Older Open Source Intelligence Sources

Last Review

2023 Review

This entry was added in 2019 from a nominated entry that was split into three subsets by the 2019 Jury relating to current, recent, and historic sources. This entry relates in particular to materials published at the time of the ‘Arab’ spring. Social media companies had initially taken little or no action with respect to social media content in conflict zones, taking the view either that they were mere technical platforms and therefore not responsible for editorial; or that the platforms were being used largely for social good, loosening the control of the media from oppressive regimes. However, as the Arab Spring progressed, the companies came under significant pressure to monitor content with more care, in part because terrorist groups had begun using social media platforms for propaganda purposes. The social media companies responded by implementing algorithms that removed or deleted content. This had the unintended consequence of deleting or suppressing content that was being used in open source investigation for journalistic or judicial purposes and may have resulted in refutation or prosecution. The 2019 Jury recognized the duty of care that social media companies have towards their users and is in no sense seeking to have that material re-published on the open web but noted the unintended consequence for journalists and investigatory authorities from the rush to deletion, illustrating how this entry further underlines the relative fragility of all social media content. The 2021 Jury agreed with the current classification and description with no change to trend. The 2022 Taskforce also found no change to trend.

The 2023 Council agreed with the current Practically Extinct classification with the overall risks remaining on the same basis as before (‘No change’ to trend). The 2023 Council also added clarification to the meaning of ‘open source’ for this entry, to explain its meaning in relation to intelligence openly available online, noting that open source can also refer to a specific software or content licence that permits limited uses of IP so this distinction would be helpful for readers.

This is important for social context but may be picked up inadvertently through other ways; it remains ambiguous about who has ultimate responsibility for collecting and preserving this.

2024 Interim Review

These risks remain on the same basis as before, with no significant trend towards even greater or reduced risk (‘No change’ to trend).

The Council acknowledges the continuing challenge of ensuring the preservation of complete and accurate resources given that: platform owners continue to be obliged to remove content that violates community standards; copyright and ownership increasingly hinders capture of the open source materials; and with the rise in fakes, preservationists must attend to standards for legal admissibility and authentication which vary from one jurisdiction to another.

Additional Information

he Council also added clarification to the meaning of ‘open source’ for this entry, to explain its meaning in relation to intelligence openly available online, noting that open source can also refer to a specific software or content licence that permits limited uses of IP so this distinction would be helpful for readers.

This is important for social context but may be picked up inadvertently through other ways; it remains ambiguous about who has ultimate responsibility for collecting and preserving this.