The natural conversation
Information exchange is a natural part of our daily lives. Organizations share knowledge with partners, researchers collaborate across national borders, companies meet with customers and employees discuss problems, experiences and solutions with each other. Without this continuous information sharing, much of modern society would simply cease to function. It is therefore not only natural for people to share information, but often desirable. At the same time, a large part of the information exchange takes place without the person providing the information giving it any much thought. How much information do we actually share without reflecting on it?
When espionage and intelligence activities are discussed, many people imagine that information gathering is a relatively direct process. Someone asks questions and someone else provides answers. The picture is intuitive and in many cases also correct. If you want to know something about a person, an organization or an activity, it is natural to assume that the information must be requested. At the same time, this picture risks hiding a much more complex reality. The most valuable information does not always come in response to a direct question. It often arises in completely ordinary conversations, when people themselves choose to develop an argument, correct an assumption or share an experience. It is also here that what I usually describe as everyday espionage begins.
Why people share information
This phenomenon is far from new. Journalists have long understood and used this in practice. Recruiters use it daily and in intelligence operations it is a central part of the craft. The fact that people share information voluntarily is not in itself strange. On the contrary, it is a natural part of human communication. Conversations are rarely just about exchanging facts, but are also about relationships, identity and social signals. Through conversation we build trust, establish belonging and show who we are. It also means that people often tell more than is necessary to answer a question or move a conversation forward. For example, an experienced project manager describes not only their project but also what challenges there are. A specialist does not only describe their area of expertise but is happy to explain why certain problems are more difficult than others. A manager does not only talk about their operations but also discusses priorities, resources and future plans. In most contexts, this is something positive, as organizations are built on people sharing experiences and knowledge with each other. At the same time, it challenges a common notion of how information gathering takes place, both in work and private life. Many people imagine that valuable information is primarily gathered through skillfully formulated questions. In intelligence operations, the experience is often different.
Information gathering without questions
In intelligence and HUMINT[1] The phenomenon has its own name: elicitation. The concept lacks a perfect Swedish translation, but the essence is relatively simple. Elicitation is about creating the conditions for information to arise in the conversation rather than trying to elicit it through direct questions. The difference may at first glance appear insignificant, but in practice it is crucial. The person using elicitation is not necessarily trying to get the other party to answer a question. The aim is rather to create the conditions in a conversation where the other party wants to develop a line of reasoning, correct an assumption or share their experiences. This is also why elicitation is often perceived as a completely normal conversation. Information is often obtained precisely because the interaction feels natural and this is where psychology becomes crucial.
Elicitation is based on a different logic than the one that many people spontaneously associate with information gathering. The aim is rarely to get an answer to a single question, but rather to understand how people reason, what they choose to develop and which topics arouse engagement. In this respect, elicitation is as much about observing as it is about listening. What a person chooses to comment on, correct or avoid can sometimes be at least as interesting as what is actually said. A “no” to a question can reveal more to an intelligence officer than we ourselves think. The information value therefore lies not only in the answers but often in the interaction itself. This is also why elicitation is rarely perceived as information gathering. For the person collecting information, the conversation can provide valuable insights, while for the person providing information, it often feels like just a completely ordinary and innocent conversation.
To nuance reality
One of the most interesting aspects of human communication is that people are rarely content to simply state that someone is wrong – we often also want to explain why. This is easy to observe in everyday life. Anyone who describes an activity in a simplified way is often met with objections from people with greater insight. Anyone who generalizes about an industry is quickly told that reality is more complicated. Anyone who misunderstands a technical problem is often met with a detailed explanation of how it actually works. In most cases, this happens completely spontaneously. People enjoy sharing knowledge and we want others to understand things that we ourselves have invested time, experience and commitment in learning. Therefore, when something is described in a way that we perceive as incorrect or overly simplified, there is often a strong drive to fill in the gaps. From an information-gathering perspective, this is particularly interesting.
Imagine someone at a conference saying that they got the impression that cybersecurity is largely about technology. Most security professionals would probably have a hard time letting that statement go unchallenged. Not because they want to reveal something sensitive, but because they want to nuance the picture a bit.
The conversation therefore often continues with explanations.
“That's a common misconception…”
“Technology is important, but the human factor is a very big challenge…”
“The problem with us is rather …”
“We are actually putting more resources into…”
And suddenly, a relatively innocent statement has led to information that would likely never have come to light through the much more direct question: “What are your biggest security challenges?”?”. The difference is crucial in practice. In one case, the person answers a question and in the other case, the person corrects a perception. The latter is often experienced as significantly more natural because the focus is not on providing information but on creating understanding. This is also why information gathering is so often less about seeking answers and more about creating space for explanations.
Identity and recognition
If information gathering were just a set of methods, the phenomenon would be relatively easy to protect against. It would be enough to learn to recognize certain questions or certain behaviors. The problem is that successful information gathering is rarely based solely on techniques. Techniques are important, but their effect only arises when they meet basic human needs. One of the strongest is the need for recognition. Most people want to be perceived as knowledgeable in their field. We want our experience to be recognized, our work to be valued, and our knowledge to be taken seriously. This is fundamentally a positive thing. Organizations need people who are proud of their expertise and who want to share it. When someone shows a genuine interest in what we do, the nature of the conversation often changes. The focus shifts from what information is provided to the opportunity to talk about something that we ourselves perceive as important. Those who work with advanced technology are happy to talk about technical challenges. Those who lead an organization are happy to reason about strategic choices. Those who have built a function from scratch are happy to describe how the work has been done.
It is hardly a coincidence that flattery is often described as one of the world's oldest social tools. People generally react positively when their competence is recognized or when someone shows interest in their experiences. This does not mean that people are gullible, but rather that we are social creatures. This is precisely why recognition and genuine interest so often recur in connection with elicitation. Not because they automatically get people to provide sensitive information, but because they create the conditions for conversations in which people themselves want to share their experiences, perspectives and knowledge. This is rarely about self-assertion but rather about identity. Information gathering is therefore often less about forcing answers and more about creating a conversation in which the other person themselves wants to contribute. For the person collecting information, this is valuable, while for the person providing information it often just feels like a good conversation.
The bigger picture
To the person providing the information, each individual piece of information often appears insignificant. This is also why people rarely perceive themselves as a source of valuable information. Most of us associate sensitive information with secret documents, classified information or details that are clearly covered by secrecy – regardless of whether they have a bearing on national security or are trade secrets. Significantly fewer reflect on the value of the many small fragments of information shared in everyday conversations. Those who work professionally with information gathering rarely look for the whole picture in a single conversation. The goal may instead be to gradually build understanding through a large number of smaller observations, information and impressions. This may be the case of an intelligence officer moving between different conversations during a mingle or a conference and gradually building up a picture of an organization or business. One person tells what issues are discussed most at management level. Another mentions that the organization has difficulty recruiting certain specialist skills. A third describes which systems are being replaced. A fourth happens to mention that a project has been delayed. Individually, data may seem insignificant until someone starts compiling it. Only then does the value arise.
Those working in the business often see each piece of information in isolation, while those collecting information see the relationships between them. What appears to one person as an insignificant detail may be to an antagonist the missing piece of the puzzle needed to understand a larger context. From that perspective, the value of a conversation becomes easier to understand. Not because someone tells everything, but because almost no one realizes the value their small piece of the puzzle can have for someone who already has many other pieces. This is also where understanding elicitation becomes important for the defense industry, the public sector and the business community. The aim is not for people to stop talking to each other. Organizations are built on collaboration, knowledge exchange and relationships, and a society where people are constantly suspicious of each other's intentions would be both ineffective and undesirable. At the same time, there is great value in understanding how information gathering actually works.
Between awareness and suspicion
Today, few organizations would question the value of educating their employees about cyberthreats, phishing, and social engineering. The goal is not to create suspicion, but to create awareness. The same should, of course, apply to information gathering through human contact. Understanding elicitation is ultimately not about learning how to gather information. It is about understanding when someone else is trying to do it. When we realize that information gathering does not always start with a question but often with a conversation, the way we look at situations where information is shared also changes. Conferences, client meetings, recruitment processes, networking events, and informal conversations suddenly appear in a new light. Not because they are dangerous, but because they are so human.
Information sharing is not a problem to be solved. It is a prerequisite for organizations, societies and relationships to function. The same qualities that make people good colleagues, committed experts and valued conversation partners are also the qualities that make elicitation possible. Perhaps this is also why the phenomenon is so often overlooked and rarely discussed outside professional intelligence contexts. It is not based on some unusual human behavior, but on things we encourage every day: curiosity, helpfulness, competence and the willingness to share one's experiences.
In other words, it's not about people stopping talking to each other. It's about understanding how much information is shared every day without anyone thinking about it. Perhaps that's why elicitation has been around for so long. the invisible information gatheringNot because it has been hidden, but because most of us have never had reason to see it.