding to what Claire just said and thinking about Sean and the face he was making, I think all of the things that we've talked about in terms of humility, curiosity, emotional agility, apply to understanding your audience as well. And I think a lot of the training or the interview process, the hiring process that happens, assesses analyst's ability to be intellectually nimble, to think in a structured way, for example, but doesn't necessarily test, are they able to read the commander or the person who they're creating these reports for? How can they tailor their cultural experience or their assessment to that audience in order to make sure that it's effective? Because again, you could have the best assessments in the world, but if you can't have people listen, they're not necessarily going anywhere. I'm hoping that's a great segue for Sean to dive in.

Harry Kemsley: So Sean, I can tell you've been waiting to have your piece on this and I have of course, left you to the last because I know you'd want to say something, but go ahead.

Sean: I'm just in awe, I don't use that word often, by the quality of the people that we've got are here, but you are exceptional people because you've got all of those qualities and you've been successful. And the positivity comes out, it's just amazing. I would, as an analyst and a sort of pale, stale and male old military type, would just question, what about the human condition? If you look in any walk of life, and Claire, you'll reflect this and it's true, maybe not in your agency, Emily, but certainly others that I've come across is that those people that have got all those great qualities, which I agree with, and it worries me that I might not have them so I was probably a bad analyst, aren't necessarily the ones who are the most successful. I go further than that. Certainly in some organizations, those people with those qualities that tend to be the ones that leave and go do something else because there is such a culture, organizational culture that it's all about how do I make myself look good, how do I get elevated if that's promotion or money and all the rest of it. And is that the natural human condition? So is what we're trying to achieve here, and I buy into all this, by the way, is it a nirvana that's unachievable? So should we be a little bit more pragmatic? I would suggest in terms of not everyone's like that. So, how do we get the best out of people? That's all I'll offer at this point.

Emily: I think it's a valid point. If we could all be that perfection, then we'd have the best intelligence analysis in the entire world and we'd never miss any call and that would be great, but that's clearly not what happens. I wanted to give a shout out here though to one person who used to be my boss and who has been wildly successful with that high degree of emotional intelligence. I remember once he was in his office and I hadn't seen him for much of the day, and I ducked my head in and I was like, " Hey, I haven't seen you today. Everything okay?" And he was like, " I'm not talking to people today." And I said, " What?" And he said, " I'm in a bad headspace. I know I'm in a bad headspace. My whole intention here is to do no harm today." I was like, " Okay." He said, " I'll be in here if you need me." I said, " Great. I'll come to you if I need you."

Sean: I mean, don't get me wrong, Emily. What I'm not saying is all successful people are dreadful people at all. But I'm just saying if you take the sort of mean average, they're not necessarily all. And I'm talking as much outside of the IC as well. I mean, you look at politicians, successful politicians, a lot of them are liars, most of them are psychopaths, and they've all got massive egos.

Emily: Well, you're talking about my former colleagues, so I'm going to not associate myself with those remarks. However, I do think that we have to as a society, reward that kind of behavior. I've written a few things about intellectual humility and how reconsidering a closely held belief is a signal of strength, not a signal of weakness, and how as a society we have to for some reason feel the need to broadcast ourselves and our strong opinions all the time. And then when somebody calls us on it and says, " Why do you think that," we take it as a personal attack. That can't be the norm. It really has to be this curiosity, this humility. The other thing that I wanted to say about the diversity of thought, one of my favorite things to do when I built a team looking at a problem is to try to find people who are neurologically diverse. So you have somebody who maybe is somewhere on the Asperger's spectrum. You have somebody who is high emotional intelligence. You have somebody who comes from a totally different cultural background and sees things in a different way. Because what you want is you want somebody in the room who's going to be the peacemaker and who's going to be the glue for the group. But you also want somebody who's going to be the designated jerk and also come in and say, " You're wrong. And I'm not going to be hampered by emotions to the extent that I'm not going to tell you that you're wrong," because sometimes, that's how groupthink happens. If you don't have somebody occasionally raising their hand and being like, " Well, screw politeness, I'm going to be honest," and that kind of exchange I think is good. And back to the technology theme, sometimes the technology can be the designated jerk.

Harry Kemsley: Yeah. Claire, you had your hand up a second ago.

Claire: Yeah. This point about organizations not rewarding people for these skills, or society not rewarding people for these skills is key. And it speaks to that importance of the kind of organizations that we want and what kind of design they should have, but also the metrics for success within them. But we should know, given the cases we've had, if you look for example at the Vietnam War, very historic case, but you also look at Afghanistan and Iraq, the people who expressed other opinions who say, " Maybe they can't win, but maybe we can't win it either," tend to be marginalized within the decision- making process. And that's the challenge is that you don't always value the people who say, " Well, what if I give you this other perspective?" And it's understandable, there's politics associated with it. If you are in the post 9/ 11 war room and you say, " Let's just imagine," which Secretary McNamara years later said we should do. " Let's just imagine we empathize with al- Qaeda," can you imagine how awful that must have felt for people dealing with a tragedy and dealing with the horror of a situation to then imagine the world through the perspective of al- Qaeda? It's incredibly difficult. But actually what you need is someone in the room who can say, " You know what? I've been living in the Middle East for years. I speak fluent Arabic. This is exactly what they're thinking." How do we incorporate that into the intelligence of what we're doing? How do we then maybe design policies that are more sensitive, not to their concerns and their needs but to understand how they view the world and why they seem to have support with certain people? And that's the hard thing because those people, as Sean rightly pointed out, are often not rewarded. They're often put in a corner. They're gradually dismissed because they don't say what the political authorities, what the people in control want to hear necessarily. And so finding that balance, enabling there to be those challenging voices, those points of contact that maybe disrupt the thinking a little bit and incorporating them in a way that's trusted and in a way that's credible, not just because they're difficult but they have to be trusted, they have to be credible by their team members. But you need that and you need to start rewarding that as well.

Harry Kemsley: Amy, please go ahead.

Amy: Yeah, just to bring this back to open source intelligence, I think this conversation is, I have so many thoughts in my head, but one of the things that I'm thinking is not only do you have this challenge inside government agencies, it speaks to how important it is to have open source intelligence perspectives outside these government agencies. Open source isn't just stuff, it's not just data. It's an organizational ecosystem of people who can actually exercise that independent voice and bring alternative perspectives to the inside. So all the more reason why I think harnessing the power of the ecosystem is such an important component in open source.

Harry Kemsley: Well, thank you, Amy. You've just given me my one takeaway, which I'm going to ask you all to give me in a second. And that is exactly that. The utility of open source I've never considered, which is the very thing we've talked about with open source intelligence, which is its variety. It's enormous, infinite variety means you're getting diversification. And think about the neurological variation in the open source contributor world. It's almost infinite. So I'm going to ask each of you now to give me your one thought, your one takeaway from what has been an incredibly fascinating discussion about the synthesis of technology and human considerations of empathy, culture, and ethics. But if you had an analyst sat in front of you, or a chief of intelligence sat in front of you right now and he listened to that conversation for the last hour or more, what was the one thing you wanted he or she to walk away with? And unusually, I'm going to start with Sean because I normally ask him last and leave him no sandwiches to eat. So I'm going to start with Sean. What do you think you would want to be saying to the chief defense intelligence officer sat in front of you, Sean, after that conversation? What's the one thing you want him to hear?

Sean: So if it was me, and I'm going to step out character here, I'm going to be pretty positive, is that almost all analysts I've ever met are extremely capable people, but they have baked in them as a personal thing the empathy and the ethics as well. And regardless of whether they are biased or unbiased, they mean well, and they do the best they can. I call it personal moral contract, which I don't mention often. They will always give of their best because that's who they are, not necessarily how because they're trained. So my big thing is that look after your analyst. This is a great conversation and what needs to be had, and we do need to help them get there. But the analysts, as you know, are overstressed, overworked. They've got a lot to do. We need to, anything we come up with on this side, we need to make it a help to them rather than, here's another burden for you to live with. So two parts of it, we need to help them and nurture them. But I think we should have a positive approach because as I said, most of our analysts are pretty good.

Harry Kemsley: Fantastic. Emily.

Emily: My one thing is that we have to compete, but we have to do it on our terms and with our values. So I want to see us charge ahead when it comes to things like incorporating these technological solutions on open source intelligence. I want to see us play a little more, take a little risk sometimes. And I think it's because we are standing on this burning platform when it comes to competition with threats out there in the world. The human values thing though, I mean that is something that I as an American am so proud of my country. When on our best moments, we draw from the best from around the world who come to be Americans because they want a better life. They want to be part of this great American dream. And we really need to capitalize on that to get to this diversity that we've been talking about and to pull the best of the best together to accomplish great things. So that's my vision of hope for the future, happy note to end on.

Harry Kemsley: Amy, your one thought for the chief defense intelligence side in front of you.

Amy: So I think it's a sort of companion to what Emily said. We have to compete. We also, my takeaway, we have to change. This is a moment of profound technological disruption. And as we've talked about, we have the technology, but we also have the human element, and those two have to go together. But my biggest concern, and I hope the biggest takeaway will be if we maintain the status quo, we will fail. We'll be surprised. We'll leave our nations vulnerable. We have to change. We have to change faster.

Harry Kemsley: Fantastic. Thank you, Amy. Claire.

Claire: I have loved this conversation. Thank you, everyone. It's given me so much food for thought. My brain is going to be buzzing all evening. To compete and change, I'm going to add synthesize. We know that technology is inevitable. We know that it holds immense power and potential and value, and especially in OSINT. But in harnessing its capacity and its potential, we should not try to replace humans and replace the art of intelligence but synthesize with it and learn to create a more harmonious ecosystem that, as Amy and Emily and Alison have all said, and Sean and yourself, that draws on the kind of strengths that we have within that space and the diversity and pluralism that we have. So, synthesize would be my addition.

Harry Kemsley: Fantastic.

Speaker 1: Thanks for joining us this week on The World of Intelligence. Make sure to visit our website, janes. com/ podcast, or you can subscribe to the show on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or Google Podcasts so you'll never miss an episode.


We invited some of our most popular guests back to take us to the next level of what everyone needs to consider for their OSINT and why technology, ethics, culture and empathy are increasingly important.

Today's Host

Guest Thumbnail

Harry Kemsley

|President of Government & National Security, Janes

Today's Guests

Guest Thumbnail

Dr Claire Yorke

|Marie Skłodowska-Curie Fellow
Guest Thumbnail

Amy Zegart

|Stanford faculty, sr. fellow at Hoover Institution & FSI, Atlantic contributing writer
Guest Thumbnail

Alison Evans

|Head of Tradecraft and Subscriber Services, Janes
Guest Thumbnail

Emily Harding

|Deputy Director and Senior Fellow, International Security Program, CSIS
Guest Thumbnail

Sean Corbett

|AVM (ret’d) Sean Corbett CB MBE MA, RAF