Anyone Can Be an Open Source Researcher But You Have to Know What You Don't Know

Is John Simon the Best Movie Critic?

In the dog days of summer, ones mind often turns to the mess we call an office. In between cases of late, I’ve been trying to make some headway. Still, it is hard to know what to toss and what to keep. If I trash this book, how will I know who’s the best. It says it right here on page 73 of The Best that the best movie critic is Mr. Simon. Now, not having any idea who Mr. Simon is (or was), I googled, and if you are to believe Wikipedia, maybe there’s some problems with calling him the best. As it turns out, the NYTimes gave a good review to this little piece of reference, but I’m still generally reluctant to call anything the best.

It Takes More Than Learning About Sites

I see all sorts of write-ups, analyses, summaries, for the open source researcher. The information tends to comes in two varieties. One focuses on searches so esoteric, the geotag problem I’d call it, teaching you to do things you’ll never need to do; the other seeks to inform on the mundane, looking up companies and finding people but tends to miss key risks. I continue to be annoyed, is that the right word, by the information presented regarding open source company research.

I am, after all, Born to Search. I’d like to think if you know who gave me that mug, you’d be annoyed too about the information presented regarding company research. (I’ve put out a challenge on social media, tell me where I got that mug, and within reason, I will do a search for you). If you know about Opencorporates or Bizpedia, you may be good open source researcher, but is that enough?

Listen, I use and value Opencorporates. It is fast and easy to search and very much less cost to use than my subscription services. Plus, it has coverage outside the US, which is pretty useful regardless of cost. Still, I know what I am getting within the world of open source. It is not the best. It helps to have a little history to know why.

When I was Born to Search, back in the Clinton years, we did not know open source from from string theory. To the extent we called it, besides background investigations or background checks, was public record research. Mostly we were distinguishing people like me who were doing it all from their desk and those out in the field. Felicity not Oliver. Now, though, we are all open source investigators.

The CIA says it, “Information does not have to be secret to be valuable,” and they have a decent page explaining what makes up open source intelligence. Of course nothing says open source more than Wikipedia, and the Wikipedia page on open source intelligence expands on the CIA’s definition and provides some very useful context, explaining how the terminology came to be in the early 00’s. If you really want to delve into the background and history of the topic, this 2007 paper from the Congressional Research Service does it. And they get the crux of why it took so long for open source to be a “thing”:

First, the Intelligence Community’s principal mission is to discover and steal secrets; relying on open sources runs counter to that mission. Second, it is suggested that the Intelligence Community views clandestine-collected information as being more valuable because it is more difficult to collect

The paper then noted that by 2007, a lot of effort had been made to make it a thing:

Over the past decade, two national commissions criticized the Intelligence Community for its failure to promote the use of open source information and a third recommended that an open source center be established that would serve the Community. The commissions also criticized the Community’s preferential bias with regard to classified information

With spies taking to open source, would not the public be right behind. After all, it was open, you could do it too. And if you can do it, you want to know how. And if you know how, you want to know what’s best. The problem, like I keep on saying, you have to know what you do not know. Because if you know, you know best is an iffy proposition.

If you rely on Opencororates or Bizpedia, do you know which states are included? Maybe because I reside in the Land of Lincoln, but I am specifically aware that both Opencorporates and Corporation Wiki do not have any company records from Illinois, and Bizpedia’s Illinois records stop, well nothing says how limited these things are as resources, from the fact that I cannot find anywhere on the site where it gives the coverage dates for Illinois. Since Illinois is listed on Bizpedia, you’d get the impression that the site includes company records for the state. Try to find an Illinois business formed in recent years…I’m waiting…

Another problem, it’s not just an Opencorporates, etc. problem, but do you know which states index by officer name? So, you may think you are doing a comprehensive search of company records, looking for business affiliations for a person, and you’re missing the states that you’re missing, but you’re also missing the states that do not index that way. The most famous, the most obvious, is Delaware, which makes very little of its company records freely accessible, even status costs, and there is no way, no sending of monies, that will get you a search by officer or director.

As deficiencies in coverage are generally not pointed out in the coverage of open source company sources, it’s more galling that lists of best company search engines exclude the bestest, that is the Secretary of State website for each state. Each state’s Secretary of State has a website with company information, even Delaware has an entity search. In every state that does not sound like Delaware, the Secretary of State website will be your best source. It will be the most current. It will have the most information. For many states, the sites will also include electronic versions of key company documents including articles of organization. Of course just because you do not live in Wyoming, doesn’t mean you might not form a business there. Also, talking about ways to index, as we just said, certain states like my aforementioned Land of Lincoln, or Cali-freakin-fora do not allow you to search their Secretary of State sites by officer name (but it can be done via subscription services). Each state’s company site is only best for what it has, and if you’ve gone and also set up companies in other states, you’re not going to find them (assuming they were not also registered in your home state), nor may you find them if you have a person and not a company.

What’s best if you’re company is not a corporation or limited liability company? Know all the company types and why it matters?

We can all be open source researchers. At least if we can get on the Internet. Are we all Born to Search though? If you are, you’ll have a good idea of what you don’t know.