It surprises me in business discussions nowadays how often the notion of idealism is bundled with those of gullibility and naïveté. Idealism seems to have become a disparaging term used in direct opposition to focus, leadership, strength etc. It seems oddly normal to dismiss idealists as nitpickers who are somehow in the way pragmatists who want to get the job done.

This is strange when one considers how the general public have such an appetite for movies such as The Insider, Erin Brockovitch, and All the President’s Men … similarly how whistleblowers like Sherron Watkins, the former Enron accountant, are handsomely paid to tell and retell their stories on speaker circuits around the world. Are we not forgetting that the real life protagonists were idealists… men and women who ignored danger and job security to pursue truth and fairness?

In the intelligence world idealism is perhaps the critical motivator that fuels the dedication, awareness and accountability that drives individuals to notice the potentially discordant notes, red flags and clues that signal disaster. We reject the input of these folk at our peril! 

While I am no Luddite, I do believe that consistent over-reliance on technology often has the effect of dulling human senses and locking the average person into the realm of the known and the measured. This would be devastating to Intelligence gathering that depends on human awareness of the red flag, the discordant note, the hunch… as well as the ability to report findings back to decision-makers in good time.

An article I recently read refers to inexpensive sensors attached to any object, human or otherwise, that easily communicate data/findings back to a network in any number of combinations - Sounds ultra cool, but I am guessing the sensors can only report back in line with known programming… What about stuff that has never been recorded or measured …Much like on-line customer service, the human attempt to report back is often thwarted if it does not fit into a pre-decided category. Worse still, will our awareness become so dimmed that we will not even notice anything untoward?

For the full article:

http://www.itbusiness.ca/it/client/en/home/News.asp?sub=true&id=53030

The difference between Intelligence and Information cannot be more clearly illustrated than by the Globe & Mail article today entitled China speaks and the world finally listens!

For years, many have predicted that China’s emerging economic might would allow it to assert itself on the world stage. Preferring to bide its time, silently observing, yet keeping out of Western preoccupations and allowing others to think of it as an undeveloped nation,  a confident China has now stepped into the econo-political limelight as a major partner.    

This is information! For those who had hoped to curry favour with China, sew up cozy deals or even safeguard critical industry, the time is past. Any competitive edge would have been gleaned by those who, following good Intelligence, predicted this eventuality…and took action accordingly…In good time!  

It is surprising in an era where financial calamity is rampant and the average investor is powerless in the face of global trends that so few seem prepared to look further than leading internet sites for information.

Pressed for time, it seems people find it easier to go with the flow. Don’t get me wrong, I use the internet all the time, but importantly in conjunction with intelligence gleaned from substantial and purposeful interaction with a diverse network of business acquaintance as well as the odd gem of information or series of clues picked up randomly from articles, newspapers or conversations.

Simply ‘skimming the net’ as some advocate when research is needed, leads in the main to the highest ranking Google hit or put another way, to what most people know already. True intelligence reflects what most people do not know. Those with heightened awareness to this reality will find real information that if acted upon will encourage safe investment outside the patterns of the herd.

Informed research showed months ago that a financial calamity was in the making. Exorbitant property prices, easy and seemingly limitless mortgages were too good to be believed. Alarm bells alerted the savvy investor who then dug out hidden signs of market weakness that presaged an inevitable crash. It is only human to believe in proven patterns, but has history not shown over and over again that a good thing cannot last?  It is often beyond the will of most to conduct exhaustive internet searches that uncover unpopular and discordant opinion. Heeding these as a matter of course and factoring them into strategic planning can only be of benefit.

The Maxime Bernier ‘bug in the bed’ brouhaha beautifully illustrates the fact that good intelligence is focused on what might happen in the future.

The issue that would have faced intelligence agents would turn not on what rules applied to his breach of security but whether or not he might advertantly or inadvertently disclose vital information to a potential intelligence source.

Senior politicians under the illusion of absolute power have and always will be monitored by intelligence/security agents. Like it or not, even heads of state, royalty and other VIPS privy to classified information are monitored by intelligence services around the world. If CSIS indeed had the former Foreign Minister’s relationship with Ms. Couillard under watch, it would have been doing its job well.

We Canadians are historically an inoffensive bunch and since the demise of the Cold War have perhaps become complacent in our intelligence awareness. I certainly am told often enough by business folk, when mentioning the possibility of wire/internet monitoring that “This is Canada…you are paranoid…”  We forget that Canada was an ideal venue (and indeed complicit in) for spying at the height of the East/West conflict. We have at our disposal perhaps one of the most sophisticated intelligence capacites in the world.

We in business would do well to remember that forearmed is forewarned…In our own operations how many of us/our team let critical information walk out the door everyday. So much valuable information can be gathered by those aware of this very human fallibility. How often do we not carelessly leave work related documents unattended or even talk about stuff that would best be kept under wraps? To err is human…yet others profit by it…Only enhanced awareness and mistake management will improve our security rating.

Canadian society prides itself on pretending not to look at/listen to strangers. So, in public, we continue to talk on cell phones, work on computers and carry on conversations, blissfully unaware that interested parties might be lurking…purposely or by chance!

ISP Spying on Customers: Shades of the HP Scandal?

Nestor Arellano’s interesting article this week in itbusiness.ca outlines the legal issues surrounding the Legal Privacy Commissioner’s investigation of complaints about “Bell Canada's alleged 'Big Brother' conduct. Bell, Rogers and other large ISPs could be using "deep packet inspection" techniques to dip into private Internet data and e-mail contents of their clients, says the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC).”

Much like the Hewlett-Packard scandal that revolved around spying on Board members and journalists a few years back, it appears that the use of technology legally deployed for one use might well be used for other purposes that are not quite so legal. Simply put, the question arises whether it is reasonable or not to expect spying to take place if it is well within individual/organizational capacity to do so. Again the facts of the ISP spying issue involve a discussion as to whether or not spying is legal if due warning is given to those spied upon!

Deep packet inspection it would appear is akin to “opening a letter and reading its contents” while shallow packet inspection technology allows ISPs to read the headers of data packets being transmitted on the Internet. The technology is apparently used for “network efficiency purposes” and "Internet traffic management"   

No matter the legal outcome of this investigation, all organizations would do well to sustain constant awareness of evolving technology and the inherent/corresponding threat to privacy. We should perhaps work from the underlying assumption that there is no such thing as internet privacy! Just because we morally believe we are entitled to privacy does not mean that is what we will recieve. The greatest danger facing any organization in this regard is to allow the thinking process to fly out the door once technology is deployed. The daunting task of raising this awareness requires buy-in from every member of staff. This is not something that can be legislated, delegated, outsourced or even prescribed.

Read the full story: http://www.itbusiness.ca/it/client/en/home/News.asp?id=48366

The recent scandal involving Timothy Goeglien, deputy director of the White House Office of Public Liaison, serves to illustrate the frightening prevalence of professional recycling of information rather than creation/writing of original content. 
 

Goeglien, who presented a Dartmouth College publication as his own work in an article about education is, according to newspaper reports, a habitual plagiarist. How different is this from so many of us today who run to Google as the first point of reference in the search for information? So busy are we that the first few hits just have to do. I am quite sure that this is considered valid research by many...In haste for ready answers, is much thought given to who wrote the material or even by whom it was posted?  Most professionals lead such fast paced lives that they have no time to agonize over issues, let alone think out original angles and viewpoints. The situation is compounded by the unfailing quest our society has for certainty – There is no room for error! Rather than a wonderful tool-kit, the overwhelming array of modern Information Technology available today is seen as a panacea that delivers information without effort. I cannot help but repeat Marshall McLuhan’s notion that technology extends, rather than replaces, human capacity!

What has this to do with Intelligence?  

Intelligence deals with foreknowledge – What might or might not happen in the future! This requires thinking, analysis, research, distillation of material and the formulation of a theory – All involving risk! Logically if there is neither time nor inclination for an exploration of original content, then information will, of necessity, be sought, risk free, at the trough of the tried, tested and proven. Without good intelligence - What we know that others don't - Will we seriously be able to talk about future predictions? 
 

That our culture favours second-handing and recycling known information bears some scrutiny: Take a look at most media reports today – Despite diverse political leanings we see the same generic material and photographs all clearly downloaded at the same point. So much easier tapping into someone else’s source! Countless articles, seminars, speeches and talks all quote extensively the words of others. How often do we hear the words: "I think/believe..." followed by a truly original statement?

I am often chided for not providing seminar material electronically. Recently, one dear soul actually had the gall to tell me: “It saves me having to scan your work...that way I can just cut and paste the useful diagrams and paragraphs I need for my own presentations”. Clearly not ashamed to admit pilfering the work of others for her own profit!   

I have noticed that most publishers and book-reviewers are loath to risk giving an opinion of entirely new or original content. They openly state preference for an extensive bibliography that enables a quick assessment of the materials provenance and proven worth. Similarly academic institutions are notorious for hobbling student thinking from the outset. How many masters’ degrees /doctorates are only awarded if content is kept within the known confines of professorial dictate?

In the corporate world those able to paraphrase the thinking of the latest gurus, bestsellers and the bosses in recognizable clichéd office speak, are heralded as ‘creative’, ‘brilliant’ and those who ‘get it’ , while more often than not, the truly creative and visionary are dismissed as ‘out there’ ‘negative’, or at best ‘eccentric’

Politicians from Tony Blair to Barack Obama have been accused of plagiarism in recent years. People of this stature obviously don't generate their own material...Instead young interns do their research (and by default, their thinking) for them. How often dont we see a breathless twenty-something thrusting a cue card with the obligatory 6 points into VIP hands at the last moment before a press conference/interview begins? Much of their input is reactive in nature...frantically
responding to the latest opinion polls rather than making a do or die stand over specific issues. 

I guess my point is that oftentimes people are not encouraged to think. Without thinking and taking risk they cannot create. That this happens in the supposedly highest political office in the world should give us pause...if it hasn’t already!  Small wonder the Bush administration's intelligence gathering record of late reflects the same lamentable mediocrity!  

Spying on employees and organizational associates made headlines in the now infamous HP scandal in 2006. Have employees learned anything? Have legislation loopholes been filled.

We live in an era when invasive spying technologies are deployed for reasons that make perfect sense, but with time are increasingly used for diverse purposes that fall outside of their original design.

Canadian technology daily, itbusiness.ca makes the interesting observation that the category of applications aimed at controlling employee web surfing currently reflects the top enterprise software sales growth.

The article entitled Use employee monitoring tools with caution, say Canadian experts

http://www.itbusiness.ca/it/client/en/home/News.asp?id=47032, states that while the Canadian PIPEDA laws protect employee information from external use, all information gathered from equipment owned by the company is fair game. Originally designed to give managers a big picture idea of employee activity, the most basic monitoring software allows them to spy on any employer at any time.  

In another article entitled Lawsuit filed over electronic searches, digital device inspections at border crossings U.S. Department of Homeland Security's Customs and Border Protection has on occasion copied the contents of traveller laptop/memory stick files and cell phone directories without providing any reason for doing so. The post 9/11 surveillance requirements, as well as the anti child pornography campaign are for some perfectly acceptable motivation for this practice. However, is it legal or ethical to appropriate random information belonging to innocent travellers with impunity?

Read the full article: http://www.itbusiness.ca/it/client/en/Home/News.asp?id=47090&bSearch=True

Coporate Intelligence Awareness demands that we be constantly vigilant as to the vulnerability of our information!   

In the aftermath of the U.S. Intelligence services Iran bombshell earlier this week, the comments of Republican John Ensign serve to highlight the frustration often faced by most intelligence gatherers – Reported content does not fit the goals/ambitions/aspirations of their masters!

Adding his voice to White House resistance to the latest Iran report, Ensign said: "Iran is one of the greatest threats in the world today. Getting the intelligence right is absolutely critical."

Does getting it right mean... “Bring me what I want to hear”?

How many of us in business are worn out by superiors who want either tailor made good news or insist on absolute proof before they are willing to accommodate unwelcome input. Either way, potential intelligence value is destroyed in an instant. How futile it is to then talk of vision, accurate predictions and competitive strategy....!   

So often when delivering Intelligence Awareness seminars, I find the secret nature of intelligence operations is beyond the understanding of many. I take great pains to link intelligence to strategy – If the competitor knows your strategy before it becomes a plan followed by a new action, service or product, then it is no longer a strategy. If what is being researched, investigated etc. is known/transparent, then the organizational goal is automatically compromised. 

So too in business, intelligence gathering secrecy is critical if strategy, potential future action, as well as the source from whence it comes, are to be safeguarded. The riskier the procurement and the more vital the strategy, the greater the need for security.  No matter any organizations accountability/transparency policies, intelligence cannot be and is never included. Should things go awry, the intelligence operation is disowned and will never be admitted without concrete proof. Understandably record keeping of sensitive action is not a priority. This paradox has always been present in government, military, security & high level business afairs.   

In the ongoing Air India Inquiry people seem astounded that documents cannot be found to back up intelligence reports preceding the attack. Today’s Globe & Mail quotes RCMP Commissioner William Elliott in discussing the seeming disconnect between the RCMP and CSIS as saying: “ CSIS exists to gather and keep intelligence while the police force exists to prosecute criminals - and criminal prosecutions sometimes require the disclosure of evidence that the spy service would rather keep secret.”

For the full story:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071207.wairindia07/
BNStory/National/?page=rss&id=RTGAM.20071207.wairindia07

Political opinion aside, the ongoing Iran intelligence wrangle between the U.S. Intelligence agencies and the White House beautifully illustrates the mercurial nature of the intelligence world. Either side could be right – Perhaps, as the White House crew insist, Iran is intent on developing nuclear weapons or, as the Intelligence people state, it is not. Intelligence involves a sliding scale of certainty, evidencing at any point in time what might happen on a balance of probability.  

In an age that clamours for proof, and with leaders that encourage the population at large to believe in absolutes, this is confusing to say the least. Consider Colin Powell’s presentation of Intelligence to the UN in 2003 prior to the invasion of Iraq. He presented weapons of mass destruction intelligence as proven fact or information, prompting fence-sitters/the uncertain to support the invasion. In fact, as we now know, he did little more than deliver bad intelligence to the world body. In the present situation, the world is forced to work with uncertainty in considering what Iran might be planning – Good intelligence will indicate on a balance of probability which side is right. As it turns out, public perception will be the deciding factor right now.

This is not an ideal state of affairs. Betrayal of trust has influenced public opinion and will certainly influence the course of action in the months/years to come.

So too in business, we would do well to remember that chickens do come home to roost. The future will always be uncertain and fraught with risk – Why make matters more difficult by rolling the dice with client, investor or public confidence?   

IT News today carries an interesting editorial entitled Password Leakers Revealed.

From an Intelligence standpoint the article explores several common aspects of how corporations let critical information and data walk out the door!

To read the article: 
 

An interesting Globe and Mail article on October 8, 2007 describes how Canada's asset-backed commercial paper market Coventree Inc. collapsed this summer. Especially interesting was that a top executive warned company directors and executives to no avail that “a hurricane might soon devastate one of the fastest-growing segments of the popular short-term debt market.”

This incident well illustrates the difficulty many executives experience in risking short term profits for long term advantage. In this case, the prospect of what might happen in the future was clearly ignored with serious consequence. 

Despite the known risks back in 2003 when the venture began, repeated and accurate warnings of disaster in January, February & March this year were ignored because the model was working well. The credit freeze in July forcing a market sell-off in July/August caught investors by surprise. "When the unlikely became a reality during this summer's meltdown, the disruption forced sponsors of an estimated $10-billion of extendible paper to start raising interest payments to investors by as much as a percentage point. The escalation in interest costs is causing multiple headaches for the investors behind the Montreal Accord". Presumably investors were not warned because to do so would have undermined confidence and jeopardized the flow of healthy profit.

According to the Globe & Mail article: “Internal e-mails and private correspondence at Coventree paint a disturbing portrait of a struggling public company and an increasingly jittery rating agency, both of which chose not to telegraph their mounting concerns to the company's shareholders or to investors who continued to plow billions of dollars of savings into ABCP… Neither Coventree nor DBRS publicly disclosed the rating agency's alarming notice or the news that the subsidiary had appointed a special committee. Oblivious to the turmoil, Coventree shareholders continued to buy stock in the company…”

Organizations that ignore intelligence and the prospect of a change in favourable business patterns and trends clearly do so at their peril. Unfortunately it is usually the trusting investor, taken in by the hype surrounding excellent profit, who caries the can.

Good intelligence predicts future business trends. Those with big picture awareness, good analytical competencies and basic leadership/service orientation will always gain the competitive edge.

Read the full article:
http://www.reportonbusiness.com/
servlet/story/RTGAM.20071008.wcoventree1008/BNStory/Business/?cid=al_gam_nletter_newsUp

 http://www.reportonbusiness.com/servlet/story/
RTGAM.20071010.wcoventreee1010/BNStory/Business/?cid=al_gam_nletter_newsUp

An interesting article in the Globe & Mail today quoted a recent Financial Times report, citing former and serving U.S. officials: “Chinese People's Liberation Army hackers broke into a U.S. Defence Department network in June, taking data and prompting the shutdown of a system serving Defence Secretary Robert Gates. This came just a week after German Chancellor Angela Merkel raised similar claims that Chinese hackers had infected German government ministries with spying programs.”

The task of any lawyer mirrors closely that of an effective intelligence worker - Pitting known parameters against what might happen on a balance of best probability. At any given time the lawyer has to sort out often complex client requirement against an existing body of law.  Contrary to what many might think this is not an absolute or open and shut process. Not only is client circumstance subject to contextual interpretation, but also constantly evolving global, national and regional bodies of law. Similarly eventual interpretations of both by opposing counsel, prosecutors, judges and juries add to the uncertainty of outcomes.

The ability of a lateral-thinking lawyer to inhabit the world of mights and maybes allows for the accurate anticipation of future legal interpretation and enables a powerful and strategic legal strategy that might or might not work. This is in essence what intelligence is all about. Roughly defined intelligence or foreknowledge comprises a series of clues that give rise to a theory that predicts future trends or events on a balance of best probability. Clearly this would be a challenge for most in the current era of absolutism and zero tolerance that calls for impossible certainty.

The Conrad Black prosecution is a case in point. The post Enron, WorldCom & 9/11 climate that resulted in the political clamour for accountability, transparency and certainty as well as the advent of the onerous Sarbanes-Oxley Act, made it clear that the legal interpretation of what constituted best business practice would change.

Legal advisors in this mind space, aware that the time of autocratic CEO’S and boards of directors was past, would have long ago warned clients to clean house and at very least to engage in drama that would sate shareholder and public thirst for transparency. I am almost certain that Conrad Black and the Hollinger crew had no criminal intent. Their notion of impunity and business practice was so entrenched, that they proceeded with business as usual. Perhaps the greatest public damage to Black was the media coverage of him removing his own property from his former office.  Did he have any idea that this would be interpreted as a criminal act? Similarly the Martha Stewart conviction was a milestone in the new legal, business and political climate. How many of us have acted on insider information and lied about it without sanction, just because it was considered the common practice of the time? Did Black or Stewart have any notion of wrongdoing? Did they or their legal advisors, in good time, factor in a political trend that was determined to send a clear message that times had changed?

The spike in what we refer to as Corporate Espionage is another dimension that brings the legal world head on into the world of intelligence. Espionage is in effect illegal or unethical gathering of data or information that its owners would prefer to keep hidden. The legal question then is what is legal or illegal. Technology has advanced to such a point that the individuals and corporations can spy on competitors, industry members and even their own employees just because they can. The Hewlett Packard scandal where the uproar over the telephone probe scandal and the subsequent resignation of Chair, Patricia Dunn brought the question of what constitutes ethical intelligence gathering home to the business world. The legal focus was on the justification of internal spying in safeguarding critical corporate information, raising the debate of justifiable versus legal spying. In the absence of clear legislation it could not be proved that Dunn and company had acted with criminal intent.

Another good example was the Air Canada/West Jet saga that if it had not been settled out of court, might have provided useful precedent. The case involved not only consideration of direct procurement of information via intimate knowledge of competitor Information Technology, but also the potential privacy invasion infractions involved in investigating whether spying had indeed taken place. In the US, the terms of the federal Economic Espionage Act (the EEA) and certainly in Canada the provisions of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) and the Telecommunications Act are clear that fraudulently obtained information is illegal. As the law stands, full prior disclosure is required unless the parties involved have signed prior waivers or agreements to the contrary.

The law however may be interpreted widely if disclosure compromises accuracy; for example, private or judicial investigators cannot be expected to announce their investigation. If one considers the rise in the use of the Anton Piller remedy that allows authorized civil search and seizure procedures, the boundaries become even more tenuous.

Both cases broadly illustrated the absence of clear legal guidelines and precedent as to how lawyers should guide and defend their clients. The advance of the ever evolving Competitive Intelligence industry, largely technical in nature, adds to the confusion. Will legislation alone ever succeed in defining what constitutes an offence? Interestingly Jason Kirby in his very pertinent article in MacLean’s, (July 2nd 2007) When the Spies are out of Control makes the point that at present only “being caught” turns “smart business into malfeasance”.

Until such time as legislation catches up with reality, the subjective input of each individual lawyer will be vital in guiding clients through the minefield of what future interpretation will be. For my part the age old adage of “…do unto others as you would have done unto yourself…” is perhaps the safest advice that can be given.

Jason Kirby’s relevant article When the Spies are out of Control in the July 2^nd edition of MacLean’s provides an interesting read. His contention that “…companies are increasingly faced with a lose-lose proposition when it comes to defending themselves” in effectively countering spies and thieves, will resonate with most competitive organizations today. The sheer scale of global espionage has become overwhelming in scope and extent.

Kirby goes on to discuss the shifting ground of corporate ethics and the ever increasing blurring of lines between espionage and competitive intelligence. His view that current mores indicate that only “being caught” turns “smart business into malfeasance”. I believe this to be especially true as the concept of Intelligence operates in the murky world of mights and maybes - what could happen in the future on a balance of best probability. A further complication is that most business folk today prefer the safe world of the tried and tested…what has been seen to work. Consequently we see reliance on expensive protective technology, which at best can only factor in known threats, as the only means of pre-empting the damage of ever evolving corporate espionage. More often than not organizations use the same off the shelf intelligence technology as their competitors or industry partners. Once a would-be spy/thief knows what technology has been deployed, the rest is plain sailing. The West Jet/Air Canada hacking/espionage saga that we witnessed some years ago was a case in point.  

Kirby’s thinking resonates with me as it echoes many of the ideas that I have addressed in my book Corporate Intelligence Awareness, Securing the Competitive Edge, published in November last year, I explore people awareness, in conjunction with developing technology, as the best possible defence.  Aware employees, sharing red flags/clues that appear will soon perceive patterns that will indicate a potential threat. Corporate Intelligence Awareness, in people terms, refers to innate human capacity to think creatively when faced with the unknown or unproven.  The greater the capacity of an organization and its people to work with confidence in the dimension of potentials, possibilities and maybes, the greater is its ability to accurately predict future threats. Conversely, this awareness will also enhance organizational capacity to gather competitor and industry intelligence in a legal and ethical manner. This input unquestionably ensures ongoing planning and strategy relevance.

Those organizations using my methodology, evolved from extensive diplomatic, international trade and Canadian consulting experience, report that they are well placed to protect important business information, data and corporate secrets. Pre-emption of what might happen is critical to this success

Intelligence is a world of maybe and might be!

The best one can hope for is a prediction on the balance of best probabilities... at any given time. Living in a world that clamours for impossible certainty, especially after the fact, one might forget that intelligence is foreknowledge…what might happen in the future…Is the future ever certain?

Bartleman handed in his raw intelligence and his job was done. His input would surely have been afforded importance against the context/priorities the greater analytical body had at the time. For Canada, and any country, disclosing intelligence would expose national priorities, intelligence activity and methodology. This is not a step taken lightly.

If Bartleman felt strongly enough about his own context/instinct at the time, he could have kicked up a ruckus…this would have been contrary to the world of intelligence's mores and would have necessitated a significant career price. Difficult to say what he should/should not have done years later….

The issue is that having decided to speak, why he did not speak up sooner…which brings us to another intelligence rule: Keeping one’s mouth shut is vital if process and efficiency is to be maintained. We the public know so little …and will never really know what goes on behind the scenes…Intelligence operations remain a closed world and unpopular….and have to remain so if they are to work at all… Hindsight provides a vantage point from which accusations that do not fit the intelligence context at the time can be made … We need to accept that humans are imperfect…

While the facts surrounding this particular case may never be known, we should remember that disclosure must be made on a case by case evaluation.

So, ask the question: Did the authorities do the best they could with the information they had at the time?

The testimony of Ontario Lieutenant-Governor James Bartleman at the Air-India inquiry this week clearly illustrates one of the biggest challenges facing the deployment of raw intelligence: Selling intelligence internally requires overcoming the resistance of decision-makers to work with the unknown or unproven! Once proven the intelligence has little or no strategic value.

In his capacity as Chief of Intelligence for Foreign Affairs in the 80’s Bartleman approached a high ranking RCMP official with the raw/unproven intelligence that an Air India flight would in all probability be attacked. Of the official’s reaction Bartleman said:  “He flushed…and told me: ‘I do not need anyone to tell me how to do my job’…”

After the fact, especially in a case such as this, the tragic consequences are undisputable, yet this same trend plays out everyday in the workplace. Good ideas and important intelligence are rejected for the simple reason that they are new or represent a departure from the tried and tested. Similarly, as in the case of the Air India tip-off, the intelligence is often unwelcome as it is received from an external source. Acceptance of value would create a supposed perception/admission of inefficiency. How much better to sweep it under the carpet?

The fear of being wrong is very human…for both the seller of intelligence and the decision-maker. The sooner decision-makers and importantly those selling information to them recognize this inevitability, the sooner we can deal more effectively with human behaviour that is unlikely to change. To my mind the seller of intelligence should persevere. Bartleman is now telling all…How much better would it have been if he had come forward at the time…hounding every avenue possible including the media? The price might have been professional suicide if he was wrong. As is only human, how many of us are prepared to pay this sort of price?

In overcoming inherent resistance to intelligence, an organizational awareness of the importance of intelligence awareness is critical. This is not accomplished overnight. Neither will regulations nor the purchase of intelligence technology alone solve the problem. Real meaning must be given to the imperfection of human concepts of Vision, Creativity, Risk, Change & Innovation. None of these concepts have any many meaning without a preparedness to work with the unknown and the possibility of error.

Of necessity negotiation, communication and courageous leadership competencies are prerequisites if intelligence is to be efficiently deployed.

Intelligence awareness then is a culture that accommodates and even welcomes the unknown.

·          Information + Context + Interpretation + Perceived Relevance = Intelligence/Foreknowledge

Good intelligence is the lifeblood of organizational dynamism. The organization that fosters this awareness will remain viable and competitive:

·          Uncertainty Demystified + Conscious Thinking + Leadership/Risk + Ripple Effect = Corporate Intelligence Awareness (CIA)

·          A Current Organization (Updated) + CIA + Innovation = Competitive Edge

The best intelligence gathering system and the best possible intelligence gathered is useless if it is not understood, accepted and acted upon (in good time) by decision-makers. 

Control & Legislation VS Awareness & Foresight

The recent comments made by Jennifer Stoddart , the Canadian Privacy Commissioner and her spokesperson Anne-Marie Haden, following the theft of customer information from the CIBC and Winners systems, drive to the heart of the Intelligence conundrum – Technology is uncertain and vulnerable to potential attack and cannot be defined until it happens. 

Stoddart’s comments indicate that despite the theft, both companies appeared to be in full compliance with the law. Haden added that “companies must abide by a set of principles outlined in PIPEDA, including identifying the purposes of collecting information, asking for consent of the individual, limiting the collection to what's necessary, and ensuring that the information is safe.”

I have found, as is perhaps the natural human tendency, that the majority of companies are loath to admit uncertainty into their operational planning. Current business values (e.g. the Sarbanes Oxley Act) demand and promise certainty via total compliance with security/privacy laws and a zero-tolerance approach to transgressors. The problem is if reputable organizations such as CIBC and TJX Cos., the U.S. parent firm of Canadian retailers Winners/HomeSense are not able to deliver certainty, then who can?

Much like terrorism, this approach can only close the stable door after the horse has bolted. Companies that factor the probable (what might happen) into their planning have a better chance of protecting their own and client information. Reliance solely on existing technology will erode the necessary vigilance of all the members of any organization. 

Corporate Intelligence Awareness vs. Competitive Intelligence

Pure Intelligence or Foreknowledge relies on ongoing people input - Their awareness of a series of seemingly random clues that if heeded, give rise to a theory, that if factored into a business equation (in time), will provide a distinct business advantage. A prediction as to what might happen on a balance of probability! Competitive Intelligence on the other hand is the loose term that refers to data management technology, which is an important and increasingly complex branch of the greater world of Business Intelligence.

As we have seen, information security technology is in its infancy and can at best only provide the illusion of certainty. The words of Marshall McLuhan to the effect that technology is an extension, not a replacement of human ability ring true. Organizations that download security solutions available to any prospective buyer automatically put information at risk. This is exacerbated by the tendency to purchase/download solutions that work or have worked for competitors.  The Air Canada/West Jet saga was a case in point. A competitor, familiar with the working of Air Canada’s information management system, was easily able to steal information despite state of the art technology.    

For the foreseeable future, acceptance of vulnerability, the fostering of an organization wide people awareness culture, coupled with evolving information/security technology customized to specific requirements (that include unique safeguards) will have the best shot at avoiding what happened to the CIBC and Winners/HomeSense. I believe it is not a stretch of the imagination to hope that, with the requisite awareness, the scores of IT and administrative personnel involved in both organizations might have foreseen and taken steps to avoid the possibility of information vulnerability.

A clear illustration of human error/carelessness leading to an information/security breach would be the recent exposure of a prison inmate who requested and received personal tax information of a former colleague from the Canadian Revenue Agency. Confidential information was provided despite set procedure designed to check discordant addresses and forged signatures!

People, their attitude and values at any point in time will shape the security effectiveness of any organization better than compliance with rigid legislation and reliance on developing technology. Our experience dictates a holistic solution/approach to the protection of information, with the emphasis on instilling an awareness of indicators that will always manifest themselves prior to potential security incidents.

The greater the capacity of an organization and its people to work with confidence in the dimension of potentials, possibilities and maybes, the greater the ability to realistically predict, recognize and prevent catastrophic breaches of security.