Please discuss the counter-measures, innovation, and regulation involved in intelligence analysis and cyber-crime. Do not make all your points about just one of the readings. Please ensure that you make appropriate use, in-text citation, and reference to available source information to support your perspective (be sure to include why you consider these issues important).
Find a recent article, journal entry, or research paper on counter-measures, innovation, or regulation involving intelligence analysis or cyber-crime and analyze the article from a management perspective if you were address the countermeasure, innovation, or regulation in an intelligence analyst or cyber-crime program in your department.
in-text citation, and reference to available source information to support your perspective in APA style and format (500 words).
Thereafter, interact (by 11:55pm Sunday) with two or more classmates (250 cumulative words), e.g., explain why you agree or disagree with their post; confirm something you learned; inform them of other relevant information they may consider, etc.
Please organize your response according to the following example.
1) Intelligence as a Tool of Strategy
Briefly summarize it…xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Provide clear examples… xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Tell us what you think about it….xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
2) Intelligence Analysis: Behavioral and Social Scientific Foundations
3) National Strategies
In addition to the readings in the Lessons section of
– not counting the copied questions or references. Answer length is cumulative. That is, the total length to answer all the weekly questions or parts of questions is a minimum of 500 words, not 500 words for each question. 500 words for initial posts and 300 words for responses Minimum length is
class it is important to do your own academic research.
Classmate responses must include at least one (1) additional academic response, from the library also in APA format, that was not used in the initial response or other student replies. That means a minimum of four (4) academic references each week. These references are in addition to those listed in the Lessons section which may be used in addition to the sources you provide from the library.
Academic references may not include your text or required readings for this course. They must be peer-reviewed professional journal articles found in the school online library. Wikipedia, magazines (like Police Chief or Law & Order), news articles, FBI Bulletins and Google-sourced web sites are not considered academic references.
Naturally additional references, both academic and non-academic, may be used and are encouraged. This is a discussion forum and should be used as such.
The MINIMUM standards of three postings per week, as well as the number of words and references, are just that – the minimum. While this will allow a student to pass a course, those who are satisfied to do the minimum usually earn a grade of C – average – for a course. If you want a better grade you have to earn it by consistently doing more than the minimum.
All posts must be substantive and add to the discussion. Your responses should contribute in a meaningful way to helping advance our knowledge of the topics the class explores. Simple agreement and “good job” comments are a waste of time and space and will not count towards the length requirements so don’t use them.
Your grade for participation in weekly forum discussions will be in accordance with the rubric provided. Your forum grade will encompass both your original posting and your classmate responses.
Work that is late, missing, or that does not follow the assignment requirements will lose assignment points, up to and including a zero grade for the assignment.
Unless specified differently, these directions will apply to each weekly forum discussion.
Be sure to click on the Forum line in your Gradebook and read my comments each week, in addition to your grade. This provides feedback on your work, additional information on the discussion, and will help you get the best possible grade each week.
***************************Week 1 Lesson*************************************
The focus of this week is to provide students with the opportunity to review and discuss select introductory information on historical aspects of criminal intelligence, organized crime, and U.S. and international law enforcement agencies. Among the issues to consider are the relationship between intelligence analysts and policy makers; consumers’ role in the intelligence process; and ODNI’s solution to emerging problems. After completing the assigned readings, students must engage in substantive forum discussions with classmates on the indicated topic(s) and retain some of this knowledge for consideration in later segments of the course.
The relationship between intelligence analysts and strategists/policymakers
The relationship between intelligence and strategy is vital in creating policies that protect U.S. national security. Aclin (2010, p. 265) presents “two schools of thought” regarding the relationship between intelligence analysts and strategists, i.e., “distance” and “proximity” schools.
Distance school argues that intelligence analysis must remain separated from the strategy stage in order to avoid any influence that could manipulate the objectivity of the final evaluation. Analysts can then be “sheltered from undue pressure and can form their assessments independently” (Aclin, 2010, p. 265). This ensures that analysts remain open to different trends or predictions that may not always be supportive of the policies present.
At the other spectrum, “proximity” school rationalizes that constant interaction and collaboration between both parties would create a stronger camaraderie which would lead to better products. This school of thought argues that integrating analysts in the planning stages would provide them with insights to the strategists “immediate intelligence requirements,” specific “needs or perspectives,” and the “priorities and challenges” faced (Aclin, 2010, p. 265). Informing intelligence analysts about the context of why particular intelligence is needed and what strategists already know or do not know could eliminate redundancy and determine missed intelligence gaps.
Both processes have obvious advantages and disadvantages; finding a balance between both is vital in ensuring successful objective long-term strategic planning. Students tend to lean more toward the “proximity” school of thought believing that human nature tends to thrive more within a close-knit relationship that fosters trust, confidence, and a team player mindset. In order to avoid pitfalls such as “analytic bias” which occurs when “intelligence officers are involved in policy decisions,” there must be a constant check and balance from both analysts and strategists to ensure that inappropriate lines are not crossed (Aclin, 2010, p. 266). This ensures that objectivity remains uncompromised and forces strategists to look at other avenues of data.
Consumers’ role in the intelligence process
The business of intelligence is like every other business; it exists to provide a service to consumers. Fingar (2011, p. 5) indicates that the 16 distinct agencies in the Intelligence Community (IC) provide “tailored support” which “serves different, and somewhat unique, customers and missions.” It is important to not only understand what customers are requesting, but also for customers to understand and be sensitive to the limitations for intelligence analysts.
According to the National Criminal Intelligence Resource Center (2013), customers must understand what their role is in the intelligence process and what is expected of them. Customers should “integrate the IC into their operational cycle and processes;” “expect intelligence support to be a push-and-pull process;” “state their requests specifically;” “share what they know” and don’t know; “share their timeline;” and “provide feedback” (p. 36). Customers must buy into an equal partnership with the IC in order for a smooth transaction to take place. If strategists demand information with unrealistic expectations [such as a short timeline] final assessments could minimize the discovery of gaps and disregard essential potential trends or future scenarios.
ODNI’s solution to emerging problems
Instead of following previous standard operating procedures of solving new problems with old solutions like creating new centers and hiring more analysts to fulfill new, more complex requests from modern day customers, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) decided to improve the situation at hand without requiring additional limited resources. The ODNI’s resolution instead was to use a “mapping exercise” to “determine where the IC had sufficient expertise…, where gaps existed… and where there was potential to ‘grow’ expertise” (Fingar, 2011, p. 20).
Fingar (2011) introduces three major objectives to collaborating experts throughout the intelligence field – (1) to routinely integrate “outside experts” into the IC for fresh perspectives; (2) use them as “sounding boards for ideas;” and (3) to “nurture these relationships so they could be activated immediately in the event of a crisis or extremely short fuse requirements” (p. 23). It is evident that collaboration is necessary in order to eliminate deficiencies, redundancies, and intelligence gaps. It adds on to the holistic perspective and ensures that every possible prediction is brought to the table.
Despite these advantages, there will always be a downfall to sharing information among different organizations beyond and within the IC, e.g., compromising covert “sources and methods” (Fingar, 2011, p. 23). To decrease these concerns, it would be imperative to create a specific criterion in order to provide a controlled outflow of situation critical information while eliminating the outflow of unnecessary information. The validity of information received from outside experts greatly diminishes since resources and techniques are virtually 100 percent unverifiable.