Strategic Intelligence
Human intelligence is one of the best sources of information. However, one would question why it stands out among other types of data collection methods. Upon a careful review of the literature, human intelligence is indeed crucial because it has withstood the test of time in various ways (Krizan 1999, 22). In other words, research has proven that human intelligence cannot be replaced by any other type of data collection in the intelligence discipline. Why is human intelligence irreplaceable yet there is intensified advancement in technology where other techniques can be used? This post provides a sound answer to this question. I also feel that human intelligence is older than technology. Before technology came into being, the man was a relevant tool through which information was stored and retrieved whenever the need arises.
Besides, technological equipment such as sensors may fail but human intelligence will always be available. According to the author, “undercover police and federal agents engage in HUMINT regularly, as it is the most basic form of gathering information for any purpose” (Champion 2005, 1671). However, this post does not point out how reliable human intelligence is as compared to other types of data collection tools. Being the most basic and ancient source of information, it is expected that there are perceived limitations. Why would one think of coming up with technical intelligence? Probably, Human intelligence ceased to be reliable, and hence, there was a need for a more sophisticated tool that could trigger the use of technical intelligence. However, despite TECHINT being credible in its way, how well is it suited to security intelligence tasks? How better is it than HUMINT? These are some of the critical questions that need to be taken into consideration for one to be fully convinced that TECHINT and HUMINT are the best reliable type of data collection.
The collection process requires effective skills to make conclusions from a wide range of general information. Such information can be derived from open sources such as public, government records, media reports, books, periodicals, and the internet (Scott 1999, 217). Certainly, the majority of the open sources are often underestimated yet they play a vital function in providing information that can be fundamental in the intelligent unit. However, it is important to question why some of the open sources are considered to be less useful. Besides, which are the most recommended sources of information and why? These questions are not carefully addressed in this post. Another question that comes into mind is, how can collection efforts be made effective?
This post considered signal Intelligence (SIGINT) to be the best type of collection. However, is SIGINT better than HUMINT and TECHNINT? Why is it widely applied by national policymakers unlike other forms of the collection? Imagery Intelligence (IMINT) is a result of a change in the intelligence dimension. It is vital to mention that “…greatest cross-cueing in which are the most useful is the actual use of SIGNIT with IMINT under layer…” (National Commission on Terrorist Attacks 2005, 9). One might be tempted to question whether two forms of collections can be used simultaneously. If that can be the case, how effective would one form of collection be opposed to both forms? Research has shown that different forms of collection methods can be used to complement each other as they can give information that might be unexplored.
References
Champion, Christopher. 2005. “The Revamped FISA: Striking a Better Balance between the Government’s Need to protect itself and the forth amendment.” Vanderbilt Law Review 58, no. 5:1671-1703.
Krizan, Lisa. 1999. Intelligence essentials for everyone. Washington DC: Books for Business.
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks. 2005. “Staff Statement No. 9”. Law Enforcement, Counterterrorism, and Intelligence Collection in the United States Prior to 9/11. Web.
Scott, Rogers. 1999. “Territorially Intrusive Intelligence Collection and International Law.” AFL Rev v 46, no 1: 217-223.