OSINT: a tool for citizens and a weapon of surveillance?
- OSINT — Open Source Intelligence — means very different things depending on who uses it: journalists, researchers, analysts, or intelligence services each bring their own practice to it.
- Coined in the 1990s, OSINT gradually replaced its French counterpart ROSO and spread well beyond the intelligence community.
- The notion that OSINT is inherently ethical or democratic is an oversimplification — one worth challenging.
- Harassment, the targeting of minorities, geopolitical interference: its anti-democratic uses are poorly understood, yet very real.
- Landmark investigations like those by Bellingcat and Forensic Architecture depend on collective effort — essential when making sense of large volumes of high-stakes data.
At a time when open-source intelligence is becoming established in fields as varied as journalism, academic research and business intelligence, OSINT (Open Source Intelligence) is generating growing enthusiasm. Often presented as a tool for transparency and counter-power accessible to all, this practice nevertheless deserves a more critical examination — for behind its civic uses lie abuses that are still difficult to gauge.
Allan Deneuville. OSINT is an information-gathering methodology based on the use of open sources. It is used by journalists, intelligence professionals, academics, artists and those involved in business intelligence. It allows investigations conducted in the “physical world” to be supplemented with digital data. The aim is not to pit these two spheres against one another, since they are now inseparable – every physical space is permeated by digital flows. Walking through a city, posting on social media, commenting on a place: these actions leave digital traces. OSINT sits precisely at the intersection of these two worlds. It fosters a dialogue between the physical and digital spheres, each enriching the other.
You propose a deliberately broad definition. Why this choice?
For reasons that are both historical and analytical. Firstly, the aim was to decouple OSINT from the realm of intelligence alone. Historically, the practice did not originate with the secret services, nor even with digital technology. It is part of an older tradition of collecting and cross-referencing publicly available information. Secondly, a broad definition allows us to show that each profession ‘colours’ OSINT according to its own professional logic. The OSINT practised in the intelligence sector is not the same as that used in academia, nor that of business intelligence, nor that of artists. When I speak with people from different professions, each tends to challenge part of the definition: “that’s not it”, “that’s not OSINT”. This diversity of interpretations, far from being a problem, is what makes it so rich.
Do we know who coined the term?
No. We do not know the exact origins of the word. It first appeared in academic publications in the 1990s, but its precise origin remains unclear. In France, however, there is an equivalent: ROSO, standing for ‘open-source intelligence’. What is interesting is that the term OSINT has become established well beyond intelligence circles. ROSO remains associated with a specific professional culture. OSINT, on the other hand, is used in journalism, NGOs, activist circles and academia. The choice of word therefore already reveals a shift in usage and perceptions, even though OSINT and ROSO refer to exactly the same thing.
You speak of a ‘counter-investigation’ into OSINT. What does this expression mean?
When I began this work, I wanted to write an accessible book without compromising on academic rigour. The idea of conducting OSINT on OSINT gradually took shape. In France, there was little in-depth historical research on the subject, and no real monograph. The aim was therefore to gather evidence of the practice, reconstruct its uses and discourses, and move away from an overly simplistic interpretation. But the term ‘counter-investigation’ also has another meaning. I was struck by the optimism surrounding OSINT: it is seen as a tool for citizens to reclaim power, a means of challenging official truths and producing counter-narratives. These uses do exist, and they are important. But in my view, they are merely the tip of the iceberg.
You introduce the concept of ‘dark OSINT’. What do you mean by that?
By this I mean all the anti-democratic uses of the method. There are individual uses: harassment, online stalking, and the dissemination of personal data. OSINT makes it possible to find information on individuals, aggregate it, and expose it. There are also militant uses, particularly within far-right groups that organise campaigns to track down migrants or minorities. Finally, there are more systemic uses: the planning of attacks, economic wars waged on the fringes of legality, strategies of interference, and issues of digital sovereignty.
These dimensions are still poorly mapped and quantified. Yet they seem to me to be central. To speak of counter-investigation was also to introduce a tension between OSINT and democracy, and to reject the idea that the method is inherently ethical. It is, moreover, striking to note that this idea remains difficult to accept. Some consider that OSINT, by definition, ought to be ethical. I do not share this view: a method is not moral in itself. It is the ways in which it is used that are—or are not.
Does your previous work on the circulation of texts and images influence your approach?
Yes, very much so. My thesis focused on the mechanisms of copy-and-paste and the circulation of texts in the digital realm. I’m interested in how content circulates, is repeated and transformed, and how this circulation helps to frame reality. Through repetition, certain representations become dominant. The media—and digital media in particular—produce interpretative frameworks. The question of the image is central here. Digital images do not merely document individual realities; they also contribute to the construction of geopolitical narratives. It was through this reflection on the media that I came to OSINT. In my view, it constitutes a particularly illuminating laboratory for exploring the links between images, documents, circulation and the production of reality.
You also emphasise the collective dimension of the practice. Why is it so important?
Firstly, for epistemological reasons. Faced with the sheer volume of available data, working alone quickly reaches its limits. Collective work allows us to cross-reference perspectives, distribute the corpus, and compare interpretations. It also enables us to distinguish between correlation and causality, avoid hasty inferences, and introduce a critical distance. Secondly, there is a more personal dimension: I see my role as a researcher and teacher as embedded within collective dynamics. I do not believe in the figure of the intellectual isolated in his ivory tower.
Major contemporary OSINT investigations are, in fact, carried out by collectives: Bellingcat, Forensic Architecture, or the editorial teams at The New York Times, Le Monde or the BBC. OSINT can, of course, be practised alone. But large-scale investigations—those involving massive volumes of data and significant political stakes—rely on structured collective dynamics.
