Journal: From WikiLeaks to OpenLeaks–and Local News

07 Other Atrocities, Civil Society, Collective Intelligence, Corporations, Counter-Oppression/Counter-Dictatorship Practices, InfoOps (IO), Journalism/Free-Press/Censorship, Media, Open Government, Real Time, Secrecy & Politics of Secrecy, Tools
0Shares

Micah L. Sifry | December 17, 2010 – 4:01pm

Back in 2009, Daniel Domscheit-Berg applied to the Knight News Challenge in the name of Wikileaks for $532,000 to fund a project to “improve the reach, use and impact of a platform that allows whistle-blowers and journalists to anonymously post source material.” At the time Domscheit-Berg was known to the world by the pseudonym “Daniel Schmitt” and made frequent appearances on behalf of Wikileaks alongside its editor-in-chief Julian Assange (including at the October 2009 Personal Democracy Forum Europe conference in Barcelona). Now, as is widely known, he and Assange have parted ways and Domscheit-Berg is part of a group organizing the launch of OpenLeaks.org, which is being described as more of a technological service provider to media organizations than as a central hub for leaks, and which is promising to roll out a detailed description of its organization and plans in January 2011.

It's illuminating to compare the 2009 Wikileaks News Challenge proposal–which made it to the final round of the prestigious program but was ultimately rejected by the Knight News Challenge judges–to Domscheit-Berg & Co's current plans for OpenLeaks. Obviously, until OpenLeaks starts functioning, we are comparing two different versions of “vaporware,” but in the same way that Wikileaks itself has evolved over the last year, I think you can see a parallel evolution how Domscheit-Berg and the others in his group are thinking about how best to expand the open information model as well.

Read fascinating article and entirety of the original WikiLeaks proposal….

Search: return of investment for information sys

InfoOps (IO), Intelligence (government), IO Sense-Making, IO Technologies, Methods & Process, Officers Call, Technologies
0Shares

This search is a VERY important one, and does not yield the correct answer, which is in itself an indictment of information technology.

The correct answer is NEGATIVE, and Paul Strassmann, former Director of Defense Information, is the person who established this fact for the top corporations, although he likes to soft-shoe it and say neutral or negative.Ā Ā  NOT positive.Ā  There is no Return on Investment (RoI) for information technology in and of itself.Ā  He first disclosed this in his keynote luncheon presentation at OSS '96, and then published a book.Ā  Both links are below. Paul Strassmann is one of our heroes–he has NOT been listened to carefully enough, and is in our little black book as a “must have” advisor for any future Information Operations (IO) “break-out” but only if he signs a non-compete and forgoes any association with any of the vendors selling vapor-ware (which is to say, all of them).

1996 Strassmann (US) U.S. Knowledge Assets: Choice Traget for Information Crime

Review: Information Productivity–Assessing Information Management Costs of U. S. Corporations

In Case of DoD Specifically:

2006 General Accountability Office (GAO) Defense Acquisitions DoD Management Approach and Processes Not Well-Suited to Support Development of Global Information Grid

2004 General Accountability Office (GAO) Report: Defense Acquisitiions: The Global Information Grid and Challenges Facing Its Implementation

2002 The New Craft of Intelligence–What Should the T Be Doing to the I in IT?

See Also:

Graphic: Cyber-Threat 101

Graphic: Tony Zinni on 4% ā€œAt Bestā€

Graphic: Jim Bamford on the Human Brain

Journal: Return on Investment Missing from IT World

Journal: Systems Design & ā€œReverse Innovationā€

Journal: Bees’ tiny brains beat computers

Continue reading “Search: return of investment for information sys”

Journal: Dennis Kucinich Introduces Monetary Reform

03 Economy, 07 Other Atrocities, 11 Society, Budgets & Funding, Civil Society, Collective Intelligence, Commerce, Commercial Intelligence, Corporations, Counter-Oppression/Counter-Dictatorship Practices, Cultural Intelligence, Government, InfoOps (IO), Methods & Process, Money, Banks & Concentrated Wealth, Power Behind-the-Scenes/Special Interests, Strategy
0Shares
Dennis Kucinich

Dear Friends of the American Monetary Institute,

IMPORTANT MONETARY NEWS ALERT: Ā  MAJOR, HISTORIC PROGRESS BEING MADE

On Friday December 17th Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D,Ohio, 10th District) took a crucial and heroic step to resolve our growing financial crisis and achieve a just and sustainable money system for our nation by introducing the National Emergency Employment Defense Act of 2010, abbreviated NEED. The bill number is Ā HR6550.

While the bill focuses on our unemployment crisis, the remedy proposed contains all the essential monetary measures being proposed by the American Monetary Institute in the American Monetary Act. These are what decades of research and centuries of experience have shown to be necessary to end the economic crisis in a just and sustainable way, and place the U.S. money system under our constitutional checks and balances. Yes it can be done!

We expect this bill will also be re-introduced next year in the 112th Congress. By putting it in now Congressman Kucinich accomplishes these important things:

* First, the seriousness of intent is underscored;

* Second, it gives our nation the opportunity to view, discuss and understand the necessary provisions, giving the chance to make improvements for re-introduction;

* Third it serves as a beacon to our beleaguered people, cutting through the error, vested interest and disinformation that has blocked monetary reform understanding and action in the past.

The American Monetary Institute has activated its blog to discuss and review any questions about this act. Just click on the blog link at our homepage.

To participate in this process, please sign up at the bottom of our home page at . Then, after reading the proposed legislation feel free to make comments or put questions on the blog, including thoughtful suggestions on how it might be improved.

You can read a copy of the legislation here.

Warm regards to all,
Stephen Zarlenga
AMI

See Also:

Dennis Kucinich on the Proposed Monetary Reform

New Economy Network

Dennis Kucinich, Vice President for the Commonwealth–and Some Details

Review (Guest): SALVAGING AMERICAN DEFENSE–The Challenge of Strategic Overstretch

5 Star, Budget Process & Politics, Economics, Force Structure (Military), Iraq, Military & Pentagon Power, Power (Pathologies & Utilization), Public Administration, Security (Including Immigration), Stabilization & Reconstruction, Strategy, War & Face of Battle
0Shares
Amazon Page

Anthony H. Cordesman; with Paul S. Frederiksen and William D. Sullivan (Author)

5.0 out of 5 stars Real Defense Exertise, December 22, 2010

Anthony Cordesman is by any rational measure an expert in defense, security, and intelligence issues. Virtually his entire career has been devoted to the study and analysis of these issues, yet he would probably be the first to note that he has also never stopped learning new things about all of them. All this is by way saying that this 2007 book that he authored is well worth reading and pondering.

Cordesman argues that the entire U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) is dysfunctional to such an extent that U.S. security is at risk. He documents his claim in 11 chapters organized as `challenges' to be over come. His central theme, however, and one that is revisited in almost every chapter is that for too long the civilian and military leadership of DOD has failed to link strategy, force plans, programs, and budget. Rather, these core DOD processes are each executed in a vacuum. Strategic goals do not inform organizational structuring of military forces or military design and procurement programs. The procurement programs in turn are not informed by either proposed or actual military force structure or operational doctrines. Strategy, force plans, and programs are not reflected in accurately in budget formulation. The Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) appears to be incapable of integrating these processes. DOD civilian management has equally failed to integrate these core processes. This across the board failure of leadership has been most clearly demonstrated in the congressionally mandated Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) that should have uncovered this lack of integration and argued for tying the budget formulation process directly to the design of force structures and programs designed to equip those structures. Instead the QDRs have steadily declined in quality to the point that the 2010 QDR was so badly formulated as to be palpably worthless.

Cordesman has done a good job in documenting the problems within DOD and has buttressed his argument with numerous charts and graphs. Still this book is a rather dry read although it is a very important analysis of the flawed processes by which DOD is trying manage the defense of America. It should also be noted that Cordesman and his two co-authors do not work for the government. Cordesman holds the Chair for Strategy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a widely respected Washington think tank. CSIS published this study.

Vote and/or Comment on Review

See Also:

Reference: Anthony Cordesman On Intelligence

Journal: Jim Clapper in Untenable Position

Government, InfoOps (IO), Intelligence (government), Officers Call
0Shares
Richard Wright

General Clapper is extremely qualified to be Director of National Intelligence (DNI) in terms of intelligence experience and management skills. Far too many senior management staff at CIA have proven incompetent time servers and selection of the DNI from the upper ranks of CIA would have to be done with extreme care.

The fact is however that no matter who is DNI, it is an untenable job. Although General Clapper supposedly received authority over 80 per cent of the intelligence budget my guess is that DOD and its friends in congress will make sure that he will be unable to exercise any real control over spending. Further no DNI appears to have had the full confidence of either President Bush or President Obama. With Leon Panetta as Director of CIA, that agency will continue to operate pretty much independent of the DNI. Finally the simple fact is that President Obama has apparently placed his full confidence in John Brennan and Brennan apparently thinks nothing of undercutting any intelligence official who might undermine his role as the Intelligence Authority for the President. If General Clapper would have asked me I would have told him to forget the DNI position and get himself a cushy job in private industry.

See Also:

Journal: Brennan Sandbags Clapper? The London 12

Harnessing Collective Intelligence to Save Democracy

Journal: Can’t Get No Satisfaction from US Intelligence Community…