Red Hot Cyber
Cybersecurity is about sharing. Recognize the risk, combat it, share your experiences, and encourage others to do better than you.
Open Source Intelligence (OSINT) has emerged in recent years as one of the most fascinating, yet most insidious, disciplines in the information and security landscape. Its essence is remarkably simple: extracting and analyzing data from public sources—whether it’s a post on X, a financial statement filed with the Chamber of Commerce, or a scientific article—to transform it into concrete, actionable intelligence.
What was once a technique reserved exclusively for government agencies is now a daily tool for investigators, journalists, threat intelligence analysts, and, inevitably, even malicious individuals. And it is precisely this democratization that forces us to ask a fundamental question: where does legitimate research end and illicit research begin?
Open Source Intelligence (OSINT) is a double-edged sword in the digital age: one side is enlightenment, the other is shadow. While it has enabled non-governmental organizations and investigative journalists to uncover war crimes or systemic corruption, it has also provided an incredibly powerful methodology to anyone intent on doing harm. The accessibility and effectiveness of current tools, often automated and based on artificial intelligence algorithms, exponentially amplifies the original dilemma. The OSINT analyst is no longer just a patient investigator combing through paper archives or old websites, but an operator who, with a few scripts or commercial tools , can map entire social networks or corporate infrastructures in a very short time.
OSINT’s terrain is inherently slippery. The very definition, ” open source data ,” suggests that anything goes, as long as it’s public. But the reality is much more nuanced. In Italy, and in Europe in general, the first obstacle is the GDPR. Simply having data visible to everyone isn’t enough to systematically collect, archive, and analyze it. This perceived speed and omnipotence is at the heart of the legal problem, especially in Europe. The GDPR, the data protection regulation, was designed to balance technological innovation with the protection of individuals’ fundamental rights.
And here lies the trap for the unprofessional OSINT analyst. Many believe that, if data is “published,” the individual has implicitly consented to its reprocessing. But European law doesn’t work that way. When you aggregate scattered information—perhaps combining a Telegram username, a LinkedIn profile photo, and a home address found in an old land registry— you’re actually processing personal data.
Voluntarily posting a selfie on Instagram does not give you the green light for it to be indexed, archived for a long time, and subsequently associated with sensitive information from other sources to create a “risk profile.”
Data aggregation is the action that transforms OSINF into OSINT, and at the same time, the action that most easily violates the GDPR. Consider the use of retrieved emails and usernames . It’s one thing to notice that User A has the same username on Twitter and a technical discussion forum. It’s quite another to systematically collect thousands of these correlations, associate them with IP addresses, metadata , and behavior patterns, and build a searchable database. In this case, the activity results in truly large-scale processing that not only requires a solid legal basis (almost always lacking for the curious or freelancer without a mandate) but would also often require a Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA).
This processing requires a legal basis (consent, legitimate interest, legal obligation), which often, in the context of unauthorized OSINT research, simply doesn’t exist. The analyst may act in perfect good faith, believing he’s doing nothing wrong, but simply creating a detailed dossier on a person, drawing only from open sources, can already constitute a regulatory violation. The amateur analyst is almost always unaware of these procedures, turning his “research” into a potential administrative offense with hefty fines.
The line becomes even clearer when curiosity pushes the researcher to “peek beyond the gate.” OSINT should limit itself to the surface of the web, without breaking down doors. The line becomes even more thorny in the criminal sphere, as mentioned with unauthorized access. It’s crucial to emphasize that criminal law, in this context, does not evaluate benevolent intent, but the objective fact of the intrusion. But in a world where protections are sometimes trivial, the temptation is strong. If an analyst exploits a website configuration bug, or guesses a weak password to access a restricted area—even if not protected by complex security systems—he is committing unauthorized access to a computer or telecommunications system.
It doesn’t matter how easy the intrusion was, but rather that it was unauthorized. Using subdomain enumeration tools to attempt to access hidden folders is not OSINT; using tools to search for exposed credentials or unprotected databases is not legitimate research, but rather a pre-offensive activity that can easily escalate into a crime. Even simple port scanning or checking for exposed software versions, if performed with the intent of finding vulnerabilities to exploit, can be interpreted as preparatory actions for unauthorized access.
Similarly, the aggressive use of automated scrapers to gather millions of records by violating a platform’s Terms of Service or deliberately circumventing technical limitations leads us into a gray area that is one step away from becoming illegal, especially if the goal is subsequent monetization or mass data mining of sensitive information. OSINT targets the exposed surface and the data intentionally or unknowingly left public, but it stops where the need to force or circumvent any type of technical barrier begins, even the most trivial, such as a purposefully ignored robots.txt file.
But the limitations of research aren’t just legal. There’s a code, often unwritten, that defines the ethics of OSINT. Beyond the law, the unavoidable ethical question persists, serving as the practitioner’s “internal norm.” The crucial distinction is between “what you can do” and “what you should do.” Consider social engineering : if an analyst creates a fictitious profile ( sock puppet ) to befriend the target and trick them into revealing details they would otherwise keep private, the action is technically legal as long as it doesn’t result in fraud or threats.
The use of fictitious profiles ( sock puppets ), for example, is often debated. While it may not be illegal to create a virtual alter ego , deceiving an individual into establishing trust in order to extort private information violates the principle of transparency and threatens general digital trust. However, it is universally considered an unethical and manipulative practice. Exploiting an individual’s emotional weakness or limited digital awareness to extort information betrays the spirit of transparency on which OSINT should be based. An ethical analyst should always search for data using their true professional identity or, if necessary, through neutral sources, avoiding psychological manipulation. The ultimate goal of professional OSINT is not to gather gossip or compromising information, but to obtain an information picture that is accurate, verifiable, and contextualized .
A responsible professional seeks not only data, but also its validation and context. There is a gulf between OSINT ( Intelligence ) and OSINF ( Information ). This distinction between OSINT and OSINF is crucial. An ethical analyst knows that decontextualized or unverified information can destroy a person’s reputation or, in geopolitical contexts, endanger lives. The ethical analyst doesn’t simply find an incendiary tweet ; they verify the account’s authenticity, analyze the photo’s metadata , cross-reference the statement with known geopolitical data, and assess its relevance to the investigative context. The “jackhammer” of decontextualized information destroys reputations, fuels fake news , and can even endanger people’s physical safety, particularly in the context of doxing or online vendettas. OSINT, when performed well, is a rigorous methodological process that aims to validate and contextualize data, transforming noise into signal.
In short, OSINT is a surgical tool, not a jackhammer. The red line is not a physical boundary drawn in the sand, but an internal compass that guides the analyst. Ultimately, the responsible analyst must adopt a mindset of data minimization and proportionality of action . They must operate with the awareness that any search, even the most innocuous, can impact the privacy and rights of others. Before launching an intrusive search or aggregating personal information, they must ask themselves: is this level of detail strictly necessary to achieve my legitimate objective? If the objective is defensive threat intelligence (e.g., identifying an ongoing phishing attack), the action is proportionate.
If the goal is simple curiosity or the investigation of an ex-partner without a legal mandate or compelling ethical justification, the action is disproportionate and abusive. Ignoring the principles of proportionality, data minimization, and compliance with the law is not only a legal risk: it undermines the credibility and integrity of the entire discipline, transforming a tool of knowledge into a means of surveillance and abuse. The legitimacy of OSINT, therefore, lies not only in the legality of its sources, but also in the legitimacy of its purpose and the ethical restraint with which it is pursued. Ethics, in this field, are not optional, but a precondition for the very legitimacy of the work performed. Ignoring this internal ethical compass condemns OSINT to become, in the eyes of the law and society, a sophisticated form of unauthorized surveillance.
Follow us on Google News to receive daily updates on cybersecurity. Contact us if you would like to report news, insights or content for publication.
