Diagnosing Distortion In Source

Reporting
Lessons For HUMINT Reliability
From Other Fields
 Concept Development
• Initial concept: Reliability scale
– Devise scale for analytic products
• Obstacle: Unrefined concept
– Whose reliability is measured?
– What are the factors of reliability?
• Final concept: Separate and focus
– Separate asset vetting
– Focus on internal USIC process
 Purpose and Rationale
• Examine distortion in source Source Collector
reporting caused by the
HUMINT process
• Take an initial step towards
development of a workable
reliability scale
Editor Analyst
• Inject the HUMINT process
with applicable experiences
from parallel fields
 Literature Review
• No writings address the thesis topic directly
• Most focus on spies and espionage
• Specialists tend to overindulge in
USIC/policymaker relations
• Noteworthy writings include:
– Kessler’s Spy vs Spy (1988)
– Goffman’s Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (1959)
 Methodology
• Define key players in HUMINT
Process
• Examine how they can introduce
distortion to source reporting
• Bolster analytic rigor by injecting
writings from fields with similar
processes
 HUMINT Process – What?
Distortion (unintentional or purposeful) can take
place at four stages in the HUMINT process:
– 1. When intelligence is provided
– 2. When it is gathered and reported
– 3. When reporting is analyzed
and threats are assessed
– 4. When the finished product is
edited and approved
Similar Fields • Anthropology
– Field researcher, report writer,
review board
• Journalism
– Reporter, writer, editor
• Criminal Justice
– Detective, lawyer, judge
 HUMINT Process – Who?
These four stages involve the
following players:
– 1. Source provides intelligence
– 2. Collector gathers intelligence
and returns to file a report
– 3. Analyst studies the reporting
and reaches conclusions
– 4. Editor checks and approves
the finished product
 The Source
• Deception (purposeful)
– Hostile direction
– Financial strain
– Revenge
– Thrill seeking
• Error (unintentional)
– Poor recollection
– Limited perspective
– Biased viewpoint
 The Collector (nexus with source)

• Stress of circumstances
• Inadequate preparation
or background
• Poor interview techniques
 The Collector (writing the report)
• Poor recollection of
meeting details
• Limited grasp of
collection’s significance
• Misrepresentation of
source statements
• Lack of a feedback
mechanism
 The Analyst
• Aggregation and
generalization
• Poor preparation
• Stale intelligence
• Lack of access to source
• Limited perspective
 The Editor

• Final bulwark
• Overtaxed
• Relies on quality drafts
• Doesn’t rock the boat
• May stretch data to suit
 Conclusions
• Source reliability and source
reporting reliability ought to
be rated separately
• The research methodologies of
anthropologists, journalists,
and legal experts offer the
benefit of experience to
practitioners of the HUMINT
process
 Recommendations
• Need for reliability awareness training
for intelligence consumers
• Feedback and follow-up between
collector and source on reporting
• Use mock court to cross-examine
collector on source reliability
• USIC should write more on human
surveillance and reconnaissance
• USIC should write more on operational
theory
 Questions?

Prepared by Pat Noble

Thesis defense at Mercyhurst College
20 March 2009