February 2008

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18

19

20 21 22 23

24

25

26

27

28

29  

Editor Login


Convener in chief:


David Lazer
(Methodology, Networked Governance)

Editors:


Stanley Wasserman
(Current Trends, Methodology, Social Networks)

Allan Friedman
(Simulations)

Nathan Eagle
(Technology, Social Computing, Powerlaws, Current Trends)

Ben Waber
(Technology, Social Computing)
Thomas Langenberg
(Technology, Social Computing, Social Networks, Current Trends)

Ines Mergel
(Knowledge Sharing, Social Computing, Social Software, Current Trends)

Brian Rubineau
(Social Dynamics, Societal Networks, Simulations)

Maria Binz-Scharf
(Qualitative Methodology, Knowledge Sharing, eGovernment)

Jeff Boase
(Technology, Societal networks)

Alexander Schellong
(Admin, eGovernment, Citizen Relationship Management)

Categories

Archives

Recent Entries

Recent Comments

Notification


« Social Networking Services and disaster management in Japan | Main | Coming home on election day? Republicans, Democrats, and their partisan networks »

3 November 2006

The dark side to knowledge sharing: U.S. Web Archive Is Said to Reveal a Nuclear Primer

In an earlier entry I had blogged about an effort at "open source intelligence"-- a large archive of Iraqi documents that the US government placed on the web in the hope that the same type of open source dynamics underlying wikipedia, linux, etc, would fuel insights that the more old-fashioned, hierarchical US intelligence community could not match. The subtext was a hope by some on the Hill that evidence of imminent Iraqi nuclear capacity would be uncovered.

Well, chalk one up for clunky hierarchiy, because it turns out that hierarchical controls on information are sometimes more important than creative processing of that information.

A story in the NYT today (see excerpts below) discusses how that archive included sensitive information about how to build nuclear weapons that would shortcut the development process for other aspiring nuclear powers. In short, while the US was looking at the archive as an open source community for intelligence, Iran and others might look at it as an open source community on bulding nuclear weapons.

There is a much broader issue here about open source processes (which I am defining pretty broadly here), when they are desirable, when they are not. Essentially: in an adversarial system there is a need to prevent the adversary from participating in the knowledge sharing process. This, at times, can be hard or impossible to do. Another recent instantiation of this is the recent military effort to shut down "milblogs"-- blogs by soliders.

The tough tradeoff is that there are sometimes clear benefits to open source processes in terms of knowledge creation, but that that value creation process can destroy value if that knowledge falls in the wrong hands.

EXCERPTS

U.S. Web Archive Is Said to Reveal a Nuclear Primer
By WILLIAM J. BROAD

Last March, the federal government set up a Web site to make public a vast archive of Iraqi documents captured during the war. The Bush administration did so under pressure from Congressional Republicans who had said they hoped to “leverage the Internet” to find new evidence of the prewar dangers posed by Saddam Hussein.

But in recent weeks, the site has posted some documents that weapons experts say are a danger themselves: detailed accounts of Iraq’s secret nuclear research before the 1991 Persian Gulf war. The documents, the experts say, constitute a basic guide to building an atom bomb.

Last night, the government shut down the Web site after The New York Times asked about complaints from weapons experts and arms-control officials. A spokesman for the director of national intelligence said access to the site had been suspended “pending a review to ensure its content is appropriate for public viewing.”

Officials of the International Atomic Energy Agency, fearing that the information could help states like Iran develop nuclear arms, had privately protested last week to the American ambassador to the agency, according to European diplomats who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the issue’s sensitivity. One diplomat said the agency’s technical experts “were shocked” at the public disclosures.

Early this morning, a spokesman for Gregory L. Schulte, the American ambassador, denied that anyone from the agency had approached Mr. Schulte about the Web site.

The documents, roughly a dozen in number, contain charts, diagrams, equations and lengthy narratives about bomb building that nuclear experts who have viewed them say go beyond what is available elsewhere on the Internet and in other public forums. For instance, the papers give detailed information on how to build nuclear firing circuits and triggering explosives, as well as the radioactive cores of atom bombs.

...

The Web site, “Operation Iraqi Freedom Document Portal,” was a constantly expanding portrait of prewar Iraq. Its many thousands of documents included everything from a collection of religious and nationalistic poetry to instructions for the repair of parachutes to handwritten notes from Mr. Hussein’s intelligence service. It became a popular quarry for a legion of bloggers, translators and amateur historians.

...

In Europe, a senior diplomat said atomic experts there had studied the nuclear documents on the Web site and judged their public release as potentially dangerous. “It’s a cookbook,” said the diplomat, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of his agency’s rules. “If you had this, it would short-circuit a lot of things.”

...

A senior American intelligence official who deals routinely with atomic issues said the documents showed “where the Iraqis failed and how to get around the failures.” The documents, he added, could perhaps help Iran or other nations making a serious effort to develop nuclear arms, but probably not terrorists or poorly equipped states.

Posted by David Lazer at November 3, 2006 7:12 AM

Comments

The tension between essentially private and open exchange, it turns out, has been theorized in a line of thought that (I am a little chagrined to say) goes back now over fifteen years - in fact first cobbled together when I was at KSG in CBG!

Suffice it, for purposes here, that the conception notices a repeated cycle between open and closed. For the discussion in papers, standardization and innovation are the instances for the two halves of the cycle. Standardization proceeds of course in an open exchange; innovation will take advantage of the opposite and proceed 'adversarily' - in hopes of all the fruits competition may bring of course. Essential to the conceptualization is an approach across time - 'dynamically,' rather than with the usual comparative statics.

Numerous cases illustrate just how pervasive is this primitive cycle, in experience. Underlying cognitive machinery appears to make some sense for why the pervasiveness.

Some years after this series of papers began, the notion of open source arose into common use, to give a shorthand name and put the cycle into common parlance, if not recognized in fact as a cycle. The community behavior underlying is, however, as old as the race. Our challenge naturally is to make sense of that dynamic. Social network analysis holds out one of the possibilities for a dynamic approach that may bring tools, even insight!

While I am far from satisfied with the existing papers, there has so far not been time to write a more concise description. If / To take a look, try pages 110-121 in this pdf (pp 13-23 in pdf page numbers) of a book chapter from '98, published in Sweden. http://www.davidallen.org/papers/Dynamic%20Policy.pdf A later, and more convoluted, piece is the paper with the link name Liberal Evolution, for instance in the Directory there.

David Allen

Posted by: David Allen at November 7, 2006 9:27 AM

Notification

Enter e-mail address to receive notification of new comments to this entry

Post a comment




Remember Me?