5 ms·

I never liked this term. Why is the term "Open Source" used to refer to publicly available information? Something like "PAT" would have been a better acronym: P

I never liked this term. Why is the term "Open Source" used to refer to publicly available information? Something like "PAT" would have been a better acronym: Public Available Information. Do we refer to street dogs as open source dogs?

abhaynayar 2y ago
Or PINT: Public INT.
- elib-at 2y ago
  ... I called it Public Intelligence (PubInt)
  - arresin 2y ago
    PINTO - the last o is online.
    - cgcan 2y ago
      [dead]
randomdata 2y ago
> Why is the term "Open Source" used to refer to publicly available information? Well, why not? "Source" has long referred to available information. In fact, you probably won't have to read HN long before you encounter a "source plz"-type meme, intended to mean something akin to: "Please point me to the available information that supports your claim." "Open" has long referred to available information that is accessible to users. "Open source[code]" uses "open" in the same way. PAT works too but I'm not sure it communicates anything meaningfully different. As far as I can tell, they are trying to communicate the very same thing. Is your reaction, perhaps, because you are accustomed to "open source" being used in the software sense? > Do we refer to street dogs as open source dogs? Dogs haven't typically been seen as information, so, for all practical purposes, probably not. But if we want to change that, sure, why not? Language doesn't have feelings. It doesn't care.
- alabhyajindal 2y ago
  I agree that individually those terms convey the exact thing as publicly available information. > Is your reaction, perhaps, because you are accustomed to "open source" being used in the software sense? Yes exactly. I feel like a different term should be used here, because open source is already a widely established term in software.
  - soco 2y ago
    The thing is, there's a whole world outside software development and as unpleasant as it might sound, they don't care that much what words we use among us.
  - klez 2y ago
    The term "open source" as referring to sofware was suggested in 1997 but I could find references to OSINT from at least 1991-1995[0], so I'd say "Open Source Intelligence" should get precedence. [0] https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADB194025.pdf https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADB194025.pdf
normie3000 2y ago
> "PAT" would have been a better acronym: Public Available Information. informaTion? > Do we refer to street dogs as open source dogs? No, but we don't call them Public Available Dogs either.
- ron_k 2y ago
  “Stray information” sounds good, though.
- alabhyajindal 2y ago
  My bad - messed up the acronym!
  - normie3000 2y ago
    PAI might be a bit close to PII.. although I guess there would be overlap :)
- Februaryon 2y ago
  [dead]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
elib-at 2y ago
...this takes me down a rabbit hole to 2010. We once tried to establish "Public Intelligence" [PubInt] as it was a term we used since 2003 in 2010 but it only caught on with some businesses. The then definition was - to differenciate it from OSINT - bound to the use of the information in a "civic" context - here you got them for fun and giggles: 2003: Public intelligence refers to sources of information freely available to the individual to be the basis for it's role as a responsible and critical citizen as part of a group or state. Public Intelligence is associated with the application of Open source intelligence (OSInt) to empower the public in its dealings with all forms of organization, and most especially government. It is an applied variant of Collective intelligence. It was inspired by the 1978 Colby book: "Intelligence must accept the end of its special status in the American government, and take on the task of informing the public of its nature and its activities as any other department or agency. . . . By far the most effective manner of accomplishing the task . . . is by letting the public benefit directly from the products of intelligence, its information and assessments. " --former DCI William Colby, Honorable Men: My Life in the CIA, Simon & Schuster, 1978, pp. 459-60. I put it together for your viewing pleasure: https://elib.at/index.php?title=Public_Intelligence_-_Glossar https://elib.at/index.php?title=Public_Intelligence_-_Glossa... enjoy edit:typos
- lucideer 2y ago
  The problem with this is that OSINT has been established as a term at a government level (likely before Open Source Software came about?), so any push to change it will be a greater feat than the inverse.
phito 2y ago
Please no more acronyms
- Y_Y 2y ago
  PNMA
lakrhN 2y ago
PAI would sound like anyone had the right to the information, whereas OS sounds like it happens to be public (unfortunately), but of course only we the agencies should access it. OS is a bureaucratic power term, which is of course quite old: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_intelligence#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_intelligence#Histo...
fmbb 2y ago
The term invariably seems to apply to two phenomenons: 1. Stalkers stalking people 2. Actors spreading misinformation on X about wartime atrocities I can see why they want to brand their stuff “Open Source” which sounds like a good thing.
- didntcheck 2y ago
  Yes, unfortunately I've also observed that while "OSINT" is theoretically a legitimate, white-hat thing, in practice it's very often used as whitewashed branding for malicious (often "righteous") doxxing. Similar to black hats for hire forums that claim to just be about "security research"
eleveriven 2y ago
The idea is about openness and collaboration
lucideer 2y ago
> I never liked this term. Why is the term "Open Source" used to refer to publicly available information? I assume your line of thinking is that you associate "Open Source" with software freedom (warm fuzzy feelings) & dislike that being tainted by stalkers & military espionage. Leaving aside that OSINT pre-dates the software term, I think it's quite fitting given the context of the very capitalist-/corporate-friendly "Open Source" licensing trend subsuming the original corporate-unfriendly/copyleft "Free Software" movement. The former enables the military-industrial complex by taking advantage of publicly available data, the latter enables the corporate world by taking advantage of publicly available code.

abhaynayar 2y ago

Or PINT: Public INT.

elib-at 2y ago
... I called it Public Intelligence (PubInt)
- arresin 2y ago
  PINTO - the last o is online.
  - cgcan 2y ago
    [dead]

randomdata 2y ago

> Why is the term "Open Source" used to refer to publicly available information? Well, why not? "Source" has long referred to available information. In fact, you probably won't have to read HN long before you encounter a "source plz"-type meme, intended to mean something akin to: "Please point me to the available information that supports your claim." "Open" has long referred to available information that is accessible to users. "Open source[code]" uses "open" in the same way. PAT works too but I'm not sure it communicates anything meaningfully different. As far as I can tell, they are trying to communicate the very same thing. Is your reaction, perhaps, because you are accustomed to "open source" being used in the software sense? > Do we refer to street dogs as open source dogs? Dogs haven't typically been seen as information, so, for all practical purposes, probably not. But if we want to change that, sure, why not? Language doesn't have feelings. It doesn't care.

alabhyajindal 2y ago
I agree that individually those terms convey the exact thing as publicly available information. > Is your reaction, perhaps, because you are accustomed to "open source" being used in the software sense? Yes exactly. I feel like a different term should be used here, because open source is already a widely established term in software.
- soco 2y ago
  The thing is, there's a whole world outside software development and as unpleasant as it might sound, they don't care that much what words we use among us.
- klez 2y ago
  The term "open source" as referring to sofware was suggested in 1997 but I could find references to OSINT from at least 1991-1995[0], so I'd say "Open Source Intelligence" should get precedence. [0] https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADB194025.pdf https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADB194025.pdf

normie3000 2y ago

> "PAT" would have been a better acronym: Public Available Information. informaTion? > Do we refer to street dogs as open source dogs? No, but we don't call them Public Available Dogs either.

ron_k 2y ago
“Stray information” sounds good, though.
alabhyajindal 2y ago
My bad - messed up the acronym!
- normie3000 2y ago
  PAI might be a bit close to PII.. although I guess there would be overlap :)
Februaryon 2y ago
[dead]

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

elib-at 2y ago

...this takes me down a rabbit hole to 2010. We once tried to establish "Public Intelligence" [PubInt] as it was a term we used since 2003 in 2010 but it only caught on with some businesses. The then definition was - to differenciate it from OSINT - bound to the use of the information in a "civic" context - here you got them for fun and giggles: 2003: Public intelligence refers to sources of information freely available to the individual to be the basis for it's role as a responsible and critical citizen as part of a group or state. Public Intelligence is associated with the application of Open source intelligence (OSInt) to empower the public in its dealings with all forms of organization, and most especially government. It is an applied variant of Collective intelligence. It was inspired by the 1978 Colby book: "Intelligence must accept the end of its special status in the American government, and take on the task of informing the public of its nature and its activities as any other department or agency. . . . By far the most effective manner of accomplishing the task . . . is by letting the public benefit directly from the products of intelligence, its information and assessments. " --former DCI William Colby, Honorable Men: My Life in the CIA, Simon & Schuster, 1978, pp. 459-60. I put it together for your viewing pleasure: https://elib.at/index.php?title=Public_Intelligence_-_Glossar https://elib.at/index.php?title=Public_Intelligence_-_Glossa... enjoy edit:typos

lucideer 2y ago
The problem with this is that OSINT has been established as a term at a government level (likely before Open Source Software came about?), so any push to change it will be a greater feat than the inverse.

phito 2y ago

Please no more acronyms

Y_Y 2y ago
PNMA

lakrhN 2y ago

PAI would sound like anyone had the right to the information, whereas OS sounds like it happens to be public (unfortunately), but of course only we the agencies should access it. OS is a bureaucratic power term, which is of course quite old: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_intelligence#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_intelligence#Histo...

fmbb 2y ago

The term invariably seems to apply to two phenomenons: 1. Stalkers stalking people 2. Actors spreading misinformation on X about wartime atrocities I can see why they want to brand their stuff “Open Source” which sounds like a good thing.

didntcheck 2y ago
Yes, unfortunately I've also observed that while "OSINT" is theoretically a legitimate, white-hat thing, in practice it's very often used as whitewashed branding for malicious (often "righteous") doxxing. Similar to black hats for hire forums that claim to just be about "security research"

eleveriven 2y ago

The idea is about openness and collaboration

lucideer 2y ago

> I never liked this term. Why is the term "Open Source" used to refer to publicly available information? I assume your line of thinking is that you associate "Open Source" with software freedom (warm fuzzy feelings) & dislike that being tainted by stalkers & military espionage. Leaving aside that OSINT pre-dates the software term, I think it's quite fitting given the context of the very capitalist-/corporate-friendly "Open Source" licensing trend subsuming the original corporate-unfriendly/copyleft "Free Software" movement. The former enables the military-industrial complex by taking advantage of publicly available data, the latter enables the corporate world by taking advantage of publicly available code.