Actually the Hacker Foundation staff have also thought about this very thing. We figured that the main issue was that NGO’s didn’t wanted it, and that you’d have to pre-screen all the people on it so as to ensure that no “traitors” were on the inside.

Hi Jesse, great to hear from you again!

I think that as organisations, the NGOs don’t want this kind of technology mainly because they don’t know what it is. However I think that there are many individuals working in NGOs that do want this kind of technology.

I’ve never really gone crazy for screening in the NGO context. In many ways we should be the reverse of the military - everything should be made public unless otherwise specified.

Of course, we’re wrasslin’ with that very issue in the context of Sahana….

Yes but if you planning your emergency evac routes, you need to maintain operation security. The nightmare is having misinformation in your planning, walking the convoy right into the mouth of the dragon.

The way I read it, the NGO security blog post is really talking about creating a distributed community of practice which maintains a wiki as its key resource. I just had a quick check on the Aid Workers Network participant database. Over 200 participants have registered “security” as an area of professional interest. Anyone got a spare wiki?

Yet the main challenges are not in the tool, but a) in creating a successful, well led organisation to make use of it, and b) using it to improve the resources already available to security officers, or why would people contribute?

Jesse - I agree, but considering how badly security is managed at the moment, even if our evacuation routes were organised by throwing dice and then broadcasting it on the radio, it would probably be an improvement. My favourite evacuation plan was in Islamabad in 2002, when it looked like there might be another war between Pakistan and India. In the event of a nuclear strike on Pakistan, the evacuation plan involved every single UN staff member driving over the Hindu Kush to Kabul. Sounds like a winner to me!

But seriously - where there are security implications, obviously we need to take more care with our information. However, for reporting security incidents, a secure google earth style interface would be perfect, as long as you built authentication in.

Tom - I think the NGO security blog is predicting quite a lot of new ways of working. I think that the organisational approach is a steep hill to climb in terms of results, but improving access to security information resources - not just for security officers, but also for staff in general - is the critical target.

And yes, I do have a spare wiki.

Have you heard of the US Intelligence Community’s “Intellipedia”? It’s basically a wiki for spies. I don’t know a lot about it, but here are some links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellipedia
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/01/1410232

I think an easy-to-use wiki for NGO security would be fantastic. There’s been too many situations where I have only heard of security situations through rumours and gossip (even from the organization I was working for!). There’s also been times where friends have contacted me for more information regarding security incidents.

I once suggested an idea of a wiki for sharing info, and my country director said that http://www.reliefweb.int already did this job. What advantages would a wiki offer?

[…] Apparently they both suffer from really rubbish web apps. Our pals at the NGO Security Blog link to a fascinating article about how US intelligence agencies are using technology that was really cool back in 1983, but hasn’t really moved forward since then. (Frighteningly it sounds a lot like one of my all-time favourite films, […]Read full entry […]

It’s a shame they don’t have an external link for Intellipedia, I’d love to contribute

Source Intelligence is also an interesting area (not to mention an hilarious abuse of the phrase concept of open source) which seems to be gaining ground.

Reliefweb is a phenomenal service for the community, but there is agreement that it works at a particular level (i.e. on headquarters / policy issues) but has almost not operational utility.

The bonus of a wiki is that it’s very accessible and driven by users. ReliefWeb is a one-way street - you read the material they post - but a wiki is a stronger tool for sharing information in a group. There are strengths and weaknesses to that, but Wikipedia clearly shows that there’s mileage in the community-driven approach.

Here’s a short and interesting article written by Wired’s editor about six tactics for creating transparent media. On the challenges of wikifying everything, he notes:

Upside: Stories live and grow, remaining relevant long after their original publication (at no cost to us!)

Fair enough - in ReliefWeb terms, a wiki approach could start connecting the content of ReliefWeb’s output in interesting ways. But …

Risk: Stories get progressively less coherent as many cooks mess with them. Whatever brand authority the Wired name brings is diminished over time as the stories become less and less our own work.

… then the Trolls take over