Quantom of Solace and Information Access Superiority

It's official- in today's world of counterterrorism, assymetric warfare, and international criminal networks, even James Bond needs Information Access Superiority. Yes, Quantum of Solace is an action movie and hence not overly realistic, but then neither is much of American intellegence policy. On a serious note, for a popular film, Quantum of Solace does give a good depiction of Information Access Superiority.

"Mr. White: The first thing you should know about us is that we have people everywhere."

"Us" refers to Quantum, the organization that serves as the antagonist to Daniel Craig's Bond and MI6. While past Bond villains might boast about lazers, dastardly schemes, and superhuman assassins, Mr. White brags about his organization's Human Intelligence. This, operatives embedded deep around the world and not mad science or the Russians, is the source of their super-empowerment. Note that Mr. White does not say that they can tap phone calls everywhere or have satellites pointed everywhere. They have people, and because of that even the mythical James Bond has trouble dealing with them.

"M: Who the hell is this organisation Bond? How can they be everywhere and we know nothing about them!"

This again refers to Quantum, but it might as well refer to al Qaeda some years ago, growing cells in countries where we had no people on the ground (again, the importance of "having people everywhere"). Throughout the film, much like the nations now combating terrorism, Bond tries to get out of his state of Information Access Inferiority. He does not hunt down the villains for revenge but rather information, which he spends the entire film acquiring. Every encounter results in Bond finding something new, making him more and more formidable. Further proof that James Bond, like any good super-spy, greatly values Information Access is his choice to bring Rene Mathis, a retired agent with South American contacts, with him to Bolivia. Mathis is old, initially unwilling, and generally a liability but because he knows the area and has a network there, he is an invaluable part of the mission, a means to at least bring Bond to Information Access Parity.

In short, all signs point to James Bond himself understanding the value of Human Network Operations and Information Access Superiority, so clearly we are on to something. Let's hope that the real American intelligence agencies catch on.

Comments

[internogc]

Love the Bond shout-out, thought it was a great movie (Hello. We are teachers on sabbatical. We have won the lottery.)

However, I would argue that Bond is in fact more of a detective than a superior information accessor (SIA)!

A detective is narrowly focused - he has one story that is missing certain key details, and he takes a sometimes circuitous, but still linear, approach to filling in those facts. (I would describe in more detail how this matches what Bond does in QoS, but I don't believe in spoiling the plot for others).

A true SIA does not necessarily know all the facts about every story, and in fact does not need to. However, s/he knows WHICH facts will be relevant, and knows what resources are necessary and most appropriate to learning those facts. To me, the most important part of "information access superiority" is not the INFO, but rather the ACCESS!

Having typed out all that, I now feel slightly ridiculous for taking a post about popular culture this seriously. But what can I say, I get excited about Bond!

Cheers

[Tsypkin]

InternOGC:

I have to disagree with your analysis of what an human networks operative does. It is, in fact, their job to specialize. The access is important, but in order to gain that access, you MUST specialize, in a region, a language, a group, etc. To perform successfully, an operative must be capable of not only accessing the information, but understanding it. Otherwise, the individual operatives become dependent upon a central organization to which they pass the information, and that kind of centralization is decisively problematic for successful HNO.

[internogc]

Tsypkin:

I agree that a human networks operative needs a linguistic or otherwise contextual expertise in order to be successful in the field. My note was that in the movie, Bond's investigative methods were not as open-ended or flexible as I would expect from a good operative. This is, of course, because it is a Hollywood blockbuster, and therefore has a straightforward (linear) plot.

However, I would like to dispute your point about the role of a central organization in HNO. Granted - micromanagement, strict chronological reporting requirements, and bureaucratic process are crippling to HNO. That being said, good HNO produces intelligence.

This intelligence must be then turned into policy, which requires some kind of organization that can package, deliver, and in turn get feedback on the intel. This process, which should be separated from operations in the field, is what will inform ongoing and future HNO.