Open-source intelligence (OSINT) refers to the collection and analysis of information gathered from public, or open, sources. Historically, these sources have predominantly included websites, public government data, professional and academic publications, and mass media, but with the evolution of digital communication, OSINT has expanded beyond traditional media to encompass the vast and dynamic landscape of information available online through social media. In particular, this has dramatically transformed the landscape of conflict zones. 

Within them, online platforms have enabled a rapid and wide-reaching flow of information, allowing civilians on the ground to share real-time updates, coordinate humanitarian aid, and direct others to safe zones. While the empowerment of civilians through such information sharing is a positive development, it also presents a significant challenge: the same information is equally available to adversaries. Military organizations, both state-sponsored and otherwise, can (and do) exploit this open-source intelligence to recalibrate their tactics and achieve strategic advantages. This evolving dynamic underscores the critical role of OSINT in reshaping modern-day conflict. Consequently, there is an urgent need for a paradigm shift within official intelligence agencies. Governments must navigate the delicate balance of preserving public rights to share and access information while mitigating the risks of such data serving as unintended reconnaissance for adversarial forces. 

The Role of Social Media in Modern Conflicts

Social media has empowered civilians in conflict zones in unprecedented ways. With access to platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and Telegram, individuals on the ground have a voice and a reach that can span the globe in real time. This democratization of information dissemination has been instrumental in coordinating evacuations, disseminating information about humanitarian aid, and alerting communities to imminent threats. Moreover, it allows civilians to document and share their experiences, often providing a counter-narrative to official accounts or filling in gaps left by traditional media. 

However, the openness of information sharing also has a significant downside: the information is not only accessed by allies and aid organizations. Hostile entities, including opposing military forces and non-state armed groups, actively monitor these channels. For instance, the posting of troop movements or the locations of safe zones can inadvertently provide military targets. The phenomenon of 'geotagging' – the process of adding geographical identification metadata to various media – is particularly sensitive as it can reveal specific locations of military units or vulnerable civilian populations. Furthermore, the use of platforms like YouTube to share footage has also had the unintended consequence of providing intelligence to adversaries. In these ways, social media serves as a double-edged sword in modern conflict: while it can offer a lifeline and a platform to some, it also presents a significant intelligence resource for others. 

Case Studies

Examples of intelligence gathering through social media are widespread. For example, in Yemen’s conflict, where the country's media environment has been particularly opaque due to its complex nature and the danger posed to reporters on the ground, social media has often been the primary source of real-time information. Civilians and local journalists have taken to platforms such as Twitter and Facebook to report on airstrikes, blockades, and human rights abuses. These reports have sometimes been the only window into the humanitarian crisis unfolding in Yemen, drawing international attention and reactive aid. Unfortunately, the coverage also drew the attention of the rebel movement. The Houthis, known for using social media to gather intelligence on the movements and operations of the Saudi-led coalition, used social-media-enabled open-source analysis of satellite imagery to uncover the positions of anti-Houthi forces, enabling a counterattack. On the other side of the conflict, the Saudis have used similar social media information to identify Houthi targets for their military campaign, demonstrating another real-world example of the impact of OSINT on conflict dynamics.

Another conflict where social-media-enabled OSINT has been particularly crucial is the war in Ukraine, termed one of the first "Twitter wars" due to the extensive use of social media by both sides to disseminate information and propaganda. Notably, open-source researchers, including Bellingcat, and civilian journalists have played a pivotal role in documenting the conflict, using social media posts to track troop movements, identify military equipment, and even uncover war crimes. International observers and the broader online community have leveraged OSINT to hold aggressors accountable and support Ukraine's sovereignty by providing actionable intelligence to Ukrainian forces, shaping not only international public opinion and policy decisions, but also the outcomes of the war itself. 

There are many other examples of social media playing an influential role in shaping wartime perceptions. Looking at the 2012 Israel-Gaza conflict, Israel announced its offensive on social media, and throughout the conflict, Hamas and Israel used social media to rally world opinion to their sides. Subsequent years have seen warring actors progressively incorporate social media into conflict narratives, from ISIS spreading fear and mobilizing supporters through social media broadcasts of extreme violence, to Armenian and Azerbaijani authorities using social media during the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict to highlight their positions, mobilize domestic populations, and provide updates to the conflict. 

What Governments Should Do to Equally Prioritize Civilian Safety and Freedom of Speech

The rise of OSINT and its revolutionary role in shaping the nature of modern conflict presents a unique challenge: how can governments ensure the safety of their civilians without infringing on their ability to share information within their communities? In this context, the management of OSINT becomes a delicate balancing act. Most importantly, governments must acknowledge the critical role of social media and online platforms in modern conflict. This recognition should then lead to a strategic approach that involves both regulation and education.

Regulation is crucial in limiting the exposure of sensitive information that could endanger lives. However, such regulations must be carefully crafted to avoid overreach, ensuring they do not infringe upon the fundamental right to freedom of speech. As highlighted by Human Rights Watch, the complexities of regulating content on social media and messaging apps in conflict zones like Russia and Ukraine demonstrate the challenges of balancing security and freedom of expression. Transparency in government actions, clear guidelines, and legal safeguards are essential to maintain public trust and adherence to democratic principles. Furthermore, education plays a complementary role. Governments should undertake initiatives to educate the public about the potential risks of sharing certain types of information during conflicts. This could involve campaigns to raise awareness about the importance of data privacy and the potential consequences of sharing location-based information or operational details on social media.

Moreover, governments should foster a culture of cooperation with technology companies and social media platforms. This collaboration can help in developing sophisticated algorithms and tools that filter and manage sensitive content, balancing the need for security with the protection of individual liberties. As such, investment in technologies that can automatically detect and filter sensitive content based on various indicators without infringing on privacy rights is essential. Such technological advancements could help in preemptively identifying and addressing potential security risks posed by the dissemination of sensitive information.

Finally, international cooperation is essential, and there is a strong precedent for such collaborative efforts, particularly evident in the frameworks established by the Geneva Conventions, the EU's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), and the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime. Governments should work closely to create norms and frameworks governing the use of OSINT in conflicts, drawing inspiration from these existing models. The Geneva Conventions' principles, established for traditional warfare and the treatment of civilians and combatants, can provide an ethical foundation adaptable to the challenges posed by modern OSINT in conflicts. Similarly, the EU's GDPR provides a comprehensive framework for data protection and privacy, demonstrating effective ways to handle sensitive information crucial for solving this problem. Additionally, the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime focused on internet and computer crime and is a prime example of successful international cooperation in the digital realm, offering valuable insights for tackling this issue internationally. These precedents collectively highlight the feasibility and importance of international collaboration in developing robust guidelines that respect human rights and adhere to international law while managing the flow of open-source intelligence in conflict situations.

The effective management of OSINT also requires navigating the intricate dynamics between government objectives and the operational priorities of technology companies. These companies, focusing on user engagement and data protection, might hold views that differ from those advocating for stringent information regulation. Moreover, achieving a uniform approach to tech regulation is further complicated by diverse political perspectives across different nations and within them. This situation necessitates a more collaborative and flexible approach, where governments engage in dialogue with tech companies and strive for political consensus to craft policies that harmonize the need for security with the protection of digital freedoms. Incorporating these elements into the multifaceted strategy will enhance its comprehensiveness and efficacy in balancing security concerns with the freedom of information. 

Ultimately, the management of OSINT in conflicts requires a multifaceted approach by governments. Balancing civilian safety with their freedom to share information demands strategic regulation, public education, and collaboration with both the private sector and the international community. By prioritizing these areas, governments can better navigate the complex landscape of modern conflicts, ensuring both the safety of their citizens and the preservation of their fundamental freedoms.

Conclusion

The evolution of open-source intelligence, particularly through social media, has profoundly altered the dynamics of modern conflicts. This transformation is evident in how civilians and combatants alike use these platforms for information dissemination and intelligence gathering. While social media has democratized information, enabling real-time communication and coordination in conflict zones, it also poses significant security risks, as adversaries exploit the same information for tactical advantage. Examining conflicts in Yemen, Ukraine, and other regions highlights social media's paradoxical role in warfare: it serves as both an empowerment tool for civilians and an intelligence resource for hostile entities. Consequently, a major challenge emerges: balancing the public's freedom to share and access information against the risks of such information aiding enemy strategies. Addressing this challenge requires a comprehensive approach from governments and international organizations, beginning with recognizing social media's significant impact in conflict scenarios. The next steps involve crafting policies that encompass regulation, public awareness, and technological advancements. By adopting such strategies, authorities can effectively maneuver through the complexities of contemporary warfare, prioritizing both the protection of their citizens and the maintenance of essential freedoms in an era marked by widespread digital connectivity.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not represent those of any previous or current employers, the editorial body of SIPR, the Freeman Spogili Institute, or Stanford University.