[Excerpt from "Criminals, Hacktivists, and Nation States"originally posted on Adriana Dvorsak's New Solutions blog hosted at Euractiv. Thanks to Adriana for permitting us to share her work here on Analysis Intelligence.]

…these individuals are not susceptible to international law, for example to Geneva conventions which professional soldiers must follow. In addition these individuals are not familiar with military ethics, laws of neutrality, might not have clear intent, do not follow the rules of hierarchical organization. Individuals can be persecuted under national criminal law, therefore we can understand police pushing for change in criminal law to cover more cyber security threats.

Recent Hacktivist Actors and Targets

You may easily manipulate Recorded Future application to get data on longer time line, on different type of events or look at them in a neat interactive Google Earth view. I came across different actors, for example hacktivists, patriot hackers, online activists, organized cyber crime, terrorist organizations, and other autonomous actors and it seems to me that individuals became very important for cyber security. Diverse as they are, they can not be called a military and they will hardly take part in a classical armed conflict where one military confronts another. But they are so important that militaries hire them and even offer them to NATO as national cyber troops. Well, Romanian hacktivists apparently disagreed with such a side job.

The post can be read in full at Euractiv.

Recorded Future analyst Munish Puri details key issues in the Keystone Pipeline political debate and identifies critical factors that will influence success or failure for the project’s approval.

Methodology

My analysis begins by setting a query in Recorded Future on the Keystone Pipeline. Next, I dove into specific sources and articles, filtering based on popularity, predictions, and frequency of citation. With the larger data set and the specific subsets just listed, I listed the various key players according to the Network, mostly to sensitize my reading and synthesis. Then I analyzed Momentum to track where the story shifted and focused on those points for sentiment analysis. Finally, for each inflection point, I zoomed in on a set of stories to understand what happened, in what order, and why it was reflected on positively and/or negatively.

Mainly, questions centered around what happened with the pipeline proposal, why it was (eventually) rejected, what will happen next — and by whom, and what are the key predictive indicators. As for the latter, I tracked any forward-looking events mentioned in articles, as well as possible alternative outcomes mentioned by the various stakeholders. Also, I changed the parameters for the query to focus on 2012. Lastly, I compiled the analysis below.

Issue Overview

TransCanada plans to extend its Keystone Pipeline (operational from June 2010) from the “tar sands” of Canada’s Alberta province to refineries in Texas on the Gulf Coast.  The $7 billion Keystone Gulf Coast Expansion (Keystone XL) would be completed in two phases, which pass through Nebraska, Montana, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Kansas, and end in Texas. If finished, the extension would increase the United States’ oil supply by half the amount of annual imports.

Debate centers around the cost, value, reliability, and environmental impact of the pipeline. In addition to TransCanada, proponents of the projects — many Republican politicians, construction companies, labor unions, and some (Canadian) government officials — argue that the pipeline will create jobs and decrease the US’ reliance on foreign sources of oil. Political and environmental opposition abounds, particularly as covered by the blog of the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC). Environmental nongovernmental organizations, landowners, Democratic politicians, and even some (American) celebrities express concern over TransCanada’s safety record and the possibility of leakage, as well as concern about climate change and greenhouse gas emissions, a result of oil sands production. On job creation, a report from the Global Labor Institute challenged the company’s estimate, which TransCanada later revised. Finally, potential pipeline construction prompted worry about local environmental impacts, particularly in Nebraska, in which the pipeline could effect the Sand Hills ecosystem or contaminate the Ogallala Aquifier, a major source for irrigation and drinking water.

Key Developments & Sentiment Inflection Points

“In the end, neither side can predict with confidence what Obama will decide.” -Washington Post, November 5, 2011

In early June 2011, the U.S. Department of Transportation ordered the shutdown of TransCanada’s Keystone pipeline, as investigations revealed safety concerns at pump stations. At the same time, the U.S. State Department was completing public consultations about the Keystone XL phase of the project. There is generally positive sentiment around the announcement, likely because it showed U.S. commitment to a proactive approach to preventing possible spills.

In August, the State Department issued its own environmental impact assessment, concluding that the pipeline will not cause significant damage to the environment as long as TransCanada complies with U.S. law. The reaction to this news was noticeably more positive than negative, but that could be as a result of progress toward a decision, not necessarily sentiment about the project.

In October, documents were released (by Mother Jones as a result of a FOIA request by Friends of the Earth) that cast doubt on the impartiality of the State Department’s assessment. Later, the State Department opened an investigation of the process around issuing a permit for the pipeline. Additionally, environmental advocacy organizations sued to stop the development of the pipeline. This development showed positive sentiment, perhaps due to transparency in government decision-making. A second development, TransCanada’s announcement that it could lose up to $1 million per day with a delay was met with negative sentiment, an indicator of disconnect between the company’s statement and public opinion.

In early November, the U.S. State Department announced that it was considering an alternate route for the pipeline, which represented the highest peak in momentum around any event related to the pipeline in 2011. As the reported possibility of the alternative route seemed to be more likely, the State Department announced that it would delay its decision until 2013, which was accompanied by a large spike in positive sentiment. An analyst with MF Global Washington Research Group wrote in a research note that the fate of the pipeline has grown “less secure” and “the odds favour approval, but an extended delay is looking more and more possible.” Given the increased attention and political importance of the decision, President Obama become more personally involved with the decision.

In mid-December, the Republican-led House passed a proposal to require a decision within 60 days. President Obama threatened to veto the bill if it reached his desk, however, the State Department warned that a hasty decision would decrease the project’s chances for approval (in particular, because a recently-passed Nebraska law requires an environmental review that could last from 6 to 9 months). These developments saw an interesting double-peaked positive sentiment curve, with a sizable peak in negative sentiment situated between the two positive peaks — underlying policy uncertainty about whether the Republicans would be able to successfully attach an expedited executive review to legislation on a payroll tax cut.

In mid-January, President Obama announced that he was rejecting the permit for the pipeline, based on insufficient time to evaluate the project, not on the merits of the project itself. Republicans continued to pressure the President to make a decision, highlighting a divide among two traditionally Democratic demographics: labor unions and environmentalists. As a result of the President’s decision, environmental groups celebrated the victory and TransCanada (and the Canadian government) focused on alternative pathways forward on the project.

Conclusion: Predictive Indicators

Following are possible action from various groups, as well as indicators of what to watch in the coming weeks and months:

Corporate – announcements about next steps and tactical shifts:

• Re-file/appeal permit application
• Build pipeline down Pacific corridor to export to China
• Create smaller expansions that would not require State Dept. approval

Legislative/Political – statements from Congressional party leaders:

• Move decision out of hands of State Department and to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
• Re-attach decision provision to payroll cut extension (expires at end of February)
• Leverage President’s decision to develop political capital for elections

Nongovernmental – change campaign targets and actions:

• Mount resistance to other pipeline projects, such as one proposed by another Canadian company, Enbridge
• Use decision to delay to build momentum during elections

Whether or not the President’s delay on a decision will have a long-term impact will depend, oddly, on future projects that come across his desk (or if they make it that far); given the election and political dynamics, the next decision point will establish a policy precedent for preventing such proposals from coming to fruition.

The Chinese are stuck with one foot in each camp of a contentious battle for control of oil in East Africa. The most recent conflict between the nascent state of South Sudan and its controversial neighbor raises real concerns that China’s controlling stake in 40 percent of Sudan’s oil industry and 60 percent of its export will be seriously disrupted.

This current conflict, which arose earlier this month after claims that Sudan is stealing oil being piped to ports from South Sudan, unfolds just a little more than six months after China put in immediate diplomatic legwork with the new South Sudanese state. They did so with good reason given that estimates suggest the new country is responsible for around 75% of the region’s crude oil output. In the below timeline, you can see how the Chinese publicly responded to the new state in July:

China's response to South Sudan's Independence in July - Click for Live View

History Between China and Sudan

From where does this interest in the stability of Sudan arise? The storyline of relations between China and Sudan includes a backdrop of sanctions imposed on the Sudanese government by the US and UN that left a trade void for the country. China was willing to fill it especially given their increasing need for energy resources, and looking back to 2008 we find a series of investments and diplomatic actions between China and Sudan:

If you look back further than the time frame of the above discussion, you also find that China has been running one of its biggest oil projects in Sudan since 2004. The relationship is ever contentious: China took heat from world leaders when it hosted Sudan’s wanted leader Omar al-Bashir in June of 2011 ahead of the South Sudan’s formal independence, and there are claims that more than $55 million worth of Chinese weapons have been sold to Sudan.

Current Diplomatic Efforts

For some time after al-Bashir visited China, relations between the countries went fairly quiet. There were few, if any, publicly highlighted diplomatic relation events from July to the middle of November (note the time slider on the bottom of the network that shows the time frame being analyzed):

Diplomatic Relation Events for Sudan - July through Mid-November

However, relations suddenly saw a flurry of activity beginning with a pledge from Chinese defense minister Liang Guanglie on November 16 saying that his government would bolster military cooperation with Sudan, and since then, you can see below that China is the second most prominent state (after the United States) for diplomatic relation events with Sudan. The density of lines between network nodes indicates the number of events connecting those entities:

Diplomatic Relation Events for Sudan - Mid-November to Present

Why the sudden action even before the most recent allegations of Sudan stealing in-transit oil from South Sudan? Well, it’s possible that there was anticipation about the United States formally announcing its lifting of sanctions on oil trade with South Sudan after drawing up guidelines for companies to avoid infringing on the sanctions still imposed on Sudan. There also may have been hints that non-Chinese companies such as French oil giant Total would suggest alternative plans to pipe oil through Uganda for export via Kenya or Tanzania; ultimately, a bad solution for China.

The circumstances are fast changing and carry ramifications for the markets, the stability of the entire region, and international relations between China and the Western countries long at odds with Sudan. Monitor further updates by creating an alert for the most recent and near future events related to oil in East Africa.

The competition for the Republican presidential nomination has so far been littered with false starts, short sprints into the lead, and a persistent reversion to uncertainty regarding a clear frontrunner.

The volume of coverage, flashes of news dominance by various campaigns provides, and, if we’re being honest, the occasionally unpredictable personalities of the current candidates, provide perfect fuel for conducting research using news analytic data from the Recorded Future index.

For example, by pulling aggregate data from the Recorded Future API for coverage of seven prominent Republican candidates and looking at them based on the daily momentum of their names in the media, we can quickly identify the timing of flameouts for the potential campaigns of Sarah Palin and Donald Trump.

Media momentum for Donald Trump and Sarah Palin - 2011

If we want to go further into identifying the real life events driving these trends in the media, we can use Recorded Future analytic tools to investigate the forces behind smaller momentum bumps for Sarah Palin in September and October. They turn out to be the last attempts to squeeze media attention from her potential, and eventual non-entry into the race.

Sarah Palin Momentum in September and October

Rather than these campaigns that experience dramatic ups and downs, maybe we want to understand how news momentum developed comparatively for a pairing like Mike Huckabee and Rick Perry? The first, a prospective candidate without the flash of other competitors and a campaign that never lifted off the ground, versus Rick Perry, a candidate that over the course of this year rose from primarily regional to national media figure.

In the view below, we’re back to charting the raw news analytic data from Recorded Future for each of the two candidates:

Momentum of Perry versus Huckabee - 2011

There are all sorts of interesting storylines that could be explored along the way – say, the sentiment of statements made about Herman Cain over the course of 2011? But the last week or two provides one of the most intriguing twists in the contest so far: the unexpected resurgence of Newt Gingrich and renewed support that suggests he should once again be considered a viable option for the nomination.

News momentum around Newt Gingrich during 2011 - Click to see live

It’s an incredible shift in the landscape for the Republican candidacy given the total dearth of interest in him as a candidate since June when the bulk of his staffed resigned. The recent week actually carries the highest news momentum so far this year for Gingrich. What remains to be seen is whether his wave (or that of any competitor for that matter) will last long enough to secure the nomination.

Looking Forward

We think it’s useful to contextualize what’s taken place in the race thus far, but there’s also this intriguing aspect of identifying which candidates are most frequently being discussed with the future in mind. So, on the heels of last night’s CNN debate, let’s take a look at the aggregate predictions mentioning a candidate and “republican nomination” from November through the 2012 elections. What names are most associated with the Republican nomination?

Again, we’re displaying the results from web content related to the Republican nomination published since November (click through to set up an alert and follow along), and the results are limited to display results for the top 12 individuals. The distinction between columns is that “Events” are any mention of the person while “Predictions” represents only mentions of a person along with a time point in the future (i.e., “next week”, “2012″, “next fall”).

Summarizing some of the above results:

• Mitt Romney is mentioned most in relation to “republican nomination,” both overall and in the context of a future event. Seemingly good news for the candidate most often described as the safe frontrunner.
• Several supposed non-players – Sarah Palin and Donald Trump – still appear prominently in discussions related to the nomination.
• Herman Cain is the third most mentioned candidate since November, but ranks eighth when evaluating future facing statements. Perhaps not a good sign for his campaign.

We’ll be following this issue closely to see if shifts in the future facing statements around a political campaign may be an indicator of success for a candidate’s bid. We’d love to hear your thoughts!

A recent report from the IAEA on Iran’s alleged efforts to develop nuclear weapons heightened speculation of over Israel making a preemptive strike on Iranian nuclear facilities (action that may seem even more real given speculation about a recent explosion at an Iranian missile site over the weekend).

However, the recency effect can sometimes be blinding in a conflict as perpetual as this one. The most current threat always seems riskier than the last one. And anyone that even casually follows this issue knows that Israel has threatened Iran before, and even allegedly sabotaged its rivals’ nuclear development through assassinations and cyber warfare.

So, in evaluating the prospects of any near term action, it’s at least worth putting the most recent media coverage of a preemptive Israeli attack in perspective. The image below shows a timeline of references from the last three years related to Israel striking Iran over nuclear weapons concerns.

Threats from the last two weeks are clearly not the first of their kind, but one of several flare ups in the ongoing security conflict for both countries. And while emotionally charged rhetoric drives media coverage today, it often fails to provide the supplemental information that similar threats from Israel took place almost exactly a year prior.

Outside of evaluating the density of media coverage during recent years, there are other ways to contextualize the significance of this most recent threat of military conflict between Israel and Iran. For example, who are the figures out there talking about this issue?

Using the same timeframe, 2009-2011, we can identify individuals discussing the combination of Iran, Israel and nuclear weapons capabilities.

Using the time slider under the network view, we can go back to May 2009 to find Israel’s ambassador to the US, Michael Oren, saying that his country would not allow a nuclear Iran while months later Israel’s Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon said “there was no guarentee Israel would not launch a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities…” Separately, clear throughout are the retaliatory consequences that would accompany Israeli military action. In addition to the state military response from Iran, Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal made it clear that any attack would generate support for Iran from militant groups in Gaza.

It’s also clear from the network above that the Turkish government is active in the political maneuvering with Recep Erdogen saying that any preemptive attack would be “disastrous for the entire region”. Separately, the Russian government figures prominently as do connections to the country through alleged support from scientist Vyacheslav Danilenko.

Now we have a clear indication that the issue of Israel preemptively acting against Iran is one that’s been prominent in geopolitical discussion for years, let’s shift back to evolution of the recent news. When did this issue really heat up? Well, we can see from an analysis of sources that there was the typical, scattered discussion about Israeli concerns over a nuclear Iran, at least up until October 30.

However, on October 31, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gave a parliamentary speech warning that Iran continued to develop nuclear weapons, and suggested that “a military option should not be ruled out.” This spurred mainstream news (shown in pink) coverage on the potential for a preemptive strike even ahead of an IAEA report that came out days later suggesting Iran’s program may in fact be one designed for weaponization.

Now about two weeks past the hottest media coverage of the issue, we look out for any predictions about the days ahead. What we find is London’s Daily Mail reporting, by way of an unidentified source, that Israel would take action against Iran by the end of the year.

The Daily Mail report, so far, does no seem corroborated by other notable sources, and this issues is one of those that is notoriously difficult to dissect. How do we know what is political posturing versus concrete evidence of action? Without inside sources, we may not know, but the open source is useful in garnering perspective around inflammatory issues.

Without getting into conspiracy theory territory, what further angles would be interesting to view here? Maybe we want to examine US media sentiment about Iran leading up to Netanyahu’s speech at the end of October, or try to identify abnormalities (whether it’s unique individuals or sources) calling for a preemptive strike. We’ll return to the issue in a few weeks to see how the scenario changes.

–

Whatever your every day research interest, the open web provides an invaluable resource for better understanding geopolitical activity. We’d love for you to give these approaches and experiment with your own through free trial access to Recorded Future.

The Occupy Wall Street movement continues to evolve and spread from its roots in New York City to major cities around the globe. Wanting to capture the speed at which solidarity protests are emerging and the breadth of the movement, we pulled protest event data indexed from August to mid-October in Recorded Future and plotted it over time on Google Earth.

You can see the results below:

This continues our media analysis of the Occupy Wall Street, and please feel free to contact us if you’d like to learn more about how Recorded Future works.