Integrating Social Media Tools With

Integrating Social Media Tools with
Command and Control (C2)

What are the Possibilities?
Dr. Bruce Forrester

DRDC – Valcartier Research Centre
Defence Research and Development Canada

Scientific Report
DRDC-RDDC-2016-R073
May 2016
Template in use: (2010) SR Advanced Template_EN (051115).dotm
© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, as represented by the Minister of National Defence, 2016
© Sa Majesté la Reine (en droit du Canada), telle que représentée par le ministre de la Défense nationale,
2016
Abstract
This scientific report explores social media (SM) in the context of enhancing command and
control under C2CAF-T project Deliverable 4 – Scoping of concepts and solutions for Network
enabled expertise search, reach back and collaboration capability for command support. As a
concept paper, many references were consulted and previous work in the SM and peer production
domain was exploited to help the reader understand the applicable SM tools and platforms.
Command and control concepts were then used to position SM enablers. It was determined that
SM platforms and tools are an excellent fit for the functions required and principles of command
and control, specifically those functions that deal with sharing and observing. There are many
force multiplier benefits to adopting the peer production model that is inherent in SM. This report
underlines the many challenges both from a science & technology and an engineering
perspective. However, perhaps the greatest challenges are overcoming the need to change the
culture and for senior leadership to share power in the way that makes peer production valuable.
Of course the interoperability and security challenges are significant.
Employing SM platforms and tools for C2 requires trust but also builds trust, agility, and
ultimately could enhance many of the C2 functions that lead to mission success. This report
suggests that the best areas for SM introduction into C2 functions would be where people are
already familiar with using these tools for personal reasons; the under-30 generation. Areas that
involve a high degree of communication and information sharing between many people would
also be good candidates for combining SM and C2.
Significance to Defence and Security
SM enables the concepts of peer production and co-creation. The enactment of such concepts in
command and control leads to increased trust, agility in decision making and action, as well as
laying the groundwork for a successful comprehensive approach to operations.
DRDC-RDDC-2016-R073 i
Résumé
Ce rapport scientifique examine les médias sociaux (MS) dans un contexte d'amélioration du
commandement et contrôle dans le cadre de l'élément livrable de projet C2CAF-T 4 sur la portée
des concepts et des solutions, à des fins de recherche d'expertise sur le réseau, de lien arrière et de
capacité de collaboration pour le soutien au commandement. Puisqu'il s'agit d'un document de
réflexion, diverses références ont été consultées et des travaux antérieurs sur les MS et sur le
domaine de production par les pairs ont été exploités pour aider le lecteur à comprendre les outils
et les plateformes de MS concernées. Les concepts de commandement et contrôle ont ensuite été
utilisés afin de positionner les outils de MS. Il a été établi que les plateformes et les outils de MS
cadrent très bien avec les fonctions requises et les principes de commandement et contrôle, et
particulièrement les fonctions relatives au partage et à l'observation. L'adoption du modèle de
production par les pairs inhérent aux MS est avantageuse en ce qui a trait à la capacité de
multiplicateur de force. Ce rapport met en lumière les nombreux défis au chapitre de la science,
de la technologie et de l'ingénierie. Cependant, les plus importants défis consistent à surmonter la
nécessité de changer la culture et le partage des pouvoirs par la haute direction de manière à
contribuer à l'utilité de la production par les pairs. Évidemment, les défis sur les plans de
l'interopérabilité et de la sécurité sont importants.
L'utilisation des plateformes et des outils de MS aux fins de C2 nécessite de la confiance, mais
elle la renforce aussi, tout en améliorant la capacité d'adaptation et pourrait, en fin de compte,
améliorer plusieurs fonctions de C2 menant au succès de la mission. Dans ce rapport, on suggère
que l'intégration des MS aux fonctions de C2 sera optimale au sein de groupes de personnes qui
sont déjà à l'aise avec ces outils pour des raisons personnelles : la génération des moins de 30 ans.
Cette intégration sera également possible dans les domaines où la communication et le partage
d'information entre plusieurs personnes sont très présents.
Importance pour la défense et la sécurité
Les MS font ressortir les concepts tels que la production par les pairs et la cocréation. La mise en
œuvre de tels concepts pour le commandement et contrôle améliore la confiance ainsi que l'agilité
dans le processus décisionnel et la prise de mesures, et forme une base de référence pour favoriser
une approche plus complète aux opérations.
ii DRDC-RDDC-2016-R073
Table of Contents
Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
Significance to Defence and Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
Résumé . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
Importance pour la défense et la sécurité . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi
1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Outline and Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2 Peer Production and SM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.1 Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.2 Peer Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2.1 Peer-to-Peer Model of Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2.2 Peer Production as a Human Capability Multiplier for C2 . . . . . . . 4
2.2.3 Peer production in a Military Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3 SM (Peer Production) Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3.1 Social Networking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.3.2 Blogs/Microblogs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.3.3 Crowd Wisdom and Q&A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.3.4 Location and Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.3.5 Wikis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.3.6 Discussion and Forums . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.3.7 Video and Pictures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.3.8 Social Gaming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.3.9 Social Bookmarking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.3.10 RSS and Aggregators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3 S&T Challenges with SM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.1 Philosophical Issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.2 Methodological Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.3 Possible Solutions for Methodological Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.4 Engineering and Empirical Challenges to Implementing SM Tools . . . . . . 17
3.4.1 What Makes SM Different from Other OSINT Sources? . . . . . . . 17
3.4.2 The Effect of Big Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.4.3 Implications for Monitoring Based on the Types of Analysis Required . . 20
3.4.4 Machine Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
DRDC-RDDC-2016-R073 iii
4 SM in a C2 Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4.2 Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4.3 C2 Concepts and SM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
4.4 Trust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4.5 Building Trust Through Social Networking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
4.6 Challenges to Implementing SM for C2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
4.6.1 Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
4.6.2 Interoperability and Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
iv DRDC-RDDC-2016-R073
List of Figures
Figure 1: North American SM sites classified by conversation type. . . . . . . . . . 5

Figure 2: SM landscape in China 2013. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Figure 3: World map of social network in 2013 [40]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
DRDC-RDDC-2016-R073 v
List of Tables
Table 1: A Sample of Global SM sites as of 2011 [5]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Table 2: A Comparison of Traditional OSINT Sources to SM Sources. . . . . . . . 18
Table 3: SM concepts applicable to C2 concepts[60] and principles. . . . . . . . . 26
vi DRDC-RDDC-2016-R073
1 Introduction
1.1 Purpose
The Command and Control for the Canadian Armed Forces of Tomorrow (C2CAF-T) project will
identify critical capabilities to gain situational understanding, conduct collaborative planning of
operations, arrive at and execute command decisions, communicate intent, and assess the effects
and outcomes of a course of action taking into account requirements to operate within a complex
Joint, Inter-Agency, Multinational and Public (JIMP) environment.
The Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) employs improved command and control through an adaptable
and interoperable defence information sharing and collaboration environment that achieves exercise of
authority and direction over assigned, allocated and attached forces; and management of force and
orchestration of effects and outcomes in response to government direction.
This research was carried out under the C2CAF-T Deliverable 4 – Scoping of concepts and
solutions for Network enabled expertise search, reach back and collaboration capability for
command support. The purpose of this scientific report is to identify Science and Technology
(S&T) challenges related to the exploitation of Social Media (SM) supporting the ability of the
commander and staff to manage and integrate information within a complex JIMP battle space,
across a full spectrum of missions.
1.2 Outline and Scope

This report will provide an introduction to SM and the peer-production model that underlies the
potential usefulness for command and control (C2) purposes. SM will be discussed throughout
this report from two perspectives: 1) use by blue force within a closed network typically for
information gathering and sharing, providing and gathering feedback from individuals; and 2) use
by the commander’s Intelligence section for monitoring and analysing SM data, mainly for
situational awareness and understanding. Section 2 discusses peer production and introduces
categories of SM tools that are applicable to C2. Section 3 will present the S&T SM challenges
(research and engineering) and some possible solutions. This section also discusses the use of SM
for sharing (broadcasting messages) and for observing (monitoring for intelligence).
Section 4 examines key C2 concepts and principles and how SM tools could be applied. Next,
trust is discussed as it is really the key to the type of open communications that SM allows and for
which C2 could potentially benefit. This report is intended as a high level concept paper and as
such will not discuss implementation details. This report has been developed from, reworked, and
updated using papers [1–4] and reports [5–8]. Many new sections are added to reflect changes in
the SM landscape up to 2015 and to relate SM to C2.
DRDC-RDDC-2016-R073 1
2 Peer Production and SM
History has shown that we cannot effectively prepare for the future conflicts by solely applying
the lessons learned from the most recent conflict. By today’s standards, there were very modest
changes that occurred in technology between WWI and WWII. However, the Maginot line, which
was definitely built based on the WWI lessons learnt, is a poignant example and proved most
ineffective in WWII. As technology, and the affordance that is provided, is changing at ever
increasing rates, we would also be unwise to concentrate too closely on how SM technologies
were used, even a few years ago. We must examine the underling effect that is produced by the
use of SM by the masses. In the C2 case, we are interested in the peer collaboration and trust
building through networking that is enabled.
Put simply, SM provides the ability for individuals to contribute to web sites and platforms. This
could be through expressing an opinion and providing a rating for consumer products. It could be
through joining a platform such as Facebook and searching out friends, posting pictures, and
interacting with others. As we will see in this section, there are hundreds of sites that allow for
user input and interaction. This is what makes the media social.
The domain of SM is vast and hugely complex; after all we are talking about billions of
individuals and organizations contributing to millions of conversations and stories using text,
images, video, audio and other media, often all mixed together. The feeling of being
overwhelmed is common when one thinks about how to exploit this domain for military purposes.
We begin this section with a scenario that highlights potential uses of SM tools and principles in a
military context.
2.1 Scenario
Corporal Jones had seen it happen – he was the driver of the rear vehicle when the explosion
occurred. This time there had been no Canadian casualties and he smiled, knowing that he had
personally been involved in this success. Unfortunately, this was not the case a mere three weeks
ago when a similar roadside bomb had caused one death and several wounded. Three weeks ago,
Corporal Jones had been driving just behind the lead vehicle and had seen the events unfold.
Immediately following, he had spoken his recollections into his iPhone, taking care to describe
the events that happened just prior. He also used the camera function in the iPhone to take
pictures of the scene. Inside the wire that night, he updated his blog and downloaded the pictures.
He carefully tagged his entries, knowing that they could be used by others to learn about the
incident. Indeed, over the next couple of days, many members accessed his blog and pictures. The
rapid training team in theatre used Jones’ as well as the account of others to update the “ambush
simulation game” used to train drivers in theatre. This update was also instantly available on the
network and was now being used for the next Roto at the training school back in Canada. Many
of his fellow soldiers and officers had also accessed his blog. In fact, his account had been voted
by his peers as “highly relevant and useful” and now appeared on the top of the wiki-based
lessons learned flash page. After being scanned, the page was fed (via RSS) to nearly 80% of the
CAF, so, when the lead driver had recognized the potential danger and took evasive
action—there was no luck involved. The vast network and social production tools available to all
DND/CAF had ensured that Jones’ knowledge was quickly and effectively distributed[9].
2 DRDC-RDDC-2016-R073
This scenario, although fictional, is not as far-fetched as it may appear. For instance,
CompanyCommand.Com [10] (a US-based lessons-learned virtual community, funded, developed
and implemented by a group of individual military company commanders and only later formally
adopted by the military organization) is a concrete example of network enabled peer-production
that is inherent in SM tools and methods.
2.2 Peer Production

Benkler [11] identifies “commons-based peer production” as a capability of human collaboration
and defines it as decentralized information gathering that depends on very large aggregations of
individuals independently scouring their information environment in search of opportunities to be
creative in small or large increments. Individuals are able to self-identify for tasks and perform
them for a variety of motivational reasons. The fundamental advantage of commons-based peer
production lies in a better capability to identify and allocate human creativity available to work on
information and cultural resources.
Peer production represents an emergent form of production that complements hierarchical

organizations. The exponential increase in the range and extent of human networks, made
possible by computer mediated information and communication technologies, presents a
quantitative change that makes feasible a qualitative difference in capability.
2.2.1 Peer-to-Peer Model of Learning
As the scenario in 2.1 demonstrates, network capabilities, continuous learning and effective
operational agility are inextricably interwoven within a new culture and operational paradigm. In
an ideal future, there will be one environment built by each individual. It will be their learning,
working and operational environment. All the information and collaborative services required
will be integrated into a single interface – akin to today’s web browser or SharePoint site
(however such an environment would not be today’s implementation of SharePoint!). This
environment will provide the individual and the group with the collaboration and operational
tools that are needed. Especially important will be the way in which knowledge and information
will be used and shared. The days of the “Ivory Tower”—or in the case of the military, the senior
staff—as the only valid source of knowledge are numbered. More and more we are moving
towards a peer-to-peer, constructivist model of learning and working. This type of model fits
exceedingly well in today’s complex and volatile battle spaces where the knowledge and
intelligence of the collective is essential for information superiority.
While we seem to be making some progress towards this emerging model, the CAF is still mainly
structured to support the traditional transmission, instructor in front of the class, model for formal
learning; a model that is also reflected in a C2 model where the Commander’s intent is derived
upon high and transmitted to the lower levels as a fait accompli. We currently have limited and
generally ineffective knowledge sharing tools. Based on our experience in Afghanistan, we have
reached the point where our young soldiers have as much or more operational experience than
senior leaders. If we do not move away from our current top-down model to a more socially
developmental model where everybody has a say, we will be trapped in “always training for the
last war”. We will remain inflexible or at best very slow to react to lessons learned and emergent
influences. So clearly there needs to be a shift in the way we learn and operate as a military.
2.2.2 Peer Production as a Human Capability Multiplier for C2
Peer production provides new principles for designing how operations and specifically C2 could
be accomplished. Peer production:
a. increases the pool of available skills, knowledge and judgement that can be brought
to bear to strategic and operational planning as well as tactical operations;
b. reduces costs and increases the diversity of command team functions such as
coordinating, directing and controlling;
c. increases accountability, responsibility, and responsiveness;
d. allows the organization to marshal more of its human capability/capital for

productive and operational ends; and
e. integrates continuous learning, and thus powers effective operational agility.
In essence, peer production is a human capability multiplier—it can allow the CAF to redeploy
people involved in administration into more productive uses (operations). It can also allow the
CAF to reduce the cost and negative effects of the posting cycle by enabling a greater degree of
continuity and corporate memory as functional responsibilities are powered by wider virtual
divisions of labour.
2.2.3 Peer production in a Military Context
Peer production in a military context is building a common picture (situational awareness);

solving problems together (tactics), and maintaining a progressive discourse (continual
improvement and sense-making). It is about the community building artefacts that are used by the
community and producing meaningful, personalized learning that leads to effective operationally
focused capabilities. The fact is that there is far too much data, information, and knowledge out in
the world for any single person to make sense of it, even in a highly specialized area such as
warfare. The “work of the masses – the wisdom of crowds [12]” will be key to making sense of it
all. As Corporal Jones shows, information and sharing of experiences feeds back into many facets
of the military organization.
The knowledge of the military profession resides primarily in the minds of its members. Peer
production allows the knowledge of the profession-of-arms to flow from those who know to those
who need to know, from those with specific experience to those who need that experience right now.
Peer production enables the quality of the relationships between members of the community to grow,
and in turn enables members to determine how and where they can further serve other members. Peer
production helps enable the context of trust to emerge and additional knowledge to flow – increasing
the organization’s ‘social capital’. Relationships, trust, and a sense of professional community
(as social capital) are critical factors that set the conditions for effective connections and
conversations, set the stage for current and future operational agility and increase the speed of
operational cohesion. Peer production enables a tightly connected, decentralized network of leaders to
quickly link members to knowledge and resources that might otherwise be inaccessible.
2.3 SM (Peer Production) Technologies
The ideas of peer production and “prosumerism” as they relate to SM emerged in the early to
mid-2000 [13–15]. This domain has grown and changed rapidly ever since this time, with new
SM platforms constantly being created. Figure 1 shows North American-based SM sites. While
these sites were designed and launched mainly by Westerners, they are used around the world.
For instance, Facebook and Twitter were used extensively during the Arab Spring [16–18].
However, as Figure 2 shows, there has been a complementary rise in the number of foreign SM
sites.
Figure 1: North American SM sites classified by conversation type.
Figure 2: SM landscape in China 2013.
Figure 1 & 2 show the enormous variety of sites and identifying individual sites that could be
used for C2 is beyond the scope of this report. Instead the categories or functions (the outer ring
of Figure 1) will be used to identify and described the ones considered as likely candidates for use
within C2. These are:
a. Social networking;
b. Blogs/Microblogs;
c. Crowd wisdom;
d. Q&A;
e. Location;
f. Wiki;
g. Discussions & Forums;
h. Video;
i. Social Gaming;
j. Events;
k. Pictures; and
l. Social bookmarking.
In the late 2000s sites tended to be specialised and this is still reflected in Figure 1. However, as of
about 2012 many sites started expanding the functionality in a move to increase membership. As such,
there are some mega-site (Facebook, Google+, etc.) that now have very diverse functionality. For the
purposed of understanding, we will separate out the functionality below. All of these technologies can
be easily acquired and installed using open source software or by simply joining the web-based site.
Wikipedia is an excellent source for more information on these technologies.
2.3.1 Social Networking
Perhaps the most well-known category of SM sites, social networking sites (Facebook, LinkedIn,
Bebo, Classmates.com, Instagram, Tumblr, etc.) are designed to help people with similar interests
connect. These interests could be virtually anything such as keeping track of family or making
business relationships, to ones’ love of poetry. Typically, such sites require that one sets up an
account by providing a username and password with the option of providing personal details in a
user profile. Social links are created by asking others to join “your network” or “be your friend”.
There are many different functionalities, depending on the specific site, but generally one’s
network or friends can freely see your posts, pictures, profile etc. and depending on personal
settings, 2nd or 3rd order friends are privy to comments that one makes on others’ posts.
2.3.2 Blogs/Microblogs
Blogs are individual productions. A blog can best be thought of as an online personal journal that
can embody text, audio and video dimensions. Blogs first became famous as the Internet-based
source of alternate news and opinion. However, today blogs range from the fringe to the
mainstream, from ultra-right to extreme left, from technology to culture, from the intimately
personal to social commentary. In fact, blogs are the natural evolution of a personal web-page,
and like the majority of the Internet’s content, they demonstrate the shift of mass culture from the
passive consumer to involvement in the production of information and culture.
Microblogs and blogs can be thought of as a broadcast medium. A microblog differs from a blog
in the size of allowable content. Microblogs (Twitter) have evolved to become a real-time outlet
that captures the constant chatter of the collective intelligence (or minutia). Blogs are for a deeper
(and longer) contemplation of a subject or topic. Often seen today is the use of a microblog
containing a link to a blog or webpage. The microblog is broadcasting on a topic, but due to its
limited size provides a link that goes much deeper on the topic being broadcast.
As an example, lessons learned can be used to improve CAF training and operational tactics and
strategy – as we saw Corporal Jones do in the opening scenario. As we do not know what a
“lesson” might be for someone, by allowing for all kinds of chatter in the blogosphere, users find
their own lessons that are relevant and useful to them. Individuals can use aggregators in
conjunction with RSS feeds (“really simple syndication” that allows one to subscribe to content
and have it pushed when updates occur) to get at the information that is important to them without
a whole lot of work. The information contained within blogs can also be referenced and shared,
using tools such as Reddit 1 or Digg 2. In these spaces, the individuals can vote on relevance and
usefulness, bringing “high vote” blogs (or snippets of information from a blog) to the forefront
and readily available to an even greater population. These snippets of information can then be
incorporated as lessons learned that are transferred into a lessons learned wiki.
2.3.3 Crowd Wisdom and Q&A
Are two heads better than one? – How about thousands? Sites such as Yahoo! Answers, Quora,
Answers.com are dedicated to amassing the collective opinion on a topic or specific question. This
wisdom of the crowds has face validity as a single expert tends to have personal biases and
perspectives that are “corrected” by the group. There is also research to back up the value of such a
methodology to solving problems and answering questions through collective efforts [19]. The authors
conclude that “… the wisdom of the crowd phenomenon might be broadly applicable to
problem-solving and decision-making situations that go beyond the estimation of single numbers.”
However caution is warranted as social influence can undermine this phenomenon [20].
2.3.4 Location and Events
Sites such as Foursquare, Banjo, Plancast allow users to discover, share, plan, and manage events.
Banjo for example, shows trending events around the world and breaks down event type by news,
sports, music, and others. In 2009, Foursquare launched the check-in and real-time location
sharing with friends. Five years later, check-in was given its own application called Swarm; the
fastest and easiest way to keep up and meet up with friends. It can automatically detect your
location and suggests popular places in your location. It also has reviews and live Twitter feeds
on popular places in your location.
2.3.5 Wikis
A wiki is a website with specialized software that allows its visitors to easily add, remove, and
otherwise edit and change its content. Wikipedia is probably the most widely known and used and
over the years has become widely accepted as an excellent source for information. Shortly
after “9/11”, the Intelligence Community in the USA introduced Intellipedia to help counter
the restrictive nature of intelligence sharing. The ease of interaction and operation makes a wiki
an effective tool for peer production. Generally, there is no review before modifications are
accepted and most wikis are open to the general public without the need to register any user
1
http://reddit.com/new - Reddit is a source for what is new and popular online. Reddit learns what you like
as you vote on existing links or submit your own.
2
http://digg.com/ - Digg is all about user powered content. Everything is submitted and voted on by the
Digg community. Share, discover, bookmark, and promote stuff that is important to you.
account. That being said, sometimes a participant is requested to log-in, in order to acquire a
“wiki-signature” cookie for auto signing edits, and private wiki servers require user authentication
to edit, sometimes even to read pages 3. While such an open access invites some misuse and
misinformation, self-appointed individuals or groups of curators quickly challenge and “correct”
such abuse sometimes with minutes of the incorrect posting. That being said, misinformation
tends to be sticky and therefore hard to correct once it is out there in public beliefs [21].
2.3.6 Discussion and Forums
Discussions and forums are abundant on the Internet and go by many names such as discussion groups
and forums, message boards, online forums, or Internet forum, etc. They all have similar functions
where conversations are held through posted messages. Forums can be open to the public or closely
guarded places where a moderator must approve one’s entry. Messages are grouped by topics in
“threads” (a single conversation) and are displayed by timestamp. Users often use links to mention
related threads or relevant references and moderators enforce proper etiquette with their power to
remove inappropriate messages and users. Forums should not be confused with chat rooms that, while
similar, are short term conversations that generally are not preserved.
2.3.7 Video and Pictures
Shortly after the explosion of prosumer text-based sites and due in large part to the built in,
high-quality photo and video capabilities on personal devices such as phones, these two media
have generated the greatest use of memory space 4. YouTube, launched in May 2005, allows
anyone to upload, discover, watch and share originally-created videos. It is a highly linked-to site
and is enabled in most SM platforms. Photo sharing sites (Flickr, Delicious, and Instagram) have
evolved and allow users to store, display, and share their photos. However, posting one’s photos
is now such a demanded functionality it is included in almost all SM platforms. Instagram allows
users mobile photo and video sharing along with enabling posting them to social networking sites.
This site is responsible for the selfie craze of 2014.
2.3.8 Social Gaming
World of Warcraft is a massively multiplayer online role-playing game where people from around
the world join forces to battle orcs, tauren and trolls, and pick between opposing factions. Skills
and talents (blacksmith, first aid, etc.) are developed and are used during battles. There is an
interesting aspect to these games in that people join guilds and are required to plan attacks and
tactically communicate during battles. There are also virtual reality sites such as Second Life that
are 3D worlds where people can meet, social, and co-create worlds. There have been reports of
terrorists using Second Life to plan attacks 5 although there seems to be no firm evidence.
3
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki.
4
300 hours of video are uploaded to YouTube every minute. From
http://www.youtube.com/yt/press/statistics.html viewed 18 March 2015.
5
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/10/world/spies-dragnet-reaches-a-playing-field-of-elves-and-
trolls.html?_r=0.
http://techcrunch.com/2007/07/30/are-terrorists-using-second-life-to-plan-attacks/.
http://www.zdnet.com/article/second-life-a-terrorist-training-camp/.
Regardless, these types of sites are able to be used for planning and executing attacks and
therefore are interesting to consider for C2 purposes.
2.3.9 Social Bookmarking
With tens of billions of websites, millions of books and magazines, and thousands of manuals,
directives, and orders, we are truly in the age of information overload. The ease of moving from
one website to another does not necessarily help either, as one often finds themselves many clicks
away from the original website that then becomes easily forgotten. Sites such as Diigo
(previously Furl), del.icio.us and StumbleUpon help us manage. These sites are designed to help
the user very easily keep track of websites that are of interest to them. One click and they are able
to “bookmark” the site, add comments such as what they found interesting there or possible uses
for the information for an upcoming report, and tag it for easy searching as part of a folksonomy.
Being web-based, they can also access their bookmarks from anywhere.
Using this capability, one can set up groups of users that are all working on the same problem.
They can post reference sites to the group’s area with their comments effectively helping each
person to “search” a much bigger area than individually. Just as easily, one can search the entire
community to find users that have visited similar sites and see what other related sites they have
marked. We can effectively tap into this social network and the work of others to support our own
learning. Using RSS (discussed below) we can set up automatic “feeds” that are pushed to us
whenever new information appears, allowing us to keep up-to-date with very little effort. Imagine
communities of operators or maintainers using such a system to keep up with their specialties.
StumbleUpon offers an interesting functionality where in the site makes recommendations, through its
discovery engine, of “cool new websites, videos, photos and images” based on one’s interests.
2.3.10 RSS and Aggregators
Two tools that, while not classified as SM, allow one to handle the massive amounts of
information being shared on SM sites and to view what is relevant (for you) or trending in a
single location. RSS or Really Simple Syndication is one of the gems of the
Web 2.0 technologies. It allows for users to “subscribe” to just about any piece of changing
information on the net. Content can come from media sites, blogs, workgroups, etc.—as long as
they have been set up for RSS. A user’s aggregator automatically opens these RSS feeds and new
information is displayed. One can even set up Google-like searches to run and be reported on
within the aggregator. Effectively this technology allows one to keep track of large amounts of
information easily and concisely. Good examples of aggregators are Google Buzz, YackTrack,
Social Radar, Flock and Hootsuite. Again as with all Web 2.0 technologies, it is web-based and
hence accessible from any computer. Imagine, in your job, having the ability to subscribe to all
relevant reference sites, lessons learned databases, pertinent civilian sites, as well as your
occupation’s community of practice and hence being immediately notified of changes and new
information. This technology goes a long way into decreasing information overload and bringing
powerful information gathering to your fingertips. As we saw with Corporal Jones, RSS allowed
other CAF members to be alerted without any extra effort on their part.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/1937651/posts.
3 S&T Challenges with SM
Section 3 examines the science and technology challenges surrounding SM, specifically Twitter
data. It first examines the philosophical and methodological problems associated with this young
scientific domain. There are nascent problems arising from the immaturity of the SM domain.
The community of researchers have yet to agree on standardized methods or analytical
techniques, as well as, what basic scientific theories best help us understand the data; leaving
wide gaps in the ability to correlate and validate research. Next the section examines the
engineering challenges. There are some significant challenges in this domain. It looks at the
nature of SM data and how it can be thought of for analytical purposes. The challenges include
long standing problems in related domains such achieving confidence in machine learning and
natural language processing; important because the big data that is produced by SM necessitates
automation in order to monitor and parse through data to find relevance.
Integrating SM into C2 will require a concerted effort to understand the deficiencies of the current
state of SM as a research domain. These problems will affect the ability to integrate SM into
C2 with the confidence required by military standards. The dual uses of SM for blue force sharing
and red force observing also present similar but different technical solutions. However, this
should in no way discourage exploration as our enemies have embarked on the SM ship and have
already reached the new world without falling off the edge.
Regardless of how SM might be used for C2 purposes (the challenges integrating SM into C2 will
be discussed in Section 4), monitoring of the fast and slow moving data streams are mandatory.
The power of SM is how it facilitates co-creation with peer production for internal blue force
affairs. SM also provided an “ear to the world” that can provide commanders with situational
awareness on red force but also green and grey. To tap this power requires listening and
understanding. The best scenario would see the command team and intelligence section having
access to both the open Internet (for observing and perhaps influence activities) and a closed net
(for blue force sharing). However even if SM tools are implemented on a standalone network
available to only CAF or coalition forces, there is still the need for monitoring, collecting,
filtering and analysing large volumes of data. Perhaps not as tricky as looking for small signals
from the entire set of Internet data flow, it still remains a significant challenge.
Black et al. [22] state “There are recognized empirical and theoretical gaps in the application of
social science theories to raw, electronic data like that retrievable from Twitter”. This section
begins with a short discussion on some of the major philosophical and methodological issues
surrounding large collections of social data. It is followed by possible solutions to the
methodological issues.
3.1 Philosophical Issues

Sound decision making must be based on considering data and information gathered from
multiple sources. SM can be thought of as potentially having an unlimited number of signals that
could be analysed depending on what decisions are being made. In traditional experimental
research, data collection is conducted in a predetermined manner and is chosen based on the
experimental design using a set of hypotheses. Data is purposefully chosen. We can think of this
as a “goal-driven” method. This method ruled when we lived in a data deprived world. We are
now overloaded with data and are preoccupied by how to filter to leave only relevant data. The
methods of text and data mining [23] have exploded, as have statistical and correlational analysis
due to improved processing power and techniques and due to the increased availability of data
sets online. These methods are excellent for finding trends and interesting patterns in huge data
that would normally be hidden. However, we must remember that “running the numbers and
finding the correlations will never be enough” [24]. This “data-driven” or inductive method will
provide an initial model that will need to be developed into a theory and verified through more
rigorous scientific methods. Detecting trends or patterns from massive data in order to analyze
possible underpinning relationships is not enough. It has been recognized that “a record of
interaction through technology does not necessarily act as a proxy for social interaction” [22].
Data cleansing presents another danger with large data sets. Researchers tend to remove data that
they believe is erroneous or determined to be outliers and, because there is so much data
available, the samples remain statistically significant. However, outliers often provide just the
indication for which commanders’ are looking. “Jeff Jonas of the IBM Software Group believes
that ‘bad data’ is good for you. You want to see that natural variability. You want to support
dissent and disagreement in the numbers. There is no such thing as a single version of the truth.
And as you assemble and correlate data, you have to let new observations change your mind
about earlier assertions” [24]. Cleaning and filtering (clustering, grouping, etc.) data also presents
the problem of possible breaking of patterns that are larger than the clustering.
Finally, there are also concerns with the aggregation of large amounts of social data. There are
hundreds of SM sites and at least 28 different categories of conversation types or purposes [25].
The types of analysis services and tools looked at in [6] used data that had been aggregated from
multiple sources without necessarily considering the purpose for which postings (tweets, updates,
blog entries etc.) were made. It is highly probable that individual postings were made within a
certain context for a certain audience. In their aggregation with other similar topics, which
potentially are centred on different time periods or audiences, interpretation and contextual errors
easily occur [26].
3.2 Methodological Issues

There are also a multitude of methodological issues surrounding SM data and Twitter in
particular. The following should not be taken as exhaustive.
The first issue most researchers in this area need to address is how to collect the data. As Twittter
data is assumed to be public by default [27], we should be able to do what we want with it. In the
early days of Twitter (before 2013), access to all data was available and researchers were able to
collect and store this data for analysis [28, 29]. Restrictions to the amount of data that can be
collected at any one time have since been put in place. There are currently three main application
programming interfaces (API) for collecting Twitter data: the REST, search, and streaming
methods. Unfortunately, these APIs are not clearly defined and are susceptible to change at any
time [22]. The API provided up to 1500 tweets every 15 minutes, but in most big events the flow
rate is much greater than this. Hence, multiple API calls are likely to produce a different set of
data. In the implementation of these APIs, Twitter has in effect significantly limited access to the
“fire hose” of data. This complicates an analyst’s ability to discover the entire dataset. It also
makes the issue of capturing data on a suitable target population more difficult.
Next, how does one go about defining the required target population? At the out start, we can say
that only a percentage of the population uses the internet. Of that, a subset use SM and of that a
smaller subset use Twitter [17]. “Thus random sampling on SM is biased sampling” [30]. This
may not be a problem if one is looking for the opinion of the young tech-savvy middle-class. For
more balanced results, analysts will require the ability to determine the significance of the
population sample answering the questions: how well does the group analysed match the overall
population of interest? “It should be noted that SM does not reflect the demographics of the
society” [30]. Target populations need to be stratified in order to be capable of determining what
different groups are saying. Such details are important to decisions that will effect local
populations.
There is a vast multitude of different ways that researchers use to retrieve, clean, store, and
analyse Twitter data [22]. While most researchers provide detailed descriptions of how they
determined their data set, no one method was the same [2]. For instance, some researchers used a
single tweet as the unit of analysis while others combined all tweets from an individual user. Each
analysis required a different determination of the population sample. As such, one needs to be
very careful in the application of the algorithms presented in the research. A consequence of these
non-standardized methods is a difficulty in coherently make comparisons between results in any
meaningful way.
SM sites are in a constant beta mode of development which means that new features are
frequently being introduced. Some features will pass the test of time while others will be
abandoned based on user usage and feedback. This lack of steady-state conditions presents a
challenge for researchers trying to compare or build upon past studies. In addition, the number of
users is constantly changing. For example, a 2009 study [31] captured Twitter data on the top four
trending topics over a two day period and obtained 7215 total tweets. As of March 21, 2012
according to Wikipedia, there were over 340 million tweets a day, and as the New Year began on
January 1, 2013 there were 33,388 tweets per second in the Japan standard time zone alone. This
issue warns researchers to be very careful when making comparisons or when trying to duplicate
methods that were valid on relatively small data sets but are now being applied to massive
amounts of data.
The above philosophical and methodological issues make it hard to combine studies in this area in
order to produce more comprehensive theories. However, we can certainly learn from previous
studies being cognisant of the problems.
3.3 Possible Solutions for Methodological Issues

As discussed in 3.2, there are a multitude of methodological issues surrounding SM data, and in
particular, Twitter (microblog) data. While identified as a good focal point in the above section,
we need to ensure that quality of data collected would allow for reliable and valid conclusions to
be drawn and decisions to be made. Commanders require actionable intelligence that has been
given a confidence level such that risk can be assessed. Let’s examine the previously identified
issues and their possible solutions.
The first issue identified was the multiple ways in which researchers collected their data. There
was no common data collection method used by the authors of the 40 plus papers examined [2].
In the early days of Twitter, access to all data was available and hence researchers were able to
collect and store this data for analysis [28, 29]. Currently, the free API access only provides a
sample of tweets [32]. In addition, data collected by way of API is not repeatable as the APIs are
not clearly defined and are susceptible to change at any time [22]. This does not necessarily pose
a problem if the aim of data usage is for looking at trends across a wide range of subjects. API
usage is likely adequate for maintaining situational awareness at a high level. If a Twitter-like
application was used within a closed net for blue force only, we would control the API and this
would not be a problem. The Twitter API generally provides all the tweets up to 1500 per
15 minutes. If the tweet rate is greater than that it only provides a sampling. So by limiting the
search terms to concentrate on areas of interest, it is likely that 1500 would be sufficient even for
monitoring. An assessment would be needed for diving deep into the data for detailed analysis.
One might require access to the “fire hose” of data which is only available through paid
subscriptions. Companies like GNIP [33] Datasift [34] offer complete “fire hose” data
(and complete archive of historical Twitter data) from a multitude of North American based SM
platforms. Any serious SM analytical capability should have access to the entire feeds from
platforms of interest when needed. In the military case, this “fire hose” access would also be
required for platforms that are used within the countries of interest, which in most cases are not
available from GNIP.
The second issue [2] dealt with the problem of defining the required target population. While a
significant number of the world’s population has access to the Internet, only a subset use SM and
of that a smaller subset uses Twitter [17] and other SM platforms. So knowing who one is looking
at becomes very important when reporting for intelligence purposes or recommending courses of
action that effect a certain population. Luckily this is of also significant concern to marketers and
hence, the business world is working hard on this problem. One way to understand who is using
the platform is to mine the user profiles provided by the various platforms. At a minimum, users
require a username, but there is usually a large set of tombstone data that users can enter
voluntarily. For platforms where users are interacting with family and friends, one can expect that
the user data would be accurate. These types of platforms could be used as reference points for
verifying identities, assuming that usernames are the same or similar. Rao and Yarowsky [35]
looked at the ability to detect latent user-properties within SM (age, region of origin and political
orientation) with success. As well, Chen et al. [36] examined the “internet water army” or online
paid posters in China and found several ways of easily detecting fraudulent usernames and
practices. Caution must still be exercised as a study by Cornwell and Lundgen [37] compared
misrepresentation in romantic relationships in cyberspace vs. real space and found that people
were much more likely to misrepresent themselves in cyberspace. However, understanding the
target population requires more than just demographic data.
It is important to understand how the data provider is “packaging” the data. Data providers are
business oriented (helping a business find out how their brand is being discussed on SM) and
hence, tend to aggregate all of their data sources, further confusing the matter. Good research
methods demand the ability to describe the population used for a data sample. This allows
precision in building a model or making predictions using a similar population. Nevertheless,
depending on the how this data is being interpreted and used, there may be room for compromise.
As discussed above, aggregation of an individual’s posts over time can easily lead to the problem
of spanning multiple content and different intended audiences and thus problems with
interpretation and contextual errors [26]. Notwithstanding, if we agree that, in most cases, “where
there is smoke there is fire”, then an aggregation of platforms and users would not necessarily be
a problem for identification of trends. In fact, it might be preferable, allowing for more sensitive
thresholds for the indication of change. However, if one is interested in the reactions from
refugees and inhabitants of neighbouring countries of an operational area, it is clear that much
greater stratification would be needed. In this case geolocation would be most important. As an
example, there are large areas of the world that are covered by one dominant social network site
(Figure 3) but there is no guarantee that the population of interest will be wholly located in that
space. There is research that discusses the problem [38], cases where good stratification of users
was possible [17], and ways to detect approximate location through various combinations of
pattern of life analysis (active period trends) [39], using contextual clues in user content,
comparing time related content to timestamps, use of language, or if a user has several different
SM accounts, information from another account might provide location [31].
Figure 3: World map of social network in 2013 [40].
SM platforms are in constant change. There is a flow of users joining and leaving for other
platforms. There are changes to features. There are buy-outs and amalgamation of platforms.
For military purposes, it is more important to find the SM platforms used by the population of
countries of interest (Table 1). These tend to be local instantiations of Facebook or Twitter, or
copy-cat platforms. For instance, Weixin [41] and Weibo [42] are two large SM platforms based
out of China. “Weixin is relatively similar to Facebook, but it has the option to share to smaller
groups of friends and family rather than everyone on your friend list. Weibo is geared more
towards the general public and has a more Twitter-like feel” [43].
Table 1: A Sample of Global SM sites as of 2011 [5].
Name Country URL and Description
of origin
Badoo UK http://www.badoo.com/
Over 180 000 000 users (2013 stat.) Although available in
most of the world, the site is most active in France, Spain
and Italy, as well as in Latin America.
Cyworld South http://cyworld.co.kr/
(싸이월드) Korea Around 24 000 000 users in South Korea, China and
Vietnam.
Friendster USA http://www.friendster.com/
Over 115 000 000 users. The top 10 countries accessing
Friendster, according to Alexa (a traffic metrics web site),
as of May 7, 2009, are the Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia,
Singapore, Pakistan, the United Arab Emirates, Sudan,
South Korea, Bangladesh and India.
Hi5 USA http://hi5.com/
Over 80 000 000 users. Popular in India, Mongolia,
Thailand, Romania, Jamaica, Central Africa, Portugal and
Latin America.
iWiW Hungary http://iwiw.hu/
On December 24, 2008, the number of registered users on
iWiW was 4 million, covering almost all Internet users in
Hungary.
Kaixin001 China http://www.kaixin001.com
(开心网) Number of users unknown but ranks 135 on Alexa.
Kaskus Indonesia http://www.kaskus.us/
As of April 22, 2010, Kaskus has more than 1 620 000
registered accounts. Only available in Indonesian.
LiveJournal Russia/U http://www.livejournal.com/
SA More than 17 000 000 users in Russia and among the
Russian-speaking diaspora abroad. Blogging platform.
Mixi (ミク Japan http://www.mixi.jp/
シィ) Invite-only with around 25 000 000 users.
NetLog Belgium http://www.netlog.com/
Around 80 000 000 users. Mostly popular in Saudi Arabia,
the United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Belgium and Iraq.
Orkut USA http://orkut.com/
At least 120 000 000 users (2013 stat.). Owned by Google
but very popular in Brazil (53,6% of traffic) and India (35%
of traffic)
Name Country URL and Description
of origin
P1 China http://www.p1.cn/
More than 500 000 users in Beijing, Shanghai and Hong
Kong. Focus is on upper class elite. Users become members
by invitation only.
Qzone China http://qzone.qq.com/
(QQ空间) or At least 1 230 000 000 monthly users (2013 stat.).
QQ Important information: A rumour is circulating that
Tencent, creator of QQ, is developing a new international
SN.
Skyrock France http://skyrock.com/
Alexa consistently ranks Skyrock among the top 10 sites in
France, Belgium and in Switzerland.
Vkontakte Russia http://vk.com/index.php
(ВКонтакте) Over 210 000 000 (2013 stat.) users in Russia, Ukraine,
Belarus, and Kazakhstan.
3.4 Engineering and Empirical Challenges to Implementing

SM Tools
From an analysis perspective, SM data include at least three specific types: 1) The content—what
are people saying; 2) The links—who is saying what to whom?; and 3) Metadata—all
conceivable and recorded data that is not content but that can be attributed to the content (geotag,
timestamps, user profiles, number of tweets, retweets, etc.). While the jury is still out on the
classification of SM, it is generally accepted as falling within the Open Source Intelligence
(OSINT) category. Commanders use open source reports to a large extent when producing
operational plans and making decisions. Hence it is important to understand how SM changes the
face of traditional open sources. SM has some very significant differences.
3.4.1 What Makes SM Different from Other OSINT Sources?
Traditional OSINT [44, 45] comes from sources that are for the most part orderly. They contain
content that has likely been edited, produced by professional authors, and use formal easily
understood language. In large part, these sources are revenue generating and hence are easy to
find, download and search. Access to and use of such sources is well defined under existing laws.
Relative to SM, there are a limited number of sources to scour; SM data can be found just about
anywhere and everywhere on the Internet. SM can be defined as “online communications
delivered and interacted with, via text, audio and or video (e.g., Facebook, YouTube, weblogs and
micro-blogs)” [46]. As shown in Table2, SM sources have quite a different set of characteristics.
These differences make it very difficult if not impossible to apply most standard data treatment
tools to SM data.
Table 2: A Comparison of Traditional OSINT Sources to SM Sources.
Traditional OSINT Sources SM Sources
Academic research, books, Blogs and micro-blogs, Internet forums,

encyclopaedias, business and user-generated FAQs, Chat, podcasts,
government documents, grey online games, tags, ratings, comments,
literature, images, journals, social networking sites, online video,
periodicals, broadcast media, maps, wikis, search engines, social
newspapers, radio bookmarking
Edited Not-edited
Written by professional authors Written by anyone and everyone
Use of proper grammar, spelling and Anything goes

punctuation
Minimal use of sarcasm, street Anything goes

language, profanity
Usually well catalogued and contains Could be found anywhere, with non-
standardized metadata standard folksonomies and tags
Easy access Must be sought out
Some requiring subscription fees Generally free. However some have

limited access due to API restrictions
Well-defined use of acronyms High use of text and chat acronyms –

Netlingo [47]
Use of most common language dialect Local dialects and special use of words
that have different generalized meanings
(i.e., “that is sick” meaning “that is
really cool”, could also mean that “this
is really hot”, or “that is very
disturbing/gross/revolting”, depending
on context )
Audio is clear, audible and generally Audio quality is highly variable

of high quality
Video and photos are generally of high Video and photo quality is highly
quality variable
An appreciation of the differences was highlighted in Proceedings of the International Conference
on Web Search and Web Data Mining 2008 [48]:
The main challenge posed by content in SM sites is the fact that the distribution of quality has
high variance: from very high-quality items to low-quality, sometimes abusive content. This
makes the tasks of filtering and ranking in such systems more complex than in other domains.
However, for information-retrieval tasks, SM systems present inherent advantages over
traditional collections of documents: their rich structure offers more available data than in
other domains. In addition to document content and link structure, SM exhibit a wide variety
of user-to-document relation types, and user-to-user interactions.
3.4.2 The Effect of Big Data
A significant characteristic of SM data that differs from traditional OSINT is the size of data sets.
The quantity of data generated daily from SM sites (YouTube captures 3.5 Petabytes of video per
day) requires that monitoring, capturing and analysing data collected from SM be looked at from
a Big Data perspective [49]. Big data requires the capacity for processing computation-intensive
statistical calculations (i.e., use of a supercomputer or a cluster) as opposed to desktop computers,
high-speed large bandwidth connections, and automated algorithms that are specifically designed
to handle Terabytes of data and the statistical noise found in real-world data. For instance, Ediger
et al. [50] worked with Twitter and Facebook graphs consisting of 537 million vertex, 8.9 billion
edges. Using a 128-processor Cray XMT, calculating betweenness centrality still
took 55 minutes. They state that “one analysis approach treats the interactions as graphs and
applies tools from graph theory, social network analysis, and scale-free networks [51]. However,
this volume of data that must be processed to apply these techniques overwhelms current
computational capabilities”. Ediger et al. used GraphCT [52] an in-house developed open-source
software to analyse the data and were unaware of other available tools for evaluating complex
metrics on such large graphs.
Deciding what, when and how to monitor will be a key approach to limiting the scope of data for
processing. However, with such processing requirements, we need to ask if this type of analysis
could be done in theatre or if it requires a reach-back capability. Further, as will be discuss below,
the large majority of the emphasis placed on SM monitoring and analytics is for the business
world. Here this interest lies in determining what is being said about “our brand” and where it has
positive or negative sentiment. There are very few COTS (commercial off-the-shelf) or
open-source algorithms for the types of analysis conducted by the military. Researchers from the
Computing Community Consortium [53] state, “commercial data mining tools can be
characterized as well-designed tools encapsulating yesterday’s algorithms—they augment but do
not substitute for the high levels of expertise required to make use of scalable machine learning.”
In addition, it will be important to differentiate between the approaches of data-driven

vs. goal-driven analysis. Data driven analysis is akin to data mining—looking for trends and
discovering new patterns from large data sets. Goal driven analysis is based on trying to answer
the Commander’s Critical Information Requirements. Each approach will require some unique
methods and algorithms.
3.4.3 Implications for Monitoring Based on the Types of Analysis
Required
At the basic level, we can simply consider three types of SM data available: 1) the content, 2) the
relationship links, and 3) the metadata; however, this is where the simplicity ends. There are thousands
of content types: blogs posts, replies and rebuttals; forums; wikis; images; photos; videos; podcasts;
comments of all types; ratings; Google maps add-ins; social networking sites; etc. Links that identify
relationships are plenty: links between people and content, people and people, people and
groups/organizations/causes, content and content, etc. Finally, there are even more types of metadata
connected to all these content types: time; places; reach; influence; followers; contacts; dwell time;
click-through; and on and on. From this content, relationships and metadata, literally endless
combinations and correlations can be made. The complexity increases again, when this soft data is
combined with hard data from other intelligence sources such as sensors.
The Chief Scientist of the US Air Force is looking for another set of sensors to augment the AF
arsenal. However, these sensors will not be mounted to airframes. Dr Maybury is calling this
“Social Radar”. The Danger Room [54] reports that “Social Radar won’t be a single sensor to
discover your secret yearnings. It’ll be more of a virtual sensor, combining a vast array of
technologies and disciplines, all employed to take a society’s pulse and assess its future health.
It’s part of a broader Pentagon effort to master the societal and cultural elements of war.” No easy
task given the nature of SM content.
It is important to understand that SM personal profiles and posts are susceptible to

misinformation and deception. Ellison et al. [55] state that “online environments offer individuals
an increased ability to control their self-presentation, and therefore greater opportunities to
engage in misrepresentation.” In another study Cornwell and Lundgen [37] compared
misrepresentation in romantic relationships in cyberspace vs. real-space and found that
“cyberspace participants were more prone to misrepresent personal characteristics specifically
because they regarded their relationships as less serious and felt less commitment toward them,
rather than simply that the communication channel offered greater opportunities for deception.”
Hence, in the content portion of SM, we see what people want us to see. While this is also true in
the real world, the face-to-face nature allows for body language and facial expression to be read
in conjunction with what is being said.
Along with the unstructured text of the content of SM, there are large amounts of quantitative
data (links and metadata) that is automatically recorded: number of followers; number of hits;
likes, connections; and thousands more. It is easy to apply all sorts of statistical analysis to this
data. However, it must be emphasized that being lulled into the safe haven of quantitative data
can quickly lead to a false sense of what is really happening. Humans cannot be treated like inert
physical objects. There are literally billions of reasons people do the things they do.
Fundamentally, SM data is social data, and hence requires a solid framework from which analysis
can be conducted. Once established, the appropriate and valid quantitative analysis can occur.
Similar to monitoring, the analysis conducted will depend on what is being asked and the nature
of the data. While there are countless possible methods and combinations that can be applied,
let’s consider one example. Reynolds et al. [46], using blog and Twitter data, combined
computational analysis and a social science framework in order to discover the thought-leaders
(those who have a disproportionately large impact on some underlying social group). They first
established the focal concepts using the social science literature. Once the key concepts (thought
– information – leader) were made explicit they determined the appropriate metrics. They found
that Twitter and blog data both appear to follow a power law distribution; hence they used
“posting frequency as one key metric in identifying an online leader”. Next they observed that
some frequent posts do not add to the value of the discussion and that these posts tend to generate
very few responses – another metric. Finally they used the “number of comments per post author”
as a third metric. Reynolds et al. concluded that “once the online data has been gathered it is then
possible to calculate the three quantities previously discussed and sort them from highest to
lowest value. Those entities that rank highly in all three measures are, by our definition,
thought- or information-leaders” [46] .
For anyone who participates in SM, it is evident that the quality of user-generated data can range
from words of wisdom to complete and utter rubbish. Agichtein et al. [48], looked at finding
high-quality content in SM application contained in the Yahoo Answers application. They
concentrated on intrinsic content quality (the de-facto text classifier, visual quality, syntactic and
semantic complexity, and grammaticality), contributor and user relationships (“good” answerers
write “good” answers, or vote for other “good” answerers, etc.), and content usage statistics.
Let’s take a closer look at this last metric: “Users of the content (who may or may not also be
contributors) provide valuable information about the items they find interesting. In particular,
usage statistics such as the number of clicks on the item and dwell time have been shown useful
in the context of identifying high quality web search results, and are complementary to
link-analysis based methods.” Using these metrics they calculated a quality score that was used to
feed a classifier algorithm.
From these examples, we confirm the earlier claim about combining social science research with
the quantitative data. We also see that there are infinite ways one can combine metrics. In the case
of military applications, that are already dealing with multi-source intelligence and tend to be past
the point of information overload, much of the monitoring and preliminary analysis will need to
be conducted automatically.
3.4.4 Machine Learning
Machine learning will factor large in the development of the algorithms for monitoring, filtering
& capturing, analyzing, and possible behaviour prediction. Machine learning first applies
statistical analysis methods to data sets in order to generate a predictive model. Using this model
similar data can then be analysed. Bryant et al. [53] highlight areas where machine learning can
be applied to intelligence problems (a sample shown below in italics):
a. Language translation: Translating documents from one human language to another.

Modern translation systems create sophisticated statistical models of how the words,
phrases, and syntactic structures of one language map to another. State-of-the-art
systems are still not as good as expert human translators, but they are able to generate
translations that capture the major points of a document, and therefore they can be
used to filter a collection of documents down to those that should be translated by
humans. SM presents an even greater challenge to traditional translation as authors
are not professional writers, posts are written in everyday language that includes
slang and numerous short forms, and posts are written by different people in many
languages and styles.
b. Knowledge extraction: Creating a database of statistically validated facts from
unstructured and questionable sources, such as SM. Learning algorithms construct
and refine these databases by iteratively gathering facts with increasing certainty as
more sources are combined. They rely on the property that many facts are stated in
multiple locations and so they get statistically reinforced, while false information has
a much lower rate of occurrence and is likely to be contradicted.
c. Document summarization: Extracting the sense of a document, or more interestingly

a group of topically-related documents, and establishing the main points of consensus
and divergence. This can greatly improve the productivity of analysts trying to screen
large document collections and enable the tracking of overall trends on what topics
are of most importance. Efficient summarization can greatly reduce the volume of
information that an analyst must evaluate.
d. Trend identification: Detecting, presenting, and validating or refuting patterns of

information to determine evolving trends and their nature (e.g., unique, cyclic, etc.),
as well as possible causal linkages among trends and supporting evidence.
e. Active learning: Determining where information is lacking and which data would be
most productive to acquire. This information can be used, for example, to determine
where best to deploy further satellite surveillance, human assets, or signal intercepts.
3.5 Conclusion
This review of the engineering and empirical challenges to implementing SM has presented some
of the issues surrounding the monitoring and analysis of SM data using the current tools and
services available. There is clearly a sense of urgency expressed by military agencies to
understand and become competent in this still very emergent phenomenon. Additionally, it is
evident by the number of SM monitoring start-ups, that the business world has realized the
importance of SM and is “already in the game”. SM data is different from traditional OSINT and
requires both a social science framework as well as massive data manipulation (cleaning,
translating of both language and special use of words and acronyms). Further, the sheer quantities
of available data require a shift in computing paradigm. Indeed, with all these challenges, it is
exciting times for research and development.
Developing an SM capability for C2 implies consideration of some important issues that were
mentioned in the sections above. First, when dealing with the amounts of data involved in
monitoring and analysing SM, for most, an increase in data storage and concentrated computing
power would be required. Second, depending on the SM sources of interest, one would likely
need to acquire the rights and APIs required to access the “data fire hose”. Regardless of how one
goes about monitoring, the state of the art of natural language processing and machine learning
are still very much in development. As such, dedicated research and development is required to
move the yardsticks in these areas. This does, however, provide an opportunity for international
collaboration and sharing of services between allied military services.
Finally, there are many issues that were not touched upon in this section: how to data scrape;
signal-to-noise ratios; the legality of data collection; how to protect identity; etc. Perhaps the most
significant is the determination of the reliability, credibility, and validation (ground truth) of SM
sources. These issues need to be addressed in context.
4 SM in a C2 Context
4.1 Introduction
In an increasingly complex and rapidly changing operational environment, commanders, decision
makers, and personnel rely on accurate, timely, and relevant information that can be stored and
maintained securely and accessed quickly at headquarters and in the field. In today’s world, and
in the future, our ability to exploit (find, manipulate, combine, purposely use and share) the huge
stores of data and information will be a key contributor to mission success.
However, the sheer volume of information produced, and the increasing number of available
channels for its creation and communication, challenge our capabilities to fully understand,
leverage and effectively manage and share information assets. At the same time, complex national
security issues such as asymmetric cyber and bio-terrorism, environmental degradation, and
ethnic unrest, religious extremism and resource disputes require that military operations are
conducted at an accelerated pace, requiring rapid coordination of political and military objectives
and increasing dependence upon information and intelligence. The information sharing
requirement is no less applicable between militaries, governments and Non-Government
Organizations (NGOs) in time of crisis as has been witnessed with such events as the Hurricane
Katrina, Asian Tsunamis, and the 2012 Haïtian Earthquake. Such complexity has spawned many
initiatives to improve the flow of information such as the NATO Core Enterprise Services
Framework [55], the United Kingdom Warfighter Information Services Framework [56–58], and
the Canadian Future Intelligence Analysis Capability [56, 57]. However, overwhelmingly these
initiatives rely on the machines and algorithms to sort through the mass quantities of information
and do not specifically include power of peer production, social networks formed in most SM
platforms, and the concept of the long tail [59] to attack the problem of information overload.
Research has shown that “a distributed knowledge system serves to reduce individual cognitive
overload, enlarge the collective pool of expertise, and minimize redundancy” [60]. A large
number of SM tools could be used to provide a platform for such a pool of expertise. This
platform could take the form of a social network. The development of social networks has been
an inherent part of human society since the dawn of man; however, the growth of the Internet
over the past 20 years has given rise to an era of human interconnection like no other. And
perhaps the SM explosion of the last 5 years is even more significant. For example, Hannigan
says during the fight for Mosul in Iraq, jihadists sent up to 40,000 tweets a day, and that “SM
outlets, particularly Twitter and Facebook, are the command and control networks of choice for
terror groups like ISIS and other criminals”[55].
This section is investigative in nature and as such will start with a scenario to set the stage for
possible C2 usage of SM that allows for the building of trust between members; Trust being a key
principle in C2 and required for effective SM use. The aim of such a network would be to
encourage the type of deep sharing of information between disparate organizations, who perhaps
have the tendency to distrust one another, which is required for successful resolution of
international crisis events through the comprehensive approach. Next trust will be examined in
more detail, followed by trust within social networks.
4.2 Scenario
Major Jones was part of the first rotation into the Haïti, just two months after the fast-reaction teams
were sent in. As an Intelligence officer, he knew the importance of building good relationships.
Relationships built trust and trust leads to a good flow of information and intelligence. This
information would be used by his Commander to make important life and death decisions. Apart from
leaving his family for six months, he was actually looking forward to this deployment. During his
pre-deployment training, he had participated in a new initiative that was focused on building trust
between intelligence analysts, and the various military, governmental, and the non-government
organizations that had flocked to the disaster zone to help the Haitian people.
This new initiative was quite a different approach to this information sharing problem than his
last deployment, in the southern Afghan theatre, when such a program was not yet in place. He
distinctly remembered the time that fellow soldiers were killed in an operation to rescue a
reporter who had gotten himself into trouble; despite having been warned not to travel into that
particular area, the reporter ignored the advice and was taken by Taliban[58]. After that, it was
hard to convince his troops to show patience with the NGOs. However, he believed that this time,
the military could concentrate on achieving their missions without having to worry about the
safety of NGOs. Indeed, the NGOs would be aiding his own task as they report on activities and
participate in a network that enables information sharing and relationship building.
The introductions and information sharing had stared soon after the quake in Haïti about two
months ago. Shortly after he received his travel orders he was advised to log into the METIS
network (named after the Titan Goddess of good counsel, advice, planning and wisdom). METIS
was set up to allow individuals from government departments and from non-government
organizations, as well as contractors from industry, to interact prior to and during deployment to
countries in need of aid. The idea was to build relationships through online social networking
that would then translate into trust, or at least better understanding of one another, on the ground
in the theatre of operations. In fact, Major Jones remembered that he met some of his most
important contacts in the communal coffee garden area in Afghanistan [58].
Over the next two months, he read through the homepage of each of the NGO’s that provided its
missions and objectives and profiled its people. He read the profiles, blogs and comments from many
individuals who were already working Haïti, as well as many more who were scheduled to go. He
found that some had very similar interests and he was able to trade some tips on finer points of home
brewing. He was able to ask questions and determine some additional kit that he would need. Perhaps
most important, he was able to discuss his mission and help sort out how the many organizations on
the ground could better work together to help the Haïtian people. “But as the past few months have
made clear, there is little coordination among the NGOs or between the NGOs and Haitian officials.
Some NGO plans don't fit or clash outright with the plans of the government. Some are geared toward
short-term relief—a classic case of giving a man a fish instead of teaching him to fish”[59]. Jones was
hoping that METIS would aid in changing this problem.
Another aspect of METIS was the ability to upload materials relevant to the operation. Maj Jones
was feeling overwhelmed with the amount of information and reports that he needed to read in
order to get up to speed on Haïti. Luckily, the METIS had a trust-based recommendation system
that allowed him to quickly hone in on the most pertinent documents as well as the experts in
various areas.
Now in theatre, Maj Jones was using the METIS system daily to get updates on NGO movements
and activities. As well, he was able to see what other analysts were reading and recommending.
This included all sorts of OSINT (open source intelligence) and HUMINT (human intelligence)
sources as well as NGO situation reports.
4.3 C2 Concepts and SM

This subsection will discuss the connections between key C2 concepts [60] and possible SM
connections. Regardless of the implementation details (an internal vs open internet use of SM tools),
there are many SM tools that could be used to enhance current C2 processes. CF doctrine defines
command and control as “the exercise of authority and direction by a commander over assigned,
allocated and attached forces”. Table 3 identifies the C2 concepts or principles and the corresponding
SM concepts that apply. The cells that are grey represent the aspects of C2 that would provide a good
place to start to introduce and implement SM tools and techniques. These were selected based on the
technical ease of implementation and the high potential benefit to the C2 process and mission.
However, further research is required to determine the best way forward.
Table 3: SM concepts applicable to C2 concepts[60] and principles.

C2 Principle or Concept Applicable SM Concept
Command is the imparting of a vision to the When followers have been part of developing
organization in order to achieve a goal. It does the vision, the chances for success is much
this by formulating a well-thought out vision greater. SM can contribute to the coordination
and then clearly communicating it. of vision development by large groups of
followers through peer production using Wikis
and crowd wisdom concepts.
Lead: the ability of the commander to achieve An important aspect of leadership is effective
common intent, inspire, motivate, build communications up, down, and across. SM
relationships and trust at all levels, engage tools excel at allowing communications to flow
when and where needed, balance risks and in real time or asynchronously. Social
opportunities, and make rapid, effective networking, blogs, microblogs, Q&A,
decisions with a comprehensive understanding discussion and forums all can contribute to this
of mission assurance. communications function.
Coordinate: the ability of commander and staff Coordination is also a common function used
to manage and integrate information within a in SM. Microblogs and location tools as well
complex JIMP battle space, across a full as event tools are ideal.
spectrum of missions.
Plan and Organize: the ability of the Military planning and organizing usually
commander and staff to use information involves many inputs from dispersed units. SM
advantage to develop, evaluate and select tools such as discussion forums, wikis, Q&A,
COAs, and to identify key decision points and social gaming, and location would be useful
possible contingencies. here.
The Intelligence function will also exploit SM
data for providing Situational Awareness as
well as monitoring red, green and white forces.
Direct: the ability of the commander to issue Social networking, blogs, microblogs, Q&A,
orders and instructions to those with a role in discussion and forums all can contribute to this
mission accomplishment. communications function.
Control: the ability to continuously monitor, The controlling function would be facilitated
assess the situation and progress, and by SM tools such as social networks,
orchestrate and deconflict the battle space to discussion forums, wikis, Q&A, and location.
achieve desired effects. Additional SM platforms could be utilized for
effects assessment (i.e., YouTube for collateral
damage assessment)
Human in Command. Command is a human The inherent nature of SM tool is that they are
activity supported by state-of-the-art education, social – based on human activity. The fact that
training and technology. Creativity, adaptability they can be used with mobile devices and can
and collaboration are fundamental principles of update in real-time means that agility and
the development of an agile and effective CF adaptability are enabled through their use.
command and control capability.
Unity of command – “A single, clearly This principle could seriously hamper the
identified commander will be appointed for effectiveness of SM tools depending on the
each operation with the authority to direct and willingness of the commander to share power
control the committed resources. The and/or the legal constraints of the commander
commander is responsible and accountable for to share or delegate authority. In fact the peer
the success or failure of the operation.” production capability that is enabled through
SM tools runs counter to the traditional
military notions of command.
Freedom of action – “Once a mission is SM tools are designed for mobile devices
established and orders issued, maximum and can update in real-time means that
freedom of action must be given to agility and adaptability are enabled through
subordinate commanders.” their use. This means that commanders can
quickly and easily provide direction and
receive feedback and updates to allow for
freedom of action.
Comprehensive Approach involves the The scenario in Section 4.2 highlighted tools
integration of diplomacy, defence, development and methods that could be used to engage
efforts, and the efforts of other government OGDs and NGOs.
departments and agencies. Together these
partners work to maximize the effectiveness of
Canada's international objectives. The
comprehensive approach infers a cooperative
culture and collaborative working environment
in which the activities and range of actors
within an operational area are aligned and
operate under an overarching strategic
objective. Participants work proactively and
share their understanding of situations and
conduct planning and activities on the basis of
shared, favourable outcomes in the short,

medium, and long term.
The key principles of the comprehensive SM tools are commercial and hence are easily
approach that must guide the CF are: acquired by OGDs, NGOs as well as allies.
• The ability to immediately ‘plug into’ joint Certainly plugging into the Internet is possible,
battle-space communications and however environments with degraded or
information systems in order to interoperate destroyed infrastructure could cause problems.
effectively; Bandwidth could also be problematic. Security
• The ability to facilitate the building of issues would need to be addressed in this case.
organizational interoperability through The relative SM tools are the same as the ones
collaborative planning mechanisms and identified above in the first six rows of this
protocols; table.
• An ability to connect all relevant
organizations and agencies with CF
operational architecture, and to provide
liaison to support these agencies in the
execution of the mission;
• The ability to communicate with joint and
multinational organizations including the
ability to provide an efficient interface
between conventional and special operations
forces;
• The capacity to access key information in an
efficient and timely manner, both to identify
targets for attack and influence, and to
determine the resources required in
operations; and
• The ability to clearly and effectively
communicate mission goals, objectives, and
actions to relevant players, as required.
Location independence of information: SM tools are communication tools that are
Providing access to expertise (planning designed to work on the open Internet. Hence
capability, modeling and simulation, technical access is available everywhere the Internet is
advice) and weapon systems and logistics available.
deployed outside the area/theatre of operations;
Adaptive forces: Starting with a good plan, the Certainly the peer production capabilities
basis for commanders’ success will be clear enabled by SM tools allows for a flow of ideas
direction, shared situational awareness, access between all levels of command. The ability to
to specialist information and advice, a flexible “keep a finger on the pulse” and finding advice
organization, the resources required to respond using microblogs and social networks would
to unexpected changes, and the ability to apply here.
operate across the entire spectrum of conflict.
Networked forces: Effective networking SM tools are networking tools.

increases the speed of decision-making.
Networked forces exchange information
horizontally and vertically between sensors,
weapons, platforms and command and control
nodes within a multinational and
comprehensive approach context. Networking
facilitates shared situational awareness, enables
coordinated decision-making, allows decisions
to be made at the lowest level, and opens up the
possibility for commanders to capitalize on
opportunities. Networking emphasizes the
human aspect of command and creates a
knowledge-based-force that supports the
mission command concept and allows adaptive
forces to conduct dispersed operations.
Shared Situational Awareness and Shared situational awareness is achieved by
Understanding: The commander needs first creating and maintaining a single
information superiority to achieve decision authoritative source of data which reflects the
superiority which ultimately leads to achieve needs of commanders and staffs. This picture
desired effects from the employment of forces. that is developed is sometimes referred to as a
Information and decision superiority starts with common operating picture. The idea of a wiki
shared situational awareness and understanding. is a perfect location for the COP. Combined
Shared situational understanding by with Q&A and discussion forum, personnel
commanders and staffs across various levels of could easily discuss and work out
hierarchy and multiple environmental domains misunderstandings that would then be readily
comes from being able to visualize a common available for others to read.
battle-space that includes the disposition of
forces and the predicted end states for possible
courses of action being considered.
Common Operating Picture: Having a common operating picture is

Commanders require a common operating particularly important when exercising the
picture so that they do not find themselves comprehensive approach to operations where
fighting to gain information that already resides unity of effort will be a key success factor.
elsewhere, whether with higher headquarters, Only when all decision makers have a common
subordinate elements or partners from public, mental model can they achieve their common
private or multinational domains. A common objectives. Again, SM tools have been created
operating picture provides commanders at to share information and understanding
different levels, with different roles and in between people using text, pictures, videos etc.
different locations with a shared situational
understanding of the
battle-space that enhances the exercise of
mission command, supports unity of effort and
permits forces to be adaptive, dispersed and
agile.
Intelligence Capability: There are many ways to exploit SM for

Command and control is significantly enhanced intelligence [1–3]. Certainly exploiting the SM
when it is supported by an intelligence function usage of our enemies is very pertinent however
that is directed by the operational commander and the same tools could be used to ensure that
provides timely and accurate understanding of the monitoring and analysis of our own
adversary and operational environment. information is carried out effectively.
The intelligence function must be The open nature of SM would allow for
multi-disciplinary and include experts from across multi-disciplinary input.
the CF, academia, government and outside
agencies. This is a shift in emphasis from the
traditional concept of focusing on the adversary to
an environment-based focus that addresses the
complexities of the future operating environment.
Commanders require all source intelligence to
meet their need for a holistic appreciation of the
situation. Within the context of comprehensive
operations all source intelligence is effective only
if information sharing policies across national and
multinational participants are in place. These
policies must be based on a
‘responsibility-to-share’ rather than the traditional
‘need-to-know’ model of information exchange.
Common standards and architecture: The While the SM tools and platforms use
immediate aim of communications and control standardized protocols and software, these
capability architecture must be to achieve full could be very different from those used by
integration across the CF, to achieve military hardware. Certainly adaptation of the
interoperability with the United States and common standards used commercially allows
NATO and interoperability with core allies. interoperability, however SM tools are not
designed for level II and above information
sharing. The use of secure networks would be
possible but would hamper the open and
inclusive nature of SM tools.
Selection, Training, Education, Experience and See the scenario in Section 2.1 for many ideas
Personnel Development concerning the use of SM for training and PD.
To achieve a successful command and control
capability that is able to respond to change and
uncertainty the CF must recruit, train, educate
and provide experience to personnel via the
Canadian Forces Professional Development
System (CFPDS) to enable them to plan and
execute operations across the full spectrum of

CF missions.
“Mission command is an emerging concept in SM concepts and tools have evolved from a
CF operations. Centred on the mission concept of co-creation and sharing between
command approach to operations, forces will users. Such concepts encourage horizontal
need to move towards a command and control integration. The use of certain SM tools
architecture which features greater horizontal combined with traditional chain-of-command
integration, while maintaining the ability to methods would facilitate a mission command
coordinate up and down vertical chains of concept implementation.
command [56].” And “The complexity of future Using SM methods and tools in the plan and
missions will require commanders and their organise phase as well as in the developing of
staffs at all levels to be integrated as a team and the common operating picture we assist in
networked through social and technical means integrating the team.
to achieve a common intent [56].”
4.4 Trust
To begin with, we have to avoid confusion between familiarity and trust. Familiarity is an
unavoidable fact of life; trust is a solution for specific problems of risk. But trust has to
be achieved within a familiar world, and changes may occur in the familiar features of
the world which will have an impact on the possibility of developing trust in human
relations. Hence we cannot neglect the conditions of familiarity and its limits when we set
out to explore the conditions of trust [61].
Trust has been studied by psychologists as an individual conceptualization along personality

theory [62, 63] and from a behavioural perspective in the classic prisoner’s dilemma game [64].
While a great deal of research has been conducted in these areas, no general theme or consistent
definition of trust has emerged and this has led to much confusion [65]. Trust research has
focused on uncovering the psychological states of people as individuals. However, neither of
these lines of research adequately explains the social nature of trust. Trust research within the
military domain gets closer to studying trust as a social phenomenon. Indeed recent research on
trust within the Canadian Army [66] highlights several different multi-dimensional definitions. In
particular, “CAF soldiers understood trust to involve their perceptions of benevolence,
competence and, integrity” whereas the “American Army doctrine defines trust as the ‘assured
reliance on the character, ability, strength or truth of someone or something’”[66]. Here we see
trust as complex and multidimensional. It appears cognitively, behaviourally, affectively and is
dependent on the context (situation), but these traits do not necessarily manifest together. Hence
trying to isolate individual components through reductionist methodology simplifies the study of
trust to the point of missing its true nature. Lewis implores us to think of trust as a property of
collective units [65].
From a sociological perspective, trust is studied through the relationships between people rather
than the individual psychological states of people. Trust permeates through members of a group
or society when they are confident that others will act in an expected manner. For example, Sue
will share a secret with Barb because she trusts her not to spread the secret, however she no
longer trusts Gail, who gossiped Sue’s last secret. Trust in organizations and institutions leads to a
stable society. We collectively show trust in our money and financial institutions by our
investments and unquestioning use of our currency. When this trust no longer exists, countries
quickly become unstable. It is this sociological view of trust that is most applicable and useful in
the case of taking advantage of the power of SM tools. However, trust must be operationalized.
The definition of trust adopted by Golbeck is simple and can be easily modeled in a computational
system: “trust in a person is a commitment to an action based on a belief that the future actions of that
person will lead to a good outcome”[67]. This is similar to the U.S. Army’s Human Dimension
Capabilities Development Task Force characterized trust as “assured reliance on the character, ability,
strength, or truth of someone or something” and “trust occurs when one person willingly makes
himself vulnerable to the actions of another based upon a subjective assessment of the other person’s
competence and character. Trust is both dynamic and contextual” [68]. Luhmann states, “Trust is only
required if a bad outcome would make you regret your action” [61]. He argues that the function of
trust is “the reduction of complexity” [65]. This latter statement is valuable in understanding how trust
plays a role in the reduction of information overload through the employment of trust based systems
combined with SM tools. Both trust and distrust will tend to decrease complexity; however trust can
form the basis to decrease an individual’s (commander) workload with respect to information while
distrust will increase this load through an increased suspicion and the requirement to monitor, verify
and recheck.
Lewis identifies three distinct dimensions of trust: cognitive, emotional, and behavioural that are
merged into a unitary social experience [65]. The cognitive aspect allows one to explain their
evidence for trusting a person or institution. It is what we know about a person; the evidence or
reasons to trust that person. However, such knowledge only sets up a platform from which to
make the cognitive leap beyond the rational reasons. We are able to make this “trust leap”
because collectively we all need to make this leap and “trust in trust” [69]. However this alone is
not enough. The emotional dimension of trust must compliment this cognitive base. We have all
felt the immense pain when the emotional aspect of trust has been betrayed by a friend, family
member, or lover. Likewise on a societal level we feel the outrage when a representative of an
important institution betrays our trust (the church, clergy, police, military). The third component
is the behavioural enactment of trust. Lewis states, “behaviourally, to trust is to act as if the
uncertain future actions of others were indeed certain in circumstances wherein the violation of
these expectations results in negative consequences for those involved” [65]. It is this behavioural
aspect that helps to create a platform based on the reciprocal nature of trust; we tend to trust those
who trust us [69].
The notion of trust inherent in SM tools has been modeled in several research initiatives
[67, 70–74]. However, the models and algorithms used to date remain oversimplified and do not
fully represent the complexities of the dynamic nature of a social network, nor the concept of
trust. However it is not clear that such transitivity exists. There are other characteristics of trust
that also need to be taken into consideration when designing trust algorithms:
a. Trust is dynamic.
b. Trust is asymmetrical. Trust has a slow build rate but a quick fall rate.
c. Trust is subjective and personal.
d. Trust is context-dependent. “a” might trust “b” to provide information about one
country but not about another country.
4.5 Building Trust Through Social Networking

The advent of social-based websites such as Facebook, MySpace, and LinkedIn has changed our
ability to connect with old relationships and to make new ones. Since these social links are
recorded by the databases backing these sites, there is great potential for exploiting the links.
These sites allow users to search out or create groups based on virtually any common thread that
could tie people together. There are thousands of communities that come together to discuss and
share on their passions or to just chat about classmates. Millions use Facebook to keep in touch
with geographically distant family and friends. These sites could easily be thought of as expert
locators or sources for finding like-minded people, passionate about similar interests. With the
users of Facebook surpassing 1.3 billion 6 and rapidly growing; we have just scratched the surface
on potential uses for social networking. In Facebook, new applications and ways of characterizing
your friends are produced weekly. The ease of use and platform independent nature of these sites
is significant. Half the world—3 billion people—own a cell phone. Most are, or soon will be,
capable of direct connection to social networking sites. “When users find it easy to connect and
open up to others, they become increasingly comfortable uploading and sharing self-generated
content; frequent interaction builds community, trust, and self-policing norms. Social networking
will extend our reach and help to build worldwide trust”[75].
“A social network is a social structure made up of individuals (or organizations) called ‘nodes’,
which are tied (connected) by one or more specific types of interdependency, such as friendship,
kinship, common interest, financial exchange, dislike, sexual relationships, or relationships of
beliefs, knowledge or prestige”[76]. In its simplest form, a social network is a map of specified
ties, such as friendship, between the nodes being studied. Social network analysis views social
relationships in terms of network theory consisting of nodes and ties (also called edges, links, or
connections). There can be many kinds of ties between the nodes. Research [77] in a number of
academic fields has shown that social networks operate on many levels, from families up to the
level of nations, and play a critical role in determining the way problems are solved, organizations
are run, and the degree to which individuals succeed in achieving their goals.
6
http://www.statisticbrain.com/facebook-statistics/ as of Jan 27, 2015.
Network technologies represent a dramatic disruptive challenge to the traditional hierarchical
organizational structures and processes. So much so that traditional hierarchical organizations such as
militaries and government departments have been reluctant and slow to adapt. More profoundly, the
emergence of a networked society suggests a quantitatively new avenue of human coordination and
self-organization. Individuals are able to self-identify for tasks and perform them for a variety of
motivational reasons. The fundamental advantage of commons-based peer-production lies in a better
capability to identify and allocate human creativity available to work on information and cultural
resources. The command and control uses are wide from information gathering for situational
awareness to building trust amongst agencies for a comprehensive approach.
Despite a slow adaptation rate, there have been several military virtual social networking
initiatives with the goal of timely information exchange and dissemination. The first such site was
Company Command. They state: “We are a grass-roots, voluntary forum that is by and for the
profession with a specific, laser-beam focus on company-level command. By joining, you are
gaining access to an amazing community of professionals who love Soldiers and are committed to
building combat-ready teams” 7. This was followed by Platoon Leader 8 in a similar vain for that
position in the hierarchy. These were initiatives that circumvented the usual information vetting
organizations. Other such networks, CAVNet and TIGRNet, and the Canadian ORION (a wiki
database for information sharing) are used by deployed troops to exchange information quickly
and efficiently by cutting out the bureaucracy. However, all of these grass roots information
dissemination methods were initially frowned upon by the high ranking but are now tolerated due
to their adoption rates by the working ranks.
Dwyer, Hiltz and Passerini [78] have looked at the willingness of members of a social networking
site to share personal information and develop new relationships. They used the popular sites
Facebook and MySpace. Their results showed that “Facebook members were more trusting of the
site and its members, and more willing to include identifying information in their profile. Yet
MySpace members were more active in the development of new relationships”[78]. However the
forecast type of information shared in the fictitious METIS site would be more of an
organizational nature than personal. How will this make a difference?
There is a site named NGOPost.org that encourages NGOs or socially concerned individuals to post
their stories and ideas that facilitate action. However there is no one site dedicated to increasing
awareness and increasing trust and information sharing between Militaries, OGDs and NGOs.
4.6 Challenges to Implementing SM for C2

Irrespective of the S&T and engineering challenges identified in this report, there are thousands
of working and suitable SM tools that could be used today to enhance C2. Challenges to a
potential implementation of this capability enhancer have less to do with technology and more to
do with human nature. The two greatest challenges are: 1) the cultural impacts, and 2) the issue of
interoperability and security.
7
http://companycommand.army.mil/ assessed 28 Jan 2011.
8
http://platoonleader.army.mil/ assessed 24 Jan 2011.
4.6.1 Culture
Cultural self-awareness is particularly strong in military organizations, where doctrine and

training inculcate members with values of loyalty to their comrades and their unit and a strong
sense of tradition. Attempts to change the organization or the way it operates can be perceived as
being in direct conflict with the underlying values of the culture. The result is often resistance to
that change. The greater the degree of change, the greater will be the cultural resistance from the
organization. This truism sets the scene for tension within any military organization when trying
to make fundamental changes to command and control capabilities. Thus, shifting cultural norms
requires significant education and training of members.
Building trust and lines of communication using the transparency provided by SM is good for
building trust. In 2009, as newly appointed NATO’s supreme allied commander for Europe, Navy
Adm. James Stavridis as well as a growing number of senior military and defence leaders were
“using these new tools to communicate their goals and activities, seek broader input they can
apply to their decision making, and engage with groups that simply can’t be reached through
traditional communication channels” [57]. Similar initiatives have been started within the
Canadian Government and even within the senior leadership of the CAF. However, SM tools
have in no way become the norm. The Defence Information Management and Collaboration
Strategy[79] has lead the way in a SM complimentary philosophy that promotes the “need to
Share”. In fact one can easily read this philosophy in the mission command concept.
“Mission command is an emerging concept in CF operations. Centred on the mission command

approach to operations, forces will need to move towards a command and control architecture
which features greater horizontal integration, while maintaining the ability to coordinate up and
down vertical chains of command [56].” And “The complexity of future missions will require
commanders and their staffs at all levels to be integrated as a team and networked through social
and technical means to achieve a common intent [56].” So the ground work has been laid.
4.6.2 Interoperability and Security
As stated in the Command and Control Operating Concept: “The immediate aim of communications
and control capability architecture must be to achieve full integration across the CF, to achieve
interoperability with the United States and NATO and interoperability with core allies. In addition, the
CF must achieve interconnectivity with other government departments in the Horizon 2 timeframe and
interoperability with other government departments in Horizon 3 [60].” This could be achieved very
quickly if open source standards and an Internet based backbone were adopted by all. However, for
security reasons (real or imagined) this will not happen soon. Information Technologists will take
decades to sort out the implications of such an adoption and some hybrid solution will surely be
adopted. Secure sections and open section are required based on the nature of the information and the
audiences that are required to participate.
5 Conclusion
SM platforms and tools are an excellent fit for the functions required and principles of command
and control. As shown in the scenarios above, there are many force multiplier benefits to adopting
the peer production model that is inherent in SM. This report underlined the many challenges
both from a science & technology and an engineering perspective. However, perhaps the greatest
challenges are changing the military’s traditional hierarchical culture and for senior leadership to
share power in the way that makes peer production valuable. Of course the interoperability and
security challenges are significant.
Employing SM platforms and tools for C2 requires trust but can also build trust, agility and ultimately
enhance many of the C2 functions that lead to mission success. The introduction of SM tools and
techniques will require further research. Thus far, the exploitation of SM data has been researched and
is being used by Intelligence agencies around the world. The best areas for SM introduction into
C2 functions would be where people are familiar with using these tools for personal reasons; the
under-30 generation. As well, those areas that involve a high degree of communication and
information sharing between many people – where the greater the understanding by the blue force
would lead to a victory. Hence in addition to intelligence, the following areas seem to be good
candidates for further research and reflection on implementation trials:
a. Plan and Organize;
b. Control;
c. Freedom of Action;
d. Adaptive Forces;
e. Common Operating Picture; and
f. Selection, Training, Education, Experience and Personnel Development.
References
[1] Forrester, B. (2012). Social Media Exploitation Tools: Understanding Where and How to
Look, in HFM-201 Specialist Meeting on Social Media: Risks and Opportunities in Military
Applications. N. RTO, Editor 2012, RTO NATO: Tallinn, Estonia.
[2] Forrester, B. (2013).Twitter as a Source for Actionable Intelligence. in 18th Command and
Control Research and Technology Symposium. 2013. Alexandria, Virginia: Command and
Control Research Program.
[3] Forrester, B. (2014). Providing Focus via a Social Media Exploitation Strategy. in 19th
ICCRTS C2 Agility: Lessons Learned from Research and Operations. 2014.
Alexandria, Virginia.
[4] Forrester, B., Frini, A., and Lecocq, R. (2011). Understanding the Role of Social Media in a
Counter-Insurgency Context. in NATO IST-099 RSY-024 Emerged/Emerging “Disruptive”
Technologies. 2011. Madrid, Spain.
[5] Labrèque, A. (2011). Study of social networking technologies Social networking analysis in a
counter-insurgency context. 2011, Defence R&D Canada – Valcartier: Quebec City.
[6] Labrèque, A. (2011). Study of Social Networking Exploitation Tools, B. Forrester,

Editor 2011, Defence Research and Development Canada: Quebec City.
[7] Verdon, J., Forrester, B., and Zhingang, W. (2009). The last mile of the market: How
networks, participation and responsible autonomy support mission command and transform
personnel management. DND, Editor 2009, DMPFD: Ottawa.
[8] Verdon, J., Forrester, B., and Tanner, L. (2007). Transformation in the CF: Understanding
the Impact of Network Technologies on the Design of Work – Social and Peer Production.
DND, Editor 2007, DMPFD: Ottawa.
[9] Forrester, B., and Verdon, J. (2009). Introducing Peer Production into the Department of
Defense. DND, Editor 2009, Canadian Defence Academy.
[10] Baum, D. (2005). Battle Lessons: What the Generals Don’t Know, in The New Yorker 2005.
[11] Benkler, Y. (2002). Coase’s Penguin, or Linux and the Nature of the Firm. Yale Law
Journal, 2002. 112 (04.3 August).
[12] Surowiecki, J. (2005). The Wisdom of Crowds 2005: Anchor.
[13] O`Reilly, T. (2005). What Is Web 2.0 Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next
Generation of Software. 2005; Available from:
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html. (access
date: 18-Mar-2015).
[14] Tapscott, D. and Williams, A. D. (2006). Wikinomics: How mass collaboration changes
everything. 2006. New York: Portfolio.
[15] Richardson, W. (2006). Blogs, wikis, podcasts, and other web tools for classrooms. 2006,
Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press.
[16] UN. Freedom of the Press: in the Middle East, widely curtailed and often violated. 2012
[cited 2013 11 Jan]; Available from:
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/FreedomofthePressintheMiddleEast.aspx.
(access date: 12-Feb-2013).
[17] Howard, P. N., Duffy, A., Freelon, D., Hussain, M., Mari, W., and Mazaid, M. (2011).
Opening Closed Regimes What Was the Role of Social Media During the Arab Spring?
N.S. Foundation, Editor 2011, The Project on Information Technology and Political
Islam: Washington.
[18] Helen, B., and Benjamin, P. (2010). Stop looking for the Next Twitter Revolution. D.o.N.
Intelligence, Editor 2010.
[19] Yi, S. K. M., Steyvers, M., Lee, M. D., and Dry, M. J. (2012). The Wisdom of the Crowd in
Combinatorial Problems. Cognitive Science, 2012. 36(3).
[20] Lorenza, J., Rauhutb, H., Schweitzera, F., and Helbingb, D. (2011). How social influence
can undermine the wisdom of crowd effect. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences of the United States of America 2011. 108(2): p. 9020–9025.
[21] Lewandowsky, S. Ecker, U. K. H., Seifert, C. M., Schwarz, N., and Cook, J. (2012).
Misinformation and Its Correction: Continued Influence and Successful Debiasing.
Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 2012. 13(3): p. 106–131.
[22] Black, A., Mascaro, C., Gallagher, M., and Goggins, S. (2012). Twitter Zombie:
Architecture for Capturing, Socially Transforming and Analyzing the Twittersphere. In
GROUP`122012: Sanibel Island, Florida.
[23] Miner, G., Delen, D., Elder, J., Fast, A. and Nisbet, R. (2012). The Seven Practice Area of
Text Analytics, in Practical Text Mining and Statistical Analysis for Non-Structured Text
Data Applications. 2012, Elservier Inc.
[24] Bollier, D. (2010). The Promise and Peril of Big Data. C.M. Firestone and P.K. Kelly,
Editors. 2010, The Aspen Institute: Washington. p. 1–55.
[25] Solis, B. (2010). and JESS3, The conversation prism representation, 2010.
[26] Spark, D. (2009). Real-Time Search and Discovery of the Social Web. S.M. Solutions,
Editor 2009.
[27] Java, A., Song, X., Finin, T., and Tseng, B. (2007). Why we twitter: understanding
microblogging usage and communities, in Proceedings of the 9th WebKDD and 1st SNA-
KDD 2007 workshop on Web mining and social network analysis. 2007, ACM: San Jose,
California. p. 56–65.
[28] Cha, M., Haddadi, H., Benevenuto, F., and Gummadi, K. (2010). Measuring User Influence
in Twitter: The Million Follower Fallacy. in ICWSM ’10: Proceedings of international
AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social. 2010.
[29] Byun, C., Kim, Y., Lee, H., and Kim, K. K. (2012). Automated Twitter Data Collecting
Tool and Case Study with Rule-Based Analysis. in iiWAS2012. 2012. Bali, Indonesia.
[30] Yu, S., and Kak, S. (2012). A Survey of Prediction Using Social Media. 2012, Oklahoma
State University: Stillwater, Oklahoma.
[31] Cheong, M. and Lee, V. (2009). Integrating Web-based Intelligence Retrieval and
Decision-making from the Twitter Trends Knowledge Base. In SWSM’092009: Hong Kong.
[32] Twitter. REST API Rate Limiting in v1.1. 2014 [cited 2014 2 April]. Available from:
https://dev.twitter.com/docs/rate-limiting/1.1. (access date: 02-Apr-2014).
[33] GNIP. GNIP Social Media data provider. 2014 [cited 2014 24 March ]. Available from:
http://gnip.com/. (access date: 24-Mar-2014).
[34] Datasift. Datasift website. 2014. Available from: http://datasift.com/.

(access date: 02-Apr-2014).
[35] Rao, D., and Yarowsky, D. (2009). Detecting Latent User Properties in Social Media, 2009.
[36] Chen, C., Wu, K., Srinivasan, V., and Zhang, X. (2011). Battling the Internet Water Army:
Detection of Hidden Paid Posters. eprint arXiv:1111.4297, 2011.
[37] Cornwell, B., and Lundgren, D. C. (2001). Love on the Internet: involvement and
misrepresentation in romantic relationships in cyberspace vs. realspace. Computers in
Human Behavior, 2001. 17: p. 197–211.
[38] Haewoon, K., Changhyun, L., Hosung, P., and Sue, M. (2010). What is Twitter, a social
network or a news media?, in Proceedings of the 19th international conference on World
wide web %@ 978-1-60558-799-82010. ACM: Raleigh, North Carolina, USA. p. 591–600.
[39] Eagle, N., and Pentland, A. (2006). Reality mining: sensing complex social systems. Pers
Ubiquit Comput. 2006. 255–268.
[40] Cosenza, V. (2014). Vincos Blog 2014 [cited 2014 25 March]; Available from:
http://vincos.it/social-media-statistics/. (access date: 25-Mar-2014).
[41] Weixin. Weixin Web site. 2014 [cited 2014 2 April]; Available from: www.weixin.qq.com.
[42] Weibo. Weibo website. 2014 [cited 2014 2 April]; Available from: www.weibo.com.
(access date: 02-Apr-2014).
[43] Totka, M. (2013). Popular Social Networks in Other Countries. 2013 [cited 2014 24
March]; Available from: http://www.business2community.com/social-media/popular-
social-networks-countries-0611780. (access date: 24-Mar-2014).
[44] The Next Generation in Open Source Intelligence. 3i-MIND, Editor 2011.
[45] NATO, Open Source Intelligence Gathering Handbook. NATO, Editor 2001.
[46] Reynolds, W. N., Weber, M. S., Farber, R. M., Dorley, C., Cowell, A. J., and Gregory, M.
(2010). Social Media and Social Reality Theory, Evidence and Validation. in ISI 2010,
2010, IEEE: Vancouver, BC.
[47] Netlingo. 2012 [cited 2011 18 December ]; Available from:

http://www.netlingo.com/acronyms.php. (access date: 18-Dec-2011).
[48] Agichtein, E., Castillo, C., Donato, D., Gionis, A., and Mishne, G. (2008). Finding high-
quality content in social media. In Proceedings of the international conference on Web
search and web data mining 2008, ACM: Palo Alto, California, USA. p. 183–194.
[49] Boyd, D. and Crawford, K. (2011). Six provocation’s for big data, in Oxford Internet
Institute’s “A Decade in Internet Time: Symposium on the Dynamics of the Internet and
Society”.2011.
[50] Ediger, D., Jiang, K., Riedy, J., Bader, D., Corley, C., Farber, R., and Reyolds, W. (2010).
Massive Social Network Analysis: Mining Twitter for Social Good. In 39th International
Conference on Parallel Processing. 2010. IEEE.
[51] Newman, M. E. J. (2003). The structure and function of complex networks. SIAM
Review. 2003. 45.
[52] GIT. 2012 [cited 2011 12 November]; Available from:

http://trac.research.cc.gatech.edu/graphs/wiki/GraphCT. (access date: 12-Nov-2011).
[53] Bryant, R. E., Carbonell, J. G., and Mitchell, T. (2010). From Data to Knowledge to Action:
Enabling Advanced Intelligence and Decision-Making for America`s Security.
C.C. Consortium, Editor 2010.
[54] Shachtman, N. (2012). Air Force’s Top Brain Wants a ‘Social Radar’ to ‘See Into Hearts
and Minds’. Danger Room, 2012.
[55] Ellison, N., Heino, R., and Gibbs, J. (2006). Managing impressions online: Self-presentation
processes in the online dating environment. Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication. 2006. 11(2).
[56] CAE, Future Intelligence Analysis Capability Operating Concepts – Version 01.
N. Defence, Editor 2011, Defence Research and Development Canada: Quebec.
[57] Poussart, D. (2010). Future Intelligence Analysis Capability: Towards a Cohesive R&D
Program Definition (DRAFT). 2010, Defence R&D Canada – Valcartier: Quebec.
[58] Schurman, D., (2001). Telephone conversation. B. Forrester, Editor 2001: Ottawa.
[59] Jose-de-cordoba, Aid Spawns Backlash in Haiti, in The Wall Street Journal 2010.
[60] VCDS, Command and Control Operating Concept. DND, Editor 2012, VCDS: Ottawa.
[61] Luhmann, N., (2000). Familiarity, Confidence, Trust: Problems and Alternatives, in Trust:
Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations. D. Gambetta, Editor 2000, Department of
Sociology, University of Oxford,. p. 94–107.
[62] Rotter, J. B., (1967). A New Scale for the Measurement of Interpersonal Trust. Journal of
Personality. 1967. 35: p. 651–655.
[63] Rotter, J. B., (1971). Generalized Expectancies for Interpersonal Trust. American
Psychologist, 1971. 26: p. 443–452.
[64] Deutsch, M. (1958). Trust and Suspicion. Journal of Conflict Resolution. 1958. 2:
p. 265–279.
[65] Lewis, J. D. and A. Weigert, A. (1985). Trust as a Social Reality. Social Forces, 1985.
63(4): p. 967–985.
[66] Thompson, M. M., and Gill, R. (2015). Organizational Trust in the Canadian
Army – Specifications for a Conceptual Model and a Proposed Program of Research. 2015,
Defence Research and Development Canada: Ottawa, CA.
[67] Golbeck, J. (2006). Generating Predictive Movie Recommendations from Trust in Social
Networks, in ITrust 2006. K. Stolen, Editor 2006.
[68] U.S, A., Building Mutual Trust Between Soldiers and Leaders, 2014, Capabilities
Development Integration Directorate, Mission Command Center of Excellence (MC CoE).
[69] Luhmann, N. (1979). Trust and Power1979. Chichester: Wiley.
[70] Golbeck, J. (2006). Combining Provenance with Trust in Social Networks for Semantic Web
Content Filtering, in Provenance and Annotation of Data. L. Moreau and I. Foster,
Editors. 2006, Springer Berlin / Heidelberg. p. 101–108.
[71] Golbeck, J. (2005). Computing and Applying Trust in Web-based Social Networks. In
Computer Science. 2005, Maryland. p. 185.
[72] Walter, F., Battiston, S., and Schweitzer, F. (2008). A model of a trust-based
recommendation system on a social network. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent
Systems, 2008. 16(1): p. 57–74.
[73] Walter, F., Battiston, S., and Schweitzer, F. (2008). Coping with Information Overload
through Trust-Based Networks, in Managing Complexity: Insights, Concepts, Applications.
D. Helbing, Editor 2008, Springer Berlin / Heidelberg. p. 273–300.
[74] Walter, F., Battiston, S., and Schweitzer, F. (2009). Personalised and dynamic trust in
social networks, in Proceedings of the third ACM conference on Recommender systems
2009. ACM: New York, New York, USA. p. 197–204.
[75] Shuen, A. (2008). Web 2.0 A strategy guide. 2008, Farnham: O’reilly Media Inc.
[76] Social Network. Wikipedia, 2011.
[77] Christakis, N., and Fowler, J. (2009). Connected: The Surprising Power of Our Social
Networks and How They Shape Our lives. 2009, New York: Little Brown.
[78] Dwyer, C., Hiltz, S., and Passerini, K. (2007). Trust and Privacy Concern within social
networking sites: A comparision of Facebook and MySpace, in Americas Conference on
Information Systems (AMCIS). 2007: Keystone, Colorado.
[79] DND, Defence Information Management and Collaboration Strategy, DND, Editor 2011,
Information Management Group: Ottawa.
DOCUMENT CONTROL DATA
(Security markings for the title, abstract and indexing annotation must be entered when the document is Classified or Designated)
1. ORIGINATOR (The name and address of the organization preparing the document. 2a. SECURITY MARKING
Organizations for whom the document was prepared, e.g., Centre sponsoring a (Overall security marking of the document including
contractor's report, or tasking agency, are entered in Section 8.) special supplemental markings if applicable.)
DRDC – Valcartier Research Centre UNCLASSIFIED

2459 route de la Bravoure
2b. CONTROLLED GOODS
Quebec (Quebec) G3J 1X5
Canada
(NON-CONTROLLED GOODS)
DMC A
REVIEW: GCEC DECEMBER 2012
3. TITLE (The complete document title as indicated on the title page. Its classification should be indicated by the appropriate abbreviation (S, C or U) in
parentheses after the title.)
Integrating Social Media Tools with Command and Control (C2) : What are the Possibilities?
4. AUTHORS (last name, followed by initials – ranks, titles, etc., not to be used)
Forrester, B.
5. DATE OF PUBLICATION 6a. NO. OF PAGES 6b. NO. OF REFS

(Month and year of publication of document.) (Total containing information, (Total cited in document.)
including Annexes, Appendices,
etc.)
May 2016
52 79
7. DESCRIPTIVE NOTES (The category of the document, e.g., technical report, technical note or memorandum. If appropriate, enter the type of report,
e.g., interim, progress, summary, annual or final. Give the inclusive dates when a specific reporting period is covered.)
Scientific Report
8. SPONSORING ACTIVITY (The name of the department project office or laboratory sponsoring the research and development – include address.)
DRDC – Valcartier Research Centre

2459 route de la Bravoure
Quebec (Quebec) G3J 1X5
Canada
9a. PROJECT OR GRANT NO. (If appropriate, the applicable research 9b. CONTRACT NO. (If appropriate, the applicable number under
and development project or grant number under which the document which the document was written.)
was written. Please specify whether project or grant.)
10a. ORIGINATOR’S DOCUMENT NUMBER (The official document 10b. OTHER DOCUMENT NO(s). (Any other numbers which may be
number by which the document is identified by the originating assigned this document either by the originator or by the sponsor.)
activity. This number must be unique to this document.)
DRDC-RDDC-2016-R073
11. DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY (Any limitations on further dissemination of the document, other than those imposed by security classification.)
Unlimited
12. DOCUMENT ANNOUNCEMENT (Any limitation to the bibliographic announcement of this document. This will normally correspond to the
Document Availability (11). However, where further distribution (beyond the audience specified in (11) is possible, a wider announcement
audience may be selected.))
Unlimited
13. ABSTRACT (A brief and factual summary of the document. It may also appear elsewhere in the body of the document itself. It is highly desirable that
the abstract of classified documents be unclassified. Each paragraph of the abstract shall begin with an indication of the security classification of the
information in the paragraph (unless the document itself is unclassified) represented as (S), (C), (R), or (U). It is not necessary to include here abstracts in
both official languages unless the text is bilingual.)
This scientific report explores social media (SM) in the context of enhancing command and
control under C2CAF-T project Deliverable 4 – Scoping of concepts and solutions for Network
enabled expertise search, reach back and collaboration capability for command support. As a
concept paper, many references were consulted and previous work in the SM and peer
production domain was exploited to help the reader understand the applicable SM tools and
platforms. Command and control concepts were then used to position SM enablers. It was
determined that SM platforms and tools are an excellent fit for the functions required and
principles of command and control, specifically those functions that deal with sharing and
observing. There are many force multiplier benefits to adopting the peer production model that
is inherent in SM. This report underlines the many challenges both from a science & technology
and an engineering perspective. However, perhaps the greatest challenges are overcoming the
need to change the culture and for senior leadership to share power in the way that makes peer
production valuable. Of course the interoperability and security challenges are significant.
Employing SM platforms and tools for C2 requires trust but also builds trust, agility, and
ultimately could enhance many of the C2 functions that lead to mission success. This report
suggests that the best areas for SM introduction into C2 functions would be where people are
already familiar with using these tools for personal reasons; the under-30 generation. Areas that
involve a high degree of communication and information sharing between many people would
also be good candidates for combining SM and C2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. KEYWORDS, DESCRIPTORS or IDENTIFIERS (Technically meaningful terms or short phrases that characterize a document and could be helpful
in cataloguing the document. They should be selected so that no security classification is required. Identifiers, such as equipment model designation,
trade name, military project code name, geographic location may also be included. If possible keywords should be selected from a published thesaurus,
e.g., Thesaurus of Engineering and Scientific Terms (TEST) and that thesaurus identified. If it is not possible to select indexing terms which are
Unclassified, the classification of each should be indicated as with the title.)
Social Media

Integrating Social Media Tools With

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Integrating Social Media Tools With

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Integrating Social Media Tools With

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Integrating Social Media Tools with

Command and Control (C2)

Dr. Bruce Forrester

Defence Research and Development Canada

Significance to Defence and Security

Importance pour la défense et la sécurité

Figure 1: North American SM sites classified by conversation type. . . . . . . . . . 5

Table 1: A Sample of Global SM sites as of 2011 [5]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

1.2 Outline and Scope

2.2 Peer Production

Peer production represents an emergent form of production that complements hierarchical

2.2.1 Peer-to-Peer Model of Learning

c. increases accountability, responsibility, and responsiveness;

d. allows the organization to marshal more of its human capability/capital for

e. integrates continuous learning, and thus powers effective operational agility.

2.2.3 Peer production in a Military Context

Peer production in a military context is building a common picture (situational awareness);

Figure 1: North American SM sites classified by conversation type.

g. Discussions & Forums;

2.3.1 Social Networking

2.3.3 Crowd Wisdom and Q&A

2.3.4 Location and Events

2.3.6 Discussion and Forums

2.3.7 Video and Pictures

2.3.8 Social Gaming

2.3.9 Social Bookmarking

2.3.10 RSS and Aggregators

3.1 Philosophical Issues

3.2 Methodological Issues

3.3 Possible Solutions for Methodological Issues

Figure 3: World map of social network in 2013 [40].

3.4 Engineering and Empirical Challenges to Implementing

3.4.1 What Makes SM Different from Other OSINT Sources?

Academic research, books, Blogs and micro-blogs, Internet forums,

Written by professional authors Written by anyone and everyone

Use of proper grammar, spelling and Anything goes

Minimal use of sarcasm, street Anything goes

Easy access Must be sought out

Some requiring subscription fees Generally free. However some have

Well-defined use of acronyms High use of text and chat acronyms –

Audio is clear, audible and generally Audio quality is highly variable

3.4.2 The Effect of Big Data

In addition, it will be important to differentiate between the approaches of data-driven

It is important to understand that SM personal profiles and posts are susceptible to

3.4.4 Machine Learning

a. Language translation: Translating documents from one human language to another.

c. Document summarization: Extracting the sense of a document, or more interestingly

d. Trend identification: Detecting, presenting, and validating or refuting patterns of

4.3 C2 Concepts and SM

Table 3: SM concepts applicable to C2 concepts[60] and principles.

shared, favourable outcomes in the short,

Networked forces: Effective networking SM tools are networking tools.

Common Operating Picture: Having a common operating picture is

Intelligence Capability: There are many ways to exploit SM for

execute operations across the full spectrum of

Trust has been studied by psychologists as an individual conceptualization along personality

c. Trust is subjective and personal.

4.5 Building Trust Through Social Networking

4.6 Challenges to Implementing SM for C2

Cultural self-awareness is particularly strong in military organizations, where doctrine and