As a military member who works with and utilized classified information, I'm somewhat concerned about the use of Web 2.0 tools. As mentioned in the article, the fact that information can be edited after posting by a different user leads me to believe that there's a lot of room for error. When actionable intelligence is posted, it needs to be very clearly differentiated between what is a known fact and what is an analysis. If the intel community can make these differences clear, then web 2.0 would be incredibly beneficial.
One of the problems that is often encountered when looking through intelligence is sifting through what is applicable. The same problems exist as exist when searching for something with google or yahoo. If you want to look up something as simple as how to grill a burger, you have to be very specific when searching or else you wind up with alot of extra, unnecessary information. If Web 2.0 can help the user who maybe doesn't work with the system every day have an easier process for finding exactly what they need, it would definitely be a large help.
Use of RSS feeds specifically could help increase communication, which can be especially difficult in more secure areas. You can’t just pick up the phone and chat with other individuals at time, so easier access to group information should simplify the process. The intelligence community will just have to be very careful about overwhelming people with extra info!
What a great perspective. I was curious how someone actually in the military or in the intelligence sector would feel about Web 2.0 tools. I focused mostly on the security aspect of using these tools; I hadn't considered that the people editing intelligence information may not have the most accurate and up to date info. Thanks for the input!
ReplyDeleteFirst of all Steve, thank you for serving. Next, I gotta say I am impressed with your analysis. Granted, it is from a different perspective than we (other group 5 memebers) have. With me, at least, it was just opinion and speculation. I think I am right of course, but then don't we all (think ourselves right, not necessarily think that I am right). I agree with you, so I must be right! The RSS point was well taken. I am still figuring this out, but I already changed my homepage to Google Reader because that is where all my feeds currently head and it is interesting to see what is up out there. I can see where that might also be attractive to the intel community.
ReplyDeleteYou brought a very interesting point where the Web 2.0 can have difficulties in “stiffing through what is applicable” because there may be a lot of information which the military people are not looking in that moment and consequently can lose a lot of time in just finding exactly what they are looking for. Also, you had the same concern which may of us have regarding the security of having these types of systems in the intelligence and military agencies. It is totally understandable because this is crucial information which we have to protect as much s possible.
ReplyDeleteGood thinking!!
I also agree that sifting through data is an issue that will continue to proliferate as Web 2.0 tools become more apparent in all areas of the workforce. My first thought was that we should have more advanced searching capabilities to make the sifting more efficient and 'smarter'. It would much less manual of a process if the search capabilities in Web 2.0 tools were more accustomed to 'natural' language, such as slang and commonly used word combinations that have different meanings. The idea that we should not use Web 2.0 tools because of the extra information does not make sense to me either, although I do not think this is what you were proposing. My point is just that there are very few other tools that could be as useful as these types of tools. I use Wikipedia several times a day, because I can normally depend on it to have 80% of the information that I need. That's a great ratio, especially for the intelligence community.
ReplyDelete