No story on conflict can start without a Sun Tzu quote. So here goes: “The weakness of the enemy is out in the open. Look deeply and you shall find it.”
Apologies. That is not a Sun Tzu quote.
The Chinese general who lived during the Eastern Zhou period (771-256 BCE) is believed to have authored The Art of War, a seminal book on military strategy. He is also one of the most misquoted people on the planet.
Anyone with a computer and a connection to the internet can make up and amplify what they want, including a fake Sun Tzu quote or, indeed, a false narrative during battles. And that is the kind of problem that open-source intelligence (OSINT) has found itself in. OSINT was supposed to be a key tool for normal people to make sense of the world around them.
For those who came in late, the dictionary defines OSINT as information that can be collected legally from the internet and is used by those whose job is to keep people and companies safe, but also by those who want to attack them.
That does sound pretty important, especially in the context of geopolitical conflicts. Wars these days are as much about perception as they are about real impact. At the heart of it are OSINT social media handles that break down the military jargon for you.
The availability of open-source intelligence— from satellite imagery to data in websites to publicly available records to social media to network data—has theoretically made it possible for even ordinary folks to curate an accurate picture of the world even during wars.
The operative word is “theoretically”.
As the latest India-Pakistan military conflict showed, OSINT is also a minefield of misinformation and propaganda. Anyone with access to satellite images, for example, passes off as an OSINT expert on social media, and that is the message that often gets amplified.
Therein lies the problem.
SPEED VS ACCURACY
Nico Dekens, aka Dutch Osint Guy, an open source intelligence consultant and trainer, reckons social media has made OSINT a game of who is first, rather than who is factually accurate.
“During the Ukraine-Russia war, the Israel-Gaza fighting and, most recently, Operation Sindoor on May 7, people discovered they could watch cruisemissile plumes or aircraft tracks in something close to real time, simply by following a handful of accounts on X (Twitter) or Telegram,” he says.
That very democratisation of access also results in the democratisation of creation. As Dekens says, for anyone with a nefarious intent to manipulate, “the barrier to entry is basically a screenshot”.
This has been complicated by a broader set of incidents, which happened over the last few years.
Pankaj Jain of Social Media Hoax Slayer, one of India’s oldest fact-checking platforms, argues that most of the claims and counterclaims are coming out on X. He says that before Elon Musk’s takeover of the social media platform, its pushback against peddlers of misinformation was far stronger, something that has become feeble at best now.
Engagement, he reckons, is now the currency of X. Handles that want to peddle misinformation play into that beautifully.
The low barrier of entry that Dekens talks about fits into that theory. “The public image of an OSINT analyst has become someone who circles things in red on a JPEG/image,” Dekens says, adding that the perception gap, between rigorous analysis and quick-hit virality, is exactly where misinformation thrives. “Speed versus certainty. Platforms reward whoever posts first, not whoever posts right.”
This, he says, has meant that “even credible analysts now feel the pressure to publish ‘working’ assessments that later need corrections”.
“To the average follower, that looks like flip-flopping, eroding trust in OSINT as a whole.”
ANOTHER PROPAGANDA TOOL
All this is happening notwithstanding the significant amount of positive impact that OSINT has had in the world.
OSINT, like social media before it, was celebrated by many as a positive solution to bring transparency, devoid of overt biases. It was also meant to be a key tool for citizen journalism, letting people see beyond the official narrative.
Elliot Higgins, founder of Bellingcat, an investigative journalism website, says, “Social media has dramatically expanded public awareness of OSINT, transforming it from a niche investigative practice into a widely recognised tool for understanding global events. The viral success of OSINT investigations— whether tracking troop movements via TikTok or verifying war crimes with satellite imagery—has made the method seem both accessible and powerful.”
Now war is played out as much in the open internet as in the offline world, and winning the battle of perception is critical. That is where the one-upmanship of countries looking to gain an edge in information warfare comes in.
As Ritu Gill, a Canada-based OSINT analyst, grimly says, “OSINT can and has been weaponised. Even something as simple as a photo and a caption can be manipulated to push a particular narrative. When such content is framed as ‘intelligence’, it can become curated propaganda rather than neutral observation. This is why influence operations must always be a consideration. Just because something is labelled OSINT doesn’t mean it is objective.”
She underlines, “Context matters, and so does intent.”
Dekens, who terms this kind of manipulation “narrative laundering”, says, “States and non-state actors seed disinformation through influencer or ‘news’ accounts, let it get amplified by well-meaning sharers, then point to the resulting noise as ‘open-source proof.’”
He says Russian and Chinese infor mation ops around NATO, or Israel-Hamas claims, using video-game footage, are textbook cases. “The goal is to confuse. If everything could be fake, it becomes hard to call out the real,” he underlines.
SEPARATING WHEAT FROM CHAFF
Ultimately, as in most instances of propaganda and misinformation, the onus is unfortunately on the individual to decide what to believe and what not to.
You, the reader, need to arm yourself with some basics if you would like to be better informed. That starts with a healthy dollop of scepticism. Dekens’ suggestion is based on an extreme version of that scepticism. “Treat every image like a crime-scene clue: document it, date it, geolocate it and never trust it until at least two, preferably three or more unrelated sources, say the same thing, while showing the evidence and all the steps taken that lead to that evidence.”
One of the things Higgins also looks for is methodological transparency. “If someone shares a claim, I look to see whether they explain how they reached their conclusion—what sources they used, how they verified them and whether the process is repeatable. I also watch for whether they distinguish between what is known, what is inferred and what is speculative.”
According to him, genuine OSINT practitioners tend to engage constructively with questions and challenges, correct mistakes openly and focus more on evidence than theatrics. “If a handle prioritises engagement metrics over accuracy, or mixes unverifiable claims with serious analysis, that’s usually a red flag,” he says.
Gill agrees and adds, “Not all ‘OSINT’ is equal. If something feels too perfect or too shocking to be true, it’s worth a second look. A bit of critical thinking can make a big difference and goes a long way in this space.”
She has a six-point checklist to confirm if stuff that is claimed to be OSINT-based is reliable or not:
Verify Information: If multiple, reputable sources say the same thing, it’s more likely accurate. Check Credentials: Who is sharing the information? What’s their background? Verify Date and Location: Old or unrelated videos are often recycled during current events; always double-check. Use Reverse Image Search: This can help determine whether an image is recent or from a past event. Follow Trusted OSINT Sources: Accounts like Bellingcat are known for rigorous, transparent work. Maintain Healthy Scepticism: Especially during conflicts, uncertainty is the nor m. Overconfidence in any claim should be a red flag. While all of this puts the onus on the person consuming news, perhaps it is also critical for others in the chain—from social media platforms to the OSINT community itself—to figure out ways to push back.
Pratik Sinha, cofounder of fact-checking platform Alt News, laments a broader problem in the media culture that puts the onus on the person on the street to discern between right and wrong, especially given a lack of multiple perspectives in the mainstream media. Regular people may not have the right understanding to question what they see on social media, in the absence of a counter narrative, he says.
Ultimately, one thing is clear. “Open-source intelligence has never been more visible and more vulnerable. The very platforms that let citizen-analysts expose hidden truths also hand propagandists a megaphone,” says Dekens.
For a key tool in the present, and indeed the future of information dissemination, journalism and transparency, that is a problem that needs to be addressed. And soon.
After all, as Sun Tzu said, “In the midst of chaos, there is also opportunity.”
Yes, that is a real quote, and taken from The Art of War.
(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this column are that of the writer. The facts and opinions expressed here do not reflect the views of www.economictimes.com)
Apologies. That is not a Sun Tzu quote.
The Chinese general who lived during the Eastern Zhou period (771-256 BCE) is believed to have authored The Art of War, a seminal book on military strategy. He is also one of the most misquoted people on the planet.
Anyone with a computer and a connection to the internet can make up and amplify what they want, including a fake Sun Tzu quote or, indeed, a false narrative during battles. And that is the kind of problem that open-source intelligence (OSINT) has found itself in. OSINT was supposed to be a key tool for normal people to make sense of the world around them.
For those who came in late, the dictionary defines OSINT as information that can be collected legally from the internet and is used by those whose job is to keep people and companies safe, but also by those who want to attack them.
That does sound pretty important, especially in the context of geopolitical conflicts. Wars these days are as much about perception as they are about real impact. At the heart of it are OSINT social media handles that break down the military jargon for you.
The availability of open-source intelligence— from satellite imagery to data in websites to publicly available records to social media to network data—has theoretically made it possible for even ordinary folks to curate an accurate picture of the world even during wars.
The operative word is “theoretically”.
As the latest India-Pakistan military conflict showed, OSINT is also a minefield of misinformation and propaganda. Anyone with access to satellite images, for example, passes off as an OSINT expert on social media, and that is the message that often gets amplified.
Therein lies the problem.
SPEED VS ACCURACY
Nico Dekens, aka Dutch Osint Guy, an open source intelligence consultant and trainer, reckons social media has made OSINT a game of who is first, rather than who is factually accurate.
“During the Ukraine-Russia war, the Israel-Gaza fighting and, most recently, Operation Sindoor on May 7, people discovered they could watch cruisemissile plumes or aircraft tracks in something close to real time, simply by following a handful of accounts on X (Twitter) or Telegram,” he says.
That very democratisation of access also results in the democratisation of creation. As Dekens says, for anyone with a nefarious intent to manipulate, “the barrier to entry is basically a screenshot”.
This has been complicated by a broader set of incidents, which happened over the last few years.
Pankaj Jain of Social Media Hoax Slayer, one of India’s oldest fact-checking platforms, argues that most of the claims and counterclaims are coming out on X. He says that before Elon Musk’s takeover of the social media platform, its pushback against peddlers of misinformation was far stronger, something that has become feeble at best now.
Engagement, he reckons, is now the currency of X. Handles that want to peddle misinformation play into that beautifully.
The low barrier of entry that Dekens talks about fits into that theory. “The public image of an OSINT analyst has become someone who circles things in red on a JPEG/image,” Dekens says, adding that the perception gap, between rigorous analysis and quick-hit virality, is exactly where misinformation thrives. “Speed versus certainty. Platforms reward whoever posts first, not whoever posts right.”
This, he says, has meant that “even credible analysts now feel the pressure to publish ‘working’ assessments that later need corrections”.
“To the average follower, that looks like flip-flopping, eroding trust in OSINT as a whole.”
ANOTHER PROPAGANDA TOOL
All this is happening notwithstanding the significant amount of positive impact that OSINT has had in the world.
OSINT, like social media before it, was celebrated by many as a positive solution to bring transparency, devoid of overt biases. It was also meant to be a key tool for citizen journalism, letting people see beyond the official narrative.
Elliot Higgins, founder of Bellingcat, an investigative journalism website, says, “Social media has dramatically expanded public awareness of OSINT, transforming it from a niche investigative practice into a widely recognised tool for understanding global events. The viral success of OSINT investigations— whether tracking troop movements via TikTok or verifying war crimes with satellite imagery—has made the method seem both accessible and powerful.”
Now war is played out as much in the open internet as in the offline world, and winning the battle of perception is critical. That is where the one-upmanship of countries looking to gain an edge in information warfare comes in.
As Ritu Gill, a Canada-based OSINT analyst, grimly says, “OSINT can and has been weaponised. Even something as simple as a photo and a caption can be manipulated to push a particular narrative. When such content is framed as ‘intelligence’, it can become curated propaganda rather than neutral observation. This is why influence operations must always be a consideration. Just because something is labelled OSINT doesn’t mean it is objective.”
She underlines, “Context matters, and so does intent.”
Dekens, who terms this kind of manipulation “narrative laundering”, says, “States and non-state actors seed disinformation through influencer or ‘news’ accounts, let it get amplified by well-meaning sharers, then point to the resulting noise as ‘open-source proof.’”
He says Russian and Chinese infor mation ops around NATO, or Israel-Hamas claims, using video-game footage, are textbook cases. “The goal is to confuse. If everything could be fake, it becomes hard to call out the real,” he underlines.
SEPARATING WHEAT FROM CHAFF
Ultimately, as in most instances of propaganda and misinformation, the onus is unfortunately on the individual to decide what to believe and what not to.
You, the reader, need to arm yourself with some basics if you would like to be better informed. That starts with a healthy dollop of scepticism. Dekens’ suggestion is based on an extreme version of that scepticism. “Treat every image like a crime-scene clue: document it, date it, geolocate it and never trust it until at least two, preferably three or more unrelated sources, say the same thing, while showing the evidence and all the steps taken that lead to that evidence.”
One of the things Higgins also looks for is methodological transparency. “If someone shares a claim, I look to see whether they explain how they reached their conclusion—what sources they used, how they verified them and whether the process is repeatable. I also watch for whether they distinguish between what is known, what is inferred and what is speculative.”
According to him, genuine OSINT practitioners tend to engage constructively with questions and challenges, correct mistakes openly and focus more on evidence than theatrics. “If a handle prioritises engagement metrics over accuracy, or mixes unverifiable claims with serious analysis, that’s usually a red flag,” he says.
Gill agrees and adds, “Not all ‘OSINT’ is equal. If something feels too perfect or too shocking to be true, it’s worth a second look. A bit of critical thinking can make a big difference and goes a long way in this space.”
She has a six-point checklist to confirm if stuff that is claimed to be OSINT-based is reliable or not:
Pratik Sinha, cofounder of fact-checking platform Alt News, laments a broader problem in the media culture that puts the onus on the person on the street to discern between right and wrong, especially given a lack of multiple perspectives in the mainstream media. Regular people may not have the right understanding to question what they see on social media, in the absence of a counter narrative, he says.
Ultimately, one thing is clear. “Open-source intelligence has never been more visible and more vulnerable. The very platforms that let citizen-analysts expose hidden truths also hand propagandists a megaphone,” says Dekens.
For a key tool in the present, and indeed the future of information dissemination, journalism and transparency, that is a problem that needs to be addressed. And soon.
After all, as Sun Tzu said, “In the midst of chaos, there is also opportunity.”
Yes, that is a real quote, and taken from The Art of War.
(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this column are that of the writer. The facts and opinions expressed here do not reflect the views of www.economictimes.com)
You may also like
Operation Sindoor: Bigger feat than I'll ever get credit for - Trump on 'pause'
Woman given celphos instead of painkiller, dies
Techie dies as car owner rams bike after tiff over cigarettes
Eurovision boss shares major update as Vatican City now eligible to take part
IIT-B to suspend MoUs with Turkish universities
