Faustine's reply... Aimee wrote:
>What happens if you break the laws of mathematics? Do fractions with guns >chase you? Do you get put in a random number prison? Well for one, If I broke the laws of mathematics I'd lose time, waste an incalculable number of other people's man-hours, lose face, lose my job, and and whatever we happen to be trying to get done do would fail miserably-- and I'd be held entirely accountable for it. Next question... (Oh. My mistake.) >I don't see a marketplace opportunity in an espionage Black Net. I'll bet people in the business see it differently. Man, if anyone ever needed proof you aren't an agent, there it is... ;) (*laughter* Let's just say I see opportunities that others might not.) >In high-tempo complex event streams with changing decision-makers, shifting >goal-setting, interveners, variable resources, etc. -- the advantage to be >gained by competitors (of any sort) more truly lies elsewhere. Mere secrets >no longer offer the edge, because they offer a short half-life of >decision-relevance. I couldn't disagree more. If what you say is correct, why are so many businesses setting up corporate intel divisions? Have a look at the SCIP website, it's a growth industry. In fact, I'd be more surprised if something like BlackNet isn't already fully operational. As if any of the involved parties would have the slightest interest in publicizing it! Won't happen, ever. (Yes, but how do you really feel? Provocation tactics. As if *I'm* one to point that out, heh-heh. I'm just looking at from an odd angle, and I'm not disagreeing with what you are saying.) I have a hunch the real impact of BlackNet-like system(s) will start to be felt be in the next couple of decades. If we aren't already feeling them now. (Let me know if you see one.) >Now, 3 days to 3 months, and it grows shorter. Few >competitors have decision-utility in terms of capability and readiness to >take advantage of "secrets." Most of the information you need is open >source, or can be gained by acumen with low-risk. But "secrets" aren't just unprocessed information; it's precicely this value- added acumen (admittedly in short supply all around) which turns raw information into finished analysis that's priceless. For more on this, you could hardly do better than to read Greg Treverton's "Reshaping Intelligence for an Age of Information". He's a friend of Robert Steele, spoke at the OSS conference last year, was on the Church Committee and used to be the top analyst at the National Intelligence Council. I'm pretty sure I put a link to this here before; check the archives if you're interested. (Thanks, Faustine.) >Add in the traitor element and the "go to jail" consideration, and it looks >like a no-go to me. Of course it seems that way to you, given your assumptions and motivations. Others have always come to a different conclusion, and always will. e.g. who can ever know what was going in Bob Hanssen's skull--the fact remains that he did a hell of a lot of damage. (Nice poster.) As if the people practicing it-- government patriots, spies, traitors, double agents, merceanries, freedom fighters, and assorted shitheels of all persuasions-- care about illegality one way or the other. For good or bad, for all of them it really does come back to the laws of mathematics. The only way to counter math is with better math, like it or not. (You are dangerously intuitive.) ~~Aimee
