to continue module three,
We can see that there's also some consideration for strategic sharing,
a definite requirement to filter information to make sure that only the most actionable, the most
verified or dependable information
is sent to various decision makers or other analysts.
There's ah, challenge and defining the correct balance between having too much or too little information, too much or too little detail and so on.
So some methodology and some best practices will be discussed when we get into that area,
even things like what kind of language should be used.
Uh, how do you prevent losing your audience? For instance,
there's the old adage about, you know, making sure you know your audience when you're writing a reporter or making a speech or anything any kind of public communication.
So that's definitely something that will get into.
I'll also look at some more tools and websites. Some of the tools that are available are quite expensive,
And so, for those reasons,
I won't be able to demonstrate the tools
during this during this course. But you can certainly benefit from having a look at some of the documentation and the websites of the vendors. I'll do my best to give you an idea of how the tools operate so that you can probe further and decide if that's something that would be beneficial to your organization.
Go back into your rules.
Look at I was C extraction within the sticks framework. There's a whole bunch of different areas there where we can
explore some of the capabilities that are available in the marketplace.
And then the last module
is the analysis of Thea Strategic Threat Intelligence that we were just discussing.
How do you identify areas where there may be bias is where you may have made a factual errors or logical errors in your analysis,
Those air very important things to Thio take care of. His fire is fine to ing and proof reading,
because again, when you're sending information to higher levels within your organization,
it's extremely important for it to be accurate
and well verified. And so on.
That way you don't waste people's time, and you don't end up
in the embarrassing situation where you produce intelligence that turns out to be flawed.
We'll even get into the concept of the competing hypothesis.
This could be you know, two hypotheses from the same analyst or more likely, perhaps, would be
two hypotheses about some intelligence from two different analysts.
It could be that the, uh
to different conclusions were reached by looking at some evidence.
And now you've got to figure out exactly what you're dealing with and which of those hypotheses is more likely to be correct?
Well, even delve into some aspects of attribution,
whether it's people, human elements.
the the concept of attribution can be very tricky, especially
during the most recent presidential election and very stories that have been in the news in 2017. We know that there's a lot of discussion about attribution in the public space, especially as it relates to Wikileaks, and they're CIA documents that they produced. So we could talk a little bit more about that
that also relates to the attribution to a nation state.
And based on some of those new stories and some of the events that have happened in 2017 we can see that
this is a very challenging area of threat intelligence
because of the different ways that the waters could be money and if you will,
and to wrap up module four, We'll have a U. S. Strategic overview or review of all the different things we talked about
in this in this module as it relates to attribution as it relates to the production and the consumption of intelligence.
And how does this actually relate to
your operations overall?
All right, so that's it for the introduction.
I look forward to seeing you in Module one.