Social media is a potentially powerful source of information for the Intelligence Community, but the tensions between the government and the tech industry have made it more difficult for the IC to partner with industry in order to efficiently utilize it. The Cipher Brief asked Rhea Siers, former Deputy Associate Director for Policy at the National Security Agency, about this issue and its likely effect upon national security. Her take? There are bigger issues at stake here than social media, and both parties need to get smarter about working together in order to help keep people safe.
The Cipher Brief: Why is social media data important to the Intelligence Community? What benefits does it provide?
Rhea Siers: Clearly, there is value in social media data during ongoing crises (recall the Egyptian “revolution” and terrorist events). It can also provide data on how jihadist networks function in terms of propagandizing. There are a number of open source (OSINT) platforms that can analyze this data. OSINT is part of a holistic intelligence effort – it can provide context, alerts and background. This type of information has considerable value to intelligence analysts but it must meet incisive requirements, otherwise, it is simply another voluminous information source.
TCB: How does Dataminr’s decision play into the larger, ongoing conflict between the tech industry and the government?
RS: Several social media platforms (like Twitter) had already limited government access, although it did not limit access by private entities. This is about appearances – which is understandable – of not being seen as a willing participant in government surveillance and demonstrating to the market that the industry is protecting privacy. The tech industry wants to make its boundaries in regards to sharing information with the government. However, it seems less concerned about providing similar information to the finance industry and other concerns. Social media is about free speech and “special arrangements” disturb that image – at least in terms of government.
TCB: How will the friction between the tech industry and the government affect national security, if at all?
RS: Both sides have to choose their battles and collaborative efforts wisely, and frankly, the social media issue is not the most important dilemma to resolve. It is more important for the private sector, academia, and government to focus on building some sort of agreement for dealing with crisis situations and recognizing the importance of data privacy to the tech industry and to our national security interests. National security is dependent on the ability of the government to stay ahead of the curve technologically, to be able to foresee future threats and defenses. The government cannot do this alone and needs to continue building common ground with the private sector.
TCB: Similarly, how will this conflict affect current efforts by the Department of Defense (DoD) to build partnerships in Silicon Valley through ventures like the DIUx?
RS: Building trust means, as I noted previously, choosing your battles and priorities wisely. DoD’s investment in the Defense Innovation Unit Experiential (DIUx), the recent DIUx leadership changes, and the Defense Secretary’s decision to have DIUx report directly to him are all good faith efforts aimed at more constructive interaction with Silicon Valley. This is infinitely more constructive than an argument over using a social media analytic platform.
TCB: How do you see the conflict between the tech industry and the government playing out, and what can be done to mitigate its negative consequences? What can be done to help improve this relationship?
RS: On the DoD side, DIUx is an excellent step that needs to be emulated across the government. I think we also have to find ways to “cross pollenate” government and private employees so they can experience both sides without being encumbered by the draconian regulations for government hiring, which include difficult issues in both security clearance and ethics. This demands creativity, and it’s another area where innovation is critical.
