Subscribe via RSS

Archives by Date
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008

See all Archives
Archives by Category
'Canes
Afghan Update
Ammo and Munitions
Armor
Around the Globe
Av Week Extra
Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
Bizarro
Blimps
Blog Bidness
Body Armor Blues
Bomb Squad
Brownshoes in Action
Bubbleheads, etc.
Cammo Green
Catch the "Buzz"
Chem-Bio
Civilian Apps
Cloak and Dagger
Commandos
Comms
Contingency Ops
Cops and Robbers
Cyber-warfare
Data Diving
Defense Tech Poll
Dissent Tech
Door Kickers
Drones
DT Administrivia
Eat DT's Dust
Extra! Extra!
Eye on China
Fast Movers
FCS Watch
Fire for Effect
FOS Files
Friday Funnies
Gadgets and Gear
Going Green
Grand Ole Osprey
Ground Vehicles
Guns
Homeland Security
In the Weeds with Eric
Info War
Iraq Diary
Jarhead Jazz
JSF Watch
Just War Theories
Lasers and Ray Guns
Less-lethal
Logistics
Los Alamos and Labs
M4 Monopoly
Medic!
Mercs
Missiles
Money Money Money
Most Wanted
MRAP Edge
Net-Centric
Nukes
Old Skool
Our Shrinking Planet
Planes, Copters, Blimps
Politricks
Polmar's Perspective
Popular Mechanics
Rapid Fire
Raptor Watch
Red Team
Retro-Futuro
Robots
Roll Your Own
Sabra Tech
Ships and Subs
Snipertech
Space
Special Ops
Star Wars
Strategery
Stray Trons
Tactical Development
Terror Tech
The Deadlies
The Defense Biz
The Peoples' Site
The Sunday Paper
The Tanker Tango
The View from Av Week
Those Nutty Norks
Training and Sims
Trimble on the Case
Video Lounge
War Update
Ward'z Wonderz
You can run...

See all Archives
Newsletters

Edited by Christian Lowe | Contact

Spyboys Go Web 2.0

Last week, the New York Times and some civil libertarians got all grossed out by a government plan to monitor the foreign press for its opinions of America. "It is just creepy and Orwellian," Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said.

audiomonitoring.jpgSo no one tell Lucy about this system keeping tabs on overseas TV channels, 24/7, for the military, ok? She's liable to get real upset.

BBN Technologies' Broadcast Monitoring program pumps a TV channel -- Al-Jazeera, say -- through a set of servers, which do a quick-and-dirty transcription of the audio into Arabic text. Then, that text is ported into English.

The initial results are something short of Berlitz. "Did not professional background political motive for fighting veil as might be introduction," was the interpretation for one recent Al-Jazeera news snippet. But it's good enough for keyword searches, or to give human translators the heads-up when there's something relevant happening.

A quick search for "Saddam trial," at yesterday's Association of the United States Army convention, produced 43 hits from the last week of Al-Jazeera coverage. (The system keeps 90 days' worth of TV on its hard drive.) Click on any of those hits, and you instantly get the Arabic text, the English text, and the video segment. It's like TiVo for spies -- with a transcription service built in.

A military psyops task force in Iraq is already using the system, according to BBN's Martha Lillie. So is U.S. Central Command headquarters in Tampa, Florida, and the office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs. The Army's 5th Special Forces Group, currently stationed at Iraq's Balad Air Base, is next in line.

All of these groups are using the systems (which go for anywhere from $110,000 to $190,000 per channel) for pretty much the same thing: track what the foreign press is saying about the U.S. It's part of a larger effort in the government to stop relying quite so much on snitches and mega-expensive spy satellites -- and start paying more attention to so-called "open source intelligence." Stuff out in the public sphere, in other words. "Perhaps our best source of information is the television," Rear Adm. Ronald Henderson, deputy director of operations for the Joint Staff, recently noted.

And while that may give some people the willies, it sure sounds like a good idea to me. We know jihadists are using everything from Hotmail to YouTube to Al-Jazeera to spread their messages, and do their business. Why not track them out in the open? Think of it as the Web 2.0 approach to spying: Let the bad guys supply the intel for us; we'll just make the connections.

Comments

why are you not answering me? Give me a break jake!

Posted by: reatha kershner at December 21, 2006 04:20 PM


am i a CIA agent?

Posted by: reatha kershner at December 21, 2006 12:51 AM


i have been told sence I was knee high to a grasshopper that I would make a good spy...my huband Richard thinks I should join the CIA :)
Having any openings!?
Thank You,
Reatha Kershner

Posted by: reatha kershner at October 16, 2006 12:39 PM


OSINT analyst:

Drop me a line at defense-AT-defensetech-DOT-org, willya?

nms

Posted by: Noah Shachtman at October 13, 2006 03:53 PM


FBIS (now OSC) does perform a function like this, but they do not have the human power to cover each and every station they would like to -- or in a completely timely fashion. I agree with you, it is definitely worth the $ to train soldiers in foreign languages, but that won't happen overnight. It requires 2-3 years of training to become reasonably proficient, and the DoD isn't really wired up that way. FWIW, cleared linguists make on the order of $150,000/yr, and that is their salary, not the cost to the government. So even if you "have" the linguist, they aren't exactly free.

Regarding David's comment below: systems like the one described above are designed to act primarially as a triage engine -- they don't replace human analysts (or translators, for that matter!) -- they are designed to act as a force multiplier.

Posted by: OSINT Analyst at October 13, 2006 03:40 PM


Isn't this just a duplication of what the Foreign Broadcast Information Service does? How hard would it be to wire the DOD and services up to the FBIS's web server? Heck, if the DOD chipped into the FBIS in exchange for access, the CIA could hire more all-source intelligence analysts to cover more media.

Call me a neo-luddite, but I think it would be wiser to spent that $100,000 a channel on language training for our intelligence analysts.

Posted by: Robot.Economist at October 13, 2006 01:58 PM


As an officer in the diplomatic service, working overseas for twenty-five years with the U.S. Information Agency, I was both a producer and consumer of what is call Media Reaction Reporting throughout that time. This is a system that started with USIA in the fifties, and for all I know continues today within the Public Diplomacy service of the State Department now that USIA has been abolished.

Thus, the idea that we are monitoring the opinions expressed in the foreign press is not at all startling or alarming to me. Would that there were policy leaders in the U.S. government who actually paid attention to these reports; they might actually learn something that way.

What is alarming is the idea that people within the government think that these translation and "opinion monitoring" automated systems work. I have worked with them extensively, and they are oversold, overpriced, overblown, and underperforming. They in essence pretend that you can teach a computer to understand and report on the meaning of a natural language document, and on a very profound level, that's not possible.

The tragedy is that money is spent on these pipe dreams that sound so sexy, and thus not spent on more modest systems that actually work, and might produce something real.

Posted by: David at October 13, 2006 09:56 AM


I agree. It's an excellent idea. Some people, however, are pusses.

Posted by: Brian at October 12, 2006 07:21 PM


What would be the big deal about the gov't monitoring foreign press. U.S. companies do the exact same thing overseas and domestically. Not only do they track the overall tone of the coverage in general but also the tone of individual publications and bylines. The gov't SHOULD be doing this - it is one of the best ways to guage world opinion.

Posted by: Bill at October 12, 2006 04:42 PM


Post a comment




Remember Me?


Please enter the code as seen in the image below to post your comment.