complexity theory and information warfare (was: Re: Two ideas for random number generation)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Tim wrote: >The modern name for this outlook is "chaos theory," but I believe >"chaos" gives almost mystical associations to something which is really >quite understandable: divergences in decimal expansions. >Discrepancies come marching in, fairly rapidly, from "out there in the >expansion." >Another way of looking at unpredictabality is to say that real objects >in real space and subject to real forces from many other real objects >are in the world of the "real numbers" and any representation of a real >number as a 25-digit number (diameter of the solar system to within 1 >centimeter) or even as a 100-digit number (utterly beyond all hope of >meaurement!) is just not enough. >(snip) In short, predictability is a physical and computational chimera: it >does not, and cannot, exist. Fascinating post on a fascinating subject, but since I'm too short of time for the kind of reply it deserves, here's a minor aside for anyone interested in developing practical applications of complexity theory on cypherpunk themes: you might find some of the works listed here relevant and useful... Complexity, Global Politics and National Security Complexity And Chaos: A Working Bibliography School of Information Warfare and Strategy National Defense University Washington, D.C. http://www.ndu.edu/ndu/inss/books/complexity/bibliogr.html The fact that NDU is putting so much stock in R&D in these areas as part of their information warfare efforts is interesting in its own right. Even if it ultimately proves to be nothing more than a dead-end bunch of hooey, libertarians of all persuasions ought to at least be aware of the kinds of research going on, where analysts are trying to take this field. Especially those with a background like yours who are in the perfect position to make a real open-literature counter-contribution someday if the alchemists of predictability ever do come across their philosopher's stone. Improbable--crazy, even--but when did that ever stop a mathematician: "All stable processes we shall predict. All unstable processes we shall control." --John von Neumann. This is what's ultimately at stake. Fascinating, terrifying. The only way to counter math is with better math. Oh well, so it seems to me. ~~Faustine. *** He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. - --Thomas Paine -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBPMXr0fg5Tuca7bfvEQIfJACgz1DxiddKDkm1bw6ZfrGGMUQ6D3wAoMrP lQBfq2Wfh2qMxdFkbHnJnDdr =mCZt -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Bill Stewart is an alpha cat?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Someone wrote: >The actual meaning, less succintly phrased, is that those who define >themselves by their position in a hierarchical organizational chart cannot >conceive of a social structure (such as a discussion group) which is without a >leader. The "cypherpunks movement" fnord and all that. >(If there is a "cp movement", it is the raising of the middle finger >above the closed fist, in the direction of oppression.) Well put, actually. But don't forget, human beings didn't evolve from cats, we evolved from apes. Our ape nature peeks out in spite of the best of intentions in all social interactions, even here. The true greatness of the Constution as envisioned by the Founders is that it aims for something better than the law of the Yukon. The fact that it hasn't worked out as well as it might is a testament to just how strong our ape legacy is: the weak and stupid are at the mercy of the strong and cunning and always will be. Here there and everywhere, from anarchy to democracy to totalitarian state, like it or not. Read some Schopenhauer... ~~Faustine. *** He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. - --Thomas Paine -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBPLXH8/g5Tuca7bfvEQIr7QCgpbGQqW3Gvas8Qld4Jqi52OGqLF8An3H1 1VQktn/Dy0CYXKgsBSrSkCnH =DmNZ -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Detectable cash notes a fantasy
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Tim wrote: Faustine wrote: > If, when I came here, I had made the deliberate choice to make an > effort at "getting along" by emphasizing our similarities instead of > differences, I dare say the motivation to dissect-and-destroy every last > comment I ever make would be nonexistent. >>You haven't contributed anything interesting that I can recall. Oh of course not, heaven forfend. >> Even if you discount my comments, surely you must have noticed that rarely >> do your posts generate significant follow-up. (Which is a small blessing.) Who said generating a lot of follow-up was on my "to-do" list? Believe it or not, I'm perfectly fine with contributing here and there when I can and learning from everyone else when I can't. If I were as wrapped up in the pecking order dynamic as you seem to be, I'd really be putting a lot more effort into it. But as it is--given how incredibly busy I am--if my peculiar little set of toys is all I feel like bringing to share at sandbox right now, what concern is it of yours or anyone else's? Why not run along now and kick some sand on one of your boring asskisser friends, shake things up a little... >>Sometimes you natter about about (what) you think the RAND Corporation, your >>apparent ideal, would do things, Well is that a fact Grampy. Nattering about what interests me, alert the media. > and sometimes you praise Herman Kahn Damn straight I do! Anyone interested in libertarian futurism really ought to check him out if they haven't already--and I'm assuming this description applies to quite a few people here...good starting links: http://www.alteich.com/links/kahn.htm I seem to remember your having a few kind words for a work or two of his yourself--so I do hope you won't go running down a great man just for the sake of getting at me. >and other O.R. types. Hooey. > But you have nothing significant to contribute about anything closely related > to list themes. There you go again, defining what's acceptable for people what to talk about. Anyway, as always, it's not what you say or don't say on a list, its what you do. In the abstract, it would be kind of useful to talk to you about it, but in practice that's not really an option. A shame, really. >You should think about some of the real issues and come up with some >kind of incisive analysis or creative proposal As should we all. Fair enough, but I've written plenty I haven't felt like posting here for a number of reasons. Maybe I will, maybe not, who cares. Even if I left it to others to post "significant" ideas it hardly matters. >even Choate is more on-topic than you've been. You know, I like arguing with Choate: too bad you pissed him off to the point he feels the need to post newslinks all the time. Did you catch how he didn't start up again until you said you "quieted him down" or whatever it was? Thanks a lot. >The lectures from you about how we're a bunch of untrained amateurs are >getting old. Oh come on, that's all in your head. Like you're one to talk about being condescending about what people know and dont know! Pot, kettle, look in the mirror. Looking forward to your next significant post, ~~Faustine. *** "If you don't like 'em, ignore them or filter them. That's the Cypherpunk way of doing things." Tim May, on the Cypherpunks list, 1995 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBPLUJAfg5Tuca7bfvEQLdegCg+S2sDHGzsGOTBVPNMf9x8Bn3NWQAoOpF KG4JNBT8BOO+tK0+wjp6qVwn =tFxE -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Detectable cash notes a fantasy
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Tim wrote: >Everytime I comment on your citations, you go into a snit about how >"Gramps" is insulting the "whippersnappers." No, it's all about the condescending tone you take when you use "your many years of experience" as leverage against anyone who rejects their place in your pecking order. Whether you choose to admit it or not, you're incredibly easygoing on people here who kiss your ass, flatter you, and never dare contradict you out of a fear of retribution. Like the example from a few months ago when you related how somebody asked you if it would be okay to post certain kinds of articles to the group. Why does this please you--don't you want your friends and compatriots to have a fucking backbone? You think you're the only one here who gets to have a spine? Which isn't to say that if the group is set up a certain way, it's right to be inconsiderate of what most people want and expect: for instance, I stopped posting links to news articles when it was made plain to me that most people found it an annoyance. But it wasn't because anyone bullied me "into line". If, when I came here, I had made the deliberate choice to make an effort at "getting along" by emphasizing our similarities instead of differences, I dare say the motivation to dissect-and-destroy every last comment I ever make would be nonexistent. But then, how interesting would that be. >For all I know, in Real Life you're older than me, or you're some guy >working a guard job at Lockheed. Or both. Ironically enough--but not that it matters--I haven't manufactured any of the details about myself I've given here. I suppose the prudent thing to do would be to encourage people to assume I'm a man (as if I'd have to do anything besides take a neutral nym!) and keep you all looking for the old Lockheed fart, etc. But I suppose it must the grandiosity or vanity or something that compels me to vent under the guise of myself. Which is a pretty funny way to put it actually, since what I say here is far more "real" than what most people see of me in the "real world" in a lifetime. Which is probably part of the point anyway. Not that I've given anyone the slightest reason to believe a word of it, but there it is. Yeah yeah, I know--"go tell it to Oprah". >Or you may be the grad student at Hoboken State College you appear to be. A slur, eh? Not bad. I suspect you're being a little disingenuous though. (If I really were at Hoboken, where's the sting in it?) Ah well, think what you want--I don't have anything to prove. Or shouldn't, anyway. > Whatever, I know that your main method of argument is either a bunch of "Bah" > comments followed with cites apropos of nothing you've dug up. Such as your > refutation of category theory by digging up some of the usual computer vision > and scene analysis junk that's been going around for 40 years. I did no such thing! You asked what happened to general systems theory and expressed a negative view of OR that, though entirely warranted thirty years ago, isn't true of what some people are doing today. So I gave a couple of cites to papers that show how these concepts have been evolving, I thought you might enjoy them. Entirely tangential to the main point of your post, but it's new and it's not junk, damn it. If it's not interesting to you, fine-- but there certainly wasn't any criticism of anything related to you somehow hidden in it. >I stand by my comment that shielding a thread in a $100 bill, for >example, is vastly easier than detecting it. Your cites about WiFi >frequencies and 3 meter ranges and suchlike don't mean much. No of course not, since they were only meant to give a sense of the volume of related research people are doing--hence my only point that 20 years seems a little generous. ~~Faustine. *** He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. - --Thomas Paine -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBPLSLY/g5Tuca7bfvEQLGigCeOjRDe4ApAZLoTIuGFWxdi/pVTTwAnjjx aObuLmF9JjD+8oGJj2Y2zBoX =lfHT -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Detectable cash notes a fantasy
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Tim wrote: >Physics-wise, it's a jiveass fantasy. No way are there "micro-strips" >readable from a distance in today's currency, and very likely not in the >next 20 years. I'm not so sure it'll take that long, given the amount of effort people are putting into it. Here are some relevant articles from that single five-month old issue of Global ID Magazine I referenced... A long range ID system http://web.tiscali.it/homeglobal/issues/0111/Nov01-07.pdf Utilising the internationally approved 2.45Ghz UHF band allows specialised readers to access the information contained in transponders at a distance of up to three metres. Familiar sources of disturbance such as reflection, noise interference and overreach have been eliminated by integrating UMTS/GSM technologies Miniaturising transponders http://web.tiscali.it/homeglobal/issues/0111/Nov01-16.pdf by Reihard Jurisch, Micro-Sensys The consolidated techniques used for fabricating integrated circuits have been successfully applied to the manufacturing of integrated transponders. Antenna coils are micro-structured onto the chip containing the transponders electronic circuitry Smart banknotes challenge conterfeiting http://web.tiscali.it/homeglobal/issues/0111/Nov01-14.pdf by Gaia Steden Hitachi has developed its smallest RFID integrated circuit called the Mu - -chip, which is thin enough to be embedded in paper. Designer antennas for RFID applications http://web.tiscali.it/homeglobal/issues/0111/Nov01-06.pdf by Bob Scher, Dynasys The choice of the correct RFID antenna for a specific application is a complex issue. It is necessary to consider what elements of an RFID system are needed: from the spacing of antennas to the strength, shape and resonance of readers and transponders *** He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. - --Thomas Paine -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBPLOm2/g5Tuca7bfvEQJYWgCgmKncKA9rpBsIbiI7J3isPQ0pL5QAoPIC 4/1byzrcjsekyN/DxUi67mCE =3OXb -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: all about transferable off-line ecash (Re: Brands off-line tech)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 > Mike Rosing[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, Ken Brown wrote: > > I'd rather have stiff cards than floppy paper ones. At least you can put > > them into the slot of a machine easily. > > But with an RF tag you'd not even have to pull it out of your pocket :-) > >Putting RF Tags in cash is one of those ideas with Unintended Consequences. >Muggers would love having a way of determining which victims are carrying a >wad, as would many salesmen (and JBTs looking to perform a 'civil >confiscation' on 'a sum of currency'.) Not to mention the possibility of a surreptitious centralized database tracking purchases of people on a watch list. Sign up if you want to, but you might do well to remember a point Lt. Gen. Hayden (who really ought to know) once made: all SIGINT can be defeated and destroyed simply by putting the handset in the receiver. Something to keep in mind while you're thinking this through,anyway. As for the counterfeiting problem, nobody's said much about the kind of sophisticated countermeasures used in casino chips, for example. Seems workable. One of many interesting topics covered in a truly frightening pub you might not have come across: Global ID Magazine http://web.tiscali.it/homeglobal/issues.htm Global ID Magazine is a publication describing the activity and the products of the leading Identification (ID) Technology Suppliers in the world. Its scope encompasses state-of-the-art technologies, innovative concepts and trends within the automatic identification systems industry that will have the most significant impact on design and use of ID systems. The editorial focus of Global ID Magazine is on the use of identification systems based on radio frequency, biometrics, global positioning, multifunctional systems, data communication and similar. Global ID Magazine speaks to decision makers, both at a management and at a technical level, within companies that use or could leverage from using ID systems. It suggests innovative solutions, the improvement of existing applications, describing trends and future possibilities. ~~Faustine. *** He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. - --Thomas Paine -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBPLNWGvg5Tuca7bfvEQLRzQCg2iSdcpbXf/K+FQRzVNGYa9voHToAn3Jd 35JycT/4X0aUnT7bzWycwYEe =sSz8 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
RE: mil disinfo on cryptome
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Someone wrote: >However Faustine neglects to include the simple solution, that you >simply renounce playing with Johnny: >>Conditions that could mitigate security concerns include: >> b. The individual terminates the employment or discontinues the >>activity upon being notified that it is in conflict with his or her security >>responsibilities.<< Bah. I may indeed be yellow-bellied, but the idea of being kept from talking to someone when I haven't even done anything wrong galls me. "persons..engaged in analysis and discussion"? give me a break. Odious, flat-headed. Either something is covered in your non-disclosure agreement or it's not. If it is, fine, if not, what's the problem? Implicit censorship by "our sort" sucks. So if I ever were in the position of being tried and found wanting in the our-sortness department, perhaps it would be just as well. But then, since I do tend to "lose my cool" when "established methodologies for handling information and belief about it are challenged"--like that silly old-fashioned retrograde notion I have that people who haven't done anything wrong shouldn't be punished for it (Joshua Gordon, Scott Deforrest X. Muller, the "disinformation" schmoe; myself, re: death threats from the Snackycake Posse, etc.) maybe you're right after all. >More interestingly, s/he neglects to include this disqualifier from >State Secrets: >>Allegiance to the United States Conditions that could raise a security >concern and may be disqualifying include: >d. Involvement in activities which unlawfully advocate or practice >the commission of acts of force or violence to prevent others from >exercising their rights under the Constitution or laws of the United States or >of any state.<< >>How many Congressvermin, police w/ NCIS access, FBI, judges, domestic >>spooks of all flavors, etc are guilty of this? Plenty, no doubt. But seeing as how a) I've never held any of those jobs and b)it sure as hell isn't related to anything I've ever done, why I should have brought it up is less than obvious. ~~Faustine. *** He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. - --Thomas Paine -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBPLJsj/g5Tuca7bfvEQLnzQCfUD/kGUgnh141NLH2OKzwiUWbdKcAn1xW cX2RQmdg8SasBrIINytyCx9h =Z+7t -END PGP SIGNATURE-
RE: mil disinfo on cryptome
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 John wrote: >Contrarily, one can argue, that anybody who has >access to classified material cannot be trusted for >their unclassified work. Actually, I agree: that's certainly the safe bet. But can you imagine what a different world we'd all be living in if Ellsberg had sent the Pentagon Papers to you instead. >David Kahn made such an argument when he refused >to sign a confidentiality agreement for NSA in order >to have access to classified archives. According to Kahn >he was the first to refuse that faustian arrangement >(pun intended, Faustine). Instead he sat at a desk >outside the classified archives and worked only >with material that did not require an NDA, doing so, >he said, in order to help assure reader trust of his >work. Spare us the cornball "trust me" hokum: it's not like he could have printed anything interesting from them anyway. Looks like a symbolic gesture to me. And if you really wanted to spread disinformation, what better way to do it than to get someone jumping through all the right "credibility hoops". In the end, there's no way around the fact that we see what we want to see and are blind to what we don't. >Kahn's right, and admirably so, for once you get access >to classified material you are doomed to be distrusted >outside the secret world. Too much lying has been done >by those who have access for anybody with access >to ever be trusted, which, no doubt, is the intention of >those who believe in privileged information. You are >either in or out, no mercy from either side, as Faust >knew. For what it's worth, this just made it more likely that any disinformation flowing your way will be coming through "trusted outsiders". As if being a lunatic or a greasy little antisec moneygrubber is any way to establish credibility! Just as I thought: the well-intentioned schmoe gets it coming and going. How considerate of you to make this perfectly explicit before any more of them bust their ass for you. >To be blunt, no official can be trusted, period, nor can >any of their contractors who have agreed to abide >the official rules. Which, as oft stated here, includes >all state-empowered and privilieged professionals, >from architects to lawyers to doctors to priests to >acupuncturists, and not least, journalists who may >pretend to authorize themselves but behave in >accord with the rules of their privileged publishers. OR: "Cryptome welcomes documents for publication that are prohibited by governments worldwide, in particular material on freedom of expression, privacy, cryptology, dual-use technologies, national security and intelligence -- open, secret and classified documents -- unless, of course, you've ever been in a position to really learn jack shit about anything." Bah. Oh, and I can't believe I almost forgot--I'm sure you'll be tickled pink to learn that ever having had anything to do with you can be the kiss of death as far as getting clearance is concerned. From the adjudication guidelines: http://www.dss.mil/training/adr/adjguid/adjguidF.htm "Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include: Any service, whether compensated, volunteer, or employment with: (...) d. Any foreign, domestic, or international organization or person engaged in analysis, discussion, or publication of material on intelligence, defense, foreign affairs, or protected technology." "Darwinian justice" indeed. ~~Faustine. *** He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. - --Thomas Paine -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBPLC6jfg5Tuca7bfvEQJN7QCcCa9qhyn1i1VC5bChRhx0wnwZ9PIAoKd9 /MmFUWQYVJ3eNb69QKiV7hUV =wicA -END PGP SIGNATURE-
RE: mil disinfo on cryptome
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Eugene wrote: >I have not followed this thread closely, So why bother to chime in with your two cents before spending the five minutes it would take to learn what's been going on? >but could clueless posters please shut up, for a change? Instead of talking >at length about topics they know nothing about? Sure. As long as you're referring to people who scream "disinformation" when they can't reconcile a badly-worded paragraph with equations they looked up in a chemistry book, I agree. >I'm not an expert on this, Then why aren't you following your own advice? If anyone is interested in learning more about CW, a good intro: Chemical Warfare Agents: an overview of chemicals defined as chemical weapons http://www.opcw.org/chemhaz/cwagents.htm. Biological agents: USAMRIID's MEDICAL MANAGEMENT OF BIOLOGICAL CASUALTIES HANDBOOK http://www.usamriid.army.mil/education/bluebook.html RAND pdfs: Overview of Chemical and Biological Warfare http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1018.5/MR1018.5.chap2.html from: 2000 MR-1018/5 A Review of the Scientific Literature as It Pertains to Gulf War Illnesses. Vol. 5, Chemical and Biological Warfare Agents http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1018.5/index.html 1998 DB-189/1 Air Force Operations in a Chemical and Biological Environment. http://www.rand.org/publications/DB/DB189.1/DB189.1.pdf/ 2001 CT-183 Combating Terrorism: Assessing the Threat of Biological Terrorism. http://www.rand.org/publications/CT/CT183/ 2001 CT-186 Anthrax Attacks, Biological Terrorism and Preventive Responses. http://www.rand.org/publications/CT/CT186/ Detailed reference works you can dig up yourself. But hey, if you prefer to stick to your chemistry 101 books and advice from Uncle Fester, that's perfectly fine by me. Just watch out throwing the word "disinformation" around, that's all. ~~Faustine. *** He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. - --Thomas Paine -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBPK96Ofg5Tuca7bfvEQKv9wCgkRJh/EtSTyECcvnhkoisTkpEtz4An1jg 5Eu6iUE9CLJuLAXgxTGDxMzY =Sot5 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
RE: mil disinfo on cryptome
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Major Variola wrote: >>Absolutely, these are often erroneous and badly written. Yes, you have >>every right to expect to see disinformation in them. But in this case, >>there's nothing lethal about adding sodium cyanide to a urea nitrate bomb-- >If you're properly removed all the trace acids from the nitrate... >>fact would likely boost the lethality by at least an order of magnitude >An order of magnitude? (...) Yeah, as part of the total payload (e. g. combined with sulfuric acid you get hydrogen cyanide gas.) The heat and dispersal issues in this kind of chemical submunition have already been fully addressed in more serious CW literature, but I'm really not the person to ask. I'm completely and perfectly happy to leave the "Ask Uncle Fester" gig entirely to you. ~~Faustine. *** He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. - --Thomas Paine -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBPK4J1fg5Tuca7bfvEQIZ9gCgkKYBp4oTefPN2EAAQ/cjpJzzSswAn2bC rP+lvuOejUTBc4xrVYDA4OrJ =r0oh -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: mil disinfo on cryptome
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 At 09:15 PM 4/4/02 -0500, Faustine wrote: >And as long as you don't recommend that John call out the Snackycake >Posse on the poor schmoe who sent him the manual thinking he was trying to >help, I honestly couldn't care less. >I don't think anyone has accused JY of intentional disinfo; he is >largely a librarian--a very valuable one with enormous cajones-- not the >author of the docs in question. Right, sure. >Nor did anyone speak against the donor of said document. Well, given how hot he was last month about the idea of someone who seemed to be deliberately feeding him a line of disinformation, I just thought it was important not to throw an accusation like that around which reflects badly on the manual donor, especially when there's a fairly good explanation for the screw-up at hand. I have a hunch the DoD would like nothing better than to see leakees go totally apeshit on leakers as "disinformation spreaders." Do their dirty work, save them the trouble: sounds perfectly in line with Rumsfeld's doctrinal emphasis on "deterrence by denial" to me. Google this phrase with "information warfare" and you can find some pretty interesting papers online. >What we did find worth remarking on is the lethal sloppiness in a doc >written by the largest manufacturer-of-, deployer-of-, and trainer-about- > explosives in the world. Absolutely, these are often erroneous and badly written. Yes, you have every right to expect to see disinformation in them. But in this case, there's nothing lethal about adding sodium cyanide to a urea nitrate bomb-- and in fact would likely boost the lethality by at least an order of magnitude, maybe more. It's not as if this involved giving a precise formula or anything, just some hack content to put out a sloppy generality. Unfortunately, nothing new. ~~Faustine. *** He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. - --Thomas Paine -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBPK3Gnvg5Tuca7bfvEQJTXACgs1xBE3CDgN/QgrFe/DKTg6xhyqMAn2di P5Hyd/q5Am7+cOCeGkEjvzL5 =5E7D -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: mil disinfo on cryptome
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Richard Fiero wrote: >Question for Faustine: Is what is, right? Or is it man-made and >can be changed by men? >Faustine may want to rethink this. Social Darwinism does not >square with the Thomas Paine quote. There's a reason I contrasted the American conception of "ideal justice" with real justice: the latter has absolutely nothing to do with right or wrong, it just is. Read some Nietzsche. As for the rest, I'm a libertarian, not an anarchist: see also http://www.lp.org. ~~Faustine. *** He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. - --Thomas Paine -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBPK3Jmfg5Tuca7bfvEQL8XACfQrEmti+LST9q0vOIOnOTjRA1qVAAn3Ox LkRCUcXnizNe4D0w9vEX1xUS =MASh -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: mil disinfo on cryptome
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
One more time:
> > Either or, is it? Are you totally unfamiliar with the concept of coupling
> > high explosives with chemical agents? Good god, no wonder you're so
> > confused.
> 1. Ad hominem is a sign of weakness.
But you genuinely seem confused. Just because some hack gets ahead of himself
and mistakenly writes "Urea Nitrate" for "urea nitrate bomb" (which can contain
any number of things, including sodium cyanide) you can't see any way around it
being deliberate, willful disinformation. Ridiculous. Why would the government
as you say, "encourage" terrorists to use something which would make them have
a weapon with a far greater lethality than if they left it out? Doesn't follow.
It's only misleading to someone stuck at the level of reading equations out of
a chemistry book.
2."Chemical agent" can mean anything. "coupling" can mean anything.
No, actually I'm using the terms in a very specific sense: if you knew the
first thing about bomb-making you'd share the larger context and wouldn't need
to sit around mystified over word usage and hung up on terminology.
> > Nobody ever claimed terrorists added sodium cyanide to their urea nitrate
> > bombs for a bigger bang: if you see this as disinformation you're totally
> > missing the point.
> Negating non-events do not make events disappear.
Terrorists add sodium cyanide to urea nitrate bombs to achieve chemical
effects alongside blast effects. Do some reading.
>3. Your statements are empty and with shifting focus. Engaging any further on
>this topic is a waste of time.
Like I don't have anything better to do than baby-step you through a point
everyone else in the whole group grasped a long time ago.
>I should have listened.
Yes. You should also do some more reading.
> While wasting time, for the last time ... few messages back, there was a clear
> claim that H2SO4 and NaCN are components of urea nitrate:
>
> "Another fertilizer-based explosive used by terrorists is Urea Nitrate (its
> components are urea, sulfuric acid, nitric acid, and sodium cyanide)"
One more time: given that terrorists add sodium cyanide to urea nitrate bombs
to achieve chemical effects as well as blast effects, I think it more likely
this was a simple error made in haste ("Urea Nitrate" used generically
(erroneously) in place of the more precise "urea nitrate bomb" than deliberate
disinformation. For you to split hairs and demand an example of sodium cyanide
used as anything other than a chemical weapon shows you are completely missing
the point. Do some reading.
~~Faustine.
***
He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from
oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that
will reach to himself.
- --Thomas Paine
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its
affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version)
iQA/AwUBPK0vVfg5Tuca7bfvEQKUiQCdE7TnenUd+jB2duZ2Xf9uDykR2a8An0VC
rgw227Eko1QiNCxYJSNrWs3L
=QIcM
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: mil disinfo on cryptome
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Morlock: >I never mentioned that there are no chemical devices using H2SO4 and NaCN (and >it's hardly a "bomb", H2SO4 + 2 NaCN = Na2SO4 + 2 HCN is not an explosive >reaction, although it does generate some heat.) I said that these two are NOT >components of urea nitrate. >What is called for here is an example of H2SO4 and NaCN used in an explosive >device (like in WTC) designed to destroy by shock wave, not by tying hemoglobin >from red blood cells. Either or, is it? Are you totally unfamiliar with the concept of coupling high explosives with chemical agents? Good god, no wonder you're so confused. Nobody ever claimed terrorists added sodium cyanide to their urea nitrate bombs for a bigger bang: if you see this as disinformation you're totally missing the point. >In this sense, encouraging use of H2SO4 and NaCN for building explosive devices >is pure disinformation If you knew a little more about bombmaking, this wouldn't be any great mystery. Bah, as if whoever wrote the manual wanted to encourage anyone. I'm sure they'd be delighted to hear you give your expert opinion to everyone here that adding sodium cyanide to urea nitrate bombs is a bad idea, though. And as long as you don't recommend that John call out the Snackycake Posse on the poor schmoe who sent him the manual thinking he was trying to help, I honestly couldn't care less. ~~Faustine. *** He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. - --Thomas Paine -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBPK0Iuvg5Tuca7bfvEQJYuACfdlNhMdBCDFVuyWLoQVnRQww8/dkAoNy7 AIaygjoE/s224JFCQjFZ8Gco =/1za -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: mil disinfo on cryptome
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Someone wrote: > [...] Darwinian justice. >>I don't know much about Darwin (nothing), but I am interested why there's >>Darwinian justice. Oh, it's just a kind of poetic shorthand. The way I see it, the American idea of justice as conceived by the Founding Fathers and made plain in the Constitution and Bill of Rights is "ideal justice". The way things should be. What we should all aspire to. On the other hand, real justice-- Darwinian justice--is what actually happens in spite of everyone's best efforts and best intentions. Natural selection, human nature, survival of the fittest, our legacy as descendants of apes in a natural world. In sum, just the way it is... "This is the Law of the Yukon, that only the Strong shall thrive; That surely the Weak shall perish, and only the Fit survive. Dissolute, damned and despairful, crippled and palsied and slain, This is the Will of the Yukon,-- Lo, how she makes it plain!" Darwinian justice is the reason why no man-made law will ever be able to protect the lazy, stupid and ignorant from themselves; why math can only be countered by better math. You don't have to like it or approve of it, but you ignore it at your own peril. Adapt or die, as the saying goes... You might want to read the works of the philosopher Schopenhauer: Darwin himself was heavily influenced by him, if I'm remembering correctly. Fascinating stuff. ~~Faustine. *** He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. - --Thomas Paine -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBPKzv9fg5Tuca7bfvEQKg2ACghY1Bj/Fpb9PL15As8gySvhl1qFAAn23F l5qjpLGdJ5/hFuYX3f73wRCs =NoKq -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: mil disinfo on cryptome
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Faustine, Morlock: > Bomb components, silly. "Everything" was in the "bomb", capiche? Common > usage, as found on the web: >The point of the exercise was to underline the disinformation content. If you >argue this, then you should provide an example of a bomb which has sulphuric >acid and sodium cyanide as components. Fine. I already mentioned the first WTC bomb, how about this from the Aum cult: "Later that evening, station staff at Shinjuku were alerted to a burning bag in one of the public restrooms. The flames were doused with water but the bag began to emit noxious fumes. The fire department arrived and finally rendered the device inactive. Later when police examined the device, they found that it contained two condoms containing the chemicals, sodium cyanide and sulfuric acid. The device was simply designed so that when the acid had eaten through the first condom it would mix with the contents of the second, creating hydrogen cyanide, a deadly gas that had been used by the Nazis in their extermination of the Jews." Or how about this: GLASS-ENCASED CYANIDE CAPSULES "...a glass cylinder about one liter in volume which is divided into two chambers: one containing liquid sulphuric acid, the other a powder of either potassium cyanide or sodium cyanide. If broken, the resulting mixture yields a very volitile and lightweight yet invisible cloud of hydrogen cyanide gas (HCN) which will quickly interfere with his breathing. The odor is almost imperceptible, but faintly resembles bitter almonds. Within seconds, it becomes difficult to hold one's breath or to breathe normally. Within one minute, respiration stops. Within five minutes, heart failure occurs. There is no known way to detect these capsules. The most prudent diggers insist on wearing a gas mask with a respirator impregnated with metal salts at all times." Anything else? Accusing people of sending John deliberate military misinformation is a serious thing, hardly something to throw around without without doing a little investigation beforehand. Why chalk up to evil what's best explained by error and stupidity? I still think the passage looks like it was written by a hack, ref. the capitalization of "Urea Nitrate." Clumsy, but the substance stands. ~~Faustine. *** He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. - --Thomas Paine -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBPKy45fg5Tuca7bfvEQI0CQCdGaj8DyzME5YCUjzAF/O8S+gwNkMAoISD 8FfJvypBhVfL/6RHR8IaG98f =hTAh -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: mil disinfo on cryptome
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Faustine wrote: Morlock wrote: > I think someone got careless: terrorists have used sodium cyanide in > their "urea nitrate bombs"--the first WTC bombing, as a matter of fact. > Look it up. The compound referred to as an "explosive used by terrorists" > was primarily urea nitrate based, and indeed contained all the components > listed. Sloppy writing, quel surprise! >>Is chemistry a controlled item now ? Will this be considered a "deemed >>transfer" ? Not at all, where did that come from. My archived posts make it perfectly clear what I think about research and the first amendment. My point was that clumsy wording on the part of some manual-writing hack doesn't automatically equal disinformation. I still think if you haven't bothered to learn enough to know when you're about to blow yourself to bits, irradiate yourself, infect yourself, etc. you have no right to expect sympathy when your stupidity, laziness, and ignorance get the better of you. Read and believe whatever you want, but don't be shocked, shocked!! at the thought that some tricky bastard out there might have decided he wants to make it a little harder for you. Every man for himself, reader beware. Here's a thought: why not get a real education and quit bitching over how nobody's handing you weapons of mass destruction on a silver platter? How hard can it be. >H2SO4 and NaCN are "components" of CO(NH2)2HNO3 less than Frank Zappa's piss >and Elvis' shit are part of Faustine (and she does contain several billion >atoms from those two components). Bomb components, silly. "Everything" was in the "bomb", capiche? Common usage, as found on the web: "Prosecutors also claim that in the months leading up to the bombing, Nichols stole bomb components such as ammonium nitrate fertilizer and a detonator cord using an alias name." ~~Faustine. *** He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. - --Thomas Paine -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBPKvm0fg5Tuca7bfvEQKkHQCgtTlp8y0OsA+V0xAtQnYZV++iVpkAmQHE RZ9YhI81LxWc3POTvsedMhjM =gRlR -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: mil disinfo on cryptome
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 "Major Variola" wrote: referenced on cryptome: >> Another fertilizer-based explosive used by >>terrorists is Urea Nitrate (its components are urea, sulfuric acid, >>nitric acid, and sodium cyanide). >As is well known, and used in execution chambers, mixing a cyanide salt >with an acid releases HCN, a lethal blood gas. Nitration of various materials >(e.g., glyercin, etc.) does not require cyanides, but only strong >concentrations of H2SO4 and HNO3. >This is anarchists-cookbook-style disinfo. I think someone got careless: terrorists have used sodium cyanide in their "urea nitrate bombs"--the first WTC bombing, as a matter of fact. Look it up. The compound referred to as an "explosive used by terrorists" was primarily urea nitrate based, and indeed contained all the components listed. Sloppy writing, quel surprise! You're right to be suspicious, though. Making bombs based on something you downloaded off the internet when you don't have the background for it generally isn't a brilliant idea. Darwinian justice. ~~Faustine. *** He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. - --Thomas Paine -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBPKuqjfg5Tuca7bfvEQLvVQCbBh1gZlWDVPc6wZiKhX+qBkB+etkAn16K 80v1IKmFjwvO7+FJTOqbH6Dl =IiD4 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
My current readings in Category Theory
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Tim wrote: >* "general systems theory," a la Bertanlanffy. I knew a guy who was >majoring in this as an interdisciplinary self-study program. Whatever >became of this? >(And this is kissing cousin to Operations Research, which is mostly a >high bullshit term for linear programming, decision support tools, a >little bit of game theory, etc.) Bah. You might find the following approaches to the above a little more sophisticated and interesting: Exploratory Analysis and a Case History of Multiresolution, Multiperspective Modeling, Paul K. Davis, James H. Bigelow, and Jimmie McEver, Reprinted from Proceedings of the 2000 Winter Simulation Conference, Jeffrey A. Joines, Russel R. Barton, K. Kang, and Paul A. Fishwick (editors), December, 2000 and Proceedings of the SPIE, Vol. 4026, 2000. http://www.rand.org/publications/RP/RP925.pdf Title: Experiments in Multiresolution Modeling (MRM). http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1004/ Author(s): Paul K. Davis, J.H. Bigelow Abstract: This study describes the motivation for multiresolution modeling (MRM) within a single model or a family of models. After introducing a new measure of consistency for models of different resolution, the study discusses in some depth obstacles to and methods for multiresolution modeling (also called variable-resolution modeling), illustrating issues with a detailed military example involving precision fires. The study highlights the value of visual design, array formalism, formal mathematics to identify natural aggregation fragments, integrated hierarchical variable resolution (IHVR) yielding "trees" of variables, estimation theory, alternative aggregate representations called out in a user interface, "stretcher variables," and computational methods to identify natural phase transitions and facilitate calibrations. *** Not exactly what you were getting at, but this approach certainly doesn't suffer from the "mathematicians writing on the board for it's own sake" problem you alluded to. Bridging the speculative and the practical couldn't be more central here (as everywhere.) Reminds me of something John Von Neumann once said: "The sciences do not try to explain, they hardly even try to interpret, they mainly make models. By a model is meant a mathematical construct which, with the addition of certain verbal interpretations, describes observed phenomena. The justification of such a mathematical construct is solely and precisely that it is expected to work." This might sound a little off-the-wall, but have you considered sitting in on some graduate classes in the sorts of areas you're interested in at Berkeley, just for the sake of generating more discussion with people in the field? Ill bet bouncing everything in your post off people there would generate a lot a lot of return for a small investment of your time. None of my business but it's at least worth a thought. ~~Faustine. *** He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. - --Thomas Paine -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBPKpfg/g5Tuca7bfvEQL4vwCcCA98uyVl36y+61wwsHaNfwNyDZoAoIi/ 5eyWAiN07n/n+fWgidqLxupr =3FWa -END PGP SIGNATURE-
RE: IWAR Threat Model
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 > > Aimee wrote: > > Faustine wrote: > > Jeez, don't be so polite, it makes me nervous. This is Cypherpunks: > > vent a little, it'll do you good. ;) > > > > ~Faustine. >I _WAS_ "venting." >In some cultures, venting is done in "good taste." It just resembles >English, but it's quite another language in terms of subtext, (and more so >if it's female). Different rules of engagement. Don't mistake it for >weakness. Far from it. To my mind, "venting" and "being poisonously polite to achieve an end" are diametrically opposed. And believe me, I know from poisonously polite: I just happen to think that anyone who spends the vast majority of their waking life slithering around with their true personality barricaded behind an impeneterable mask of civility (as I do) needs to find a place where, every once in awhile, they can feel free to tell one and all to just go fuck themselves. Cypherpunks is that magical zone. Repressed hostility is a terrible thing. Someone once drew a distinction between the kind of healthy animal hate which consumes itself in a blaze and vanishes, with the thin, poisonous, pallid kind of hate which, over time, gradually distills itself drop by drop into a philosophy and a way of life. Purge that bile, let yourself go, give hate a chance! Either that, or you might want to consider geting a new M.O... >Normal ROE: maintain absolute decorum and diplomacy right up to >the ambush. Precisely. Hence the operative word "nervous". Something to think about. >Here, I will summon up an insult for you, brace yourself: ..."Faustine, I >bet you drink beer directly from the can." Well, I have been known to drink a split of champagne straight from the bottle, so I guess that's close enough. LOL ~~Faustine. *** The secret of happiness is freedom. The secret of freedom is courage. - --Thucydides. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBPKoroPg5Tuca7bfvEQI/RgCggD1ywYaWSO0jUaluHItuQZJmMUMAoOrF AgDH/TVEQub00lp+B3EEm7l/ =TNDz -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: IWAR Threat Model
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 bone lazy visionary: >The way you chicks are stroking each other, maybe Sandy should make >another movie. Didn't Matt Taylor already cover this..? Next thing you know you'll start rambling on about how much you want to fill my ass. >At least your chickspeak is mainly flowing amongst yourselves. (see also: http://www.dinofish.com/wmgallery/images/baboon%20jaws.jpg ) >As a famous colored woman said, "You _go_, girlfriend!" So when's your book coming out? Just wondering, ~~Faustine. *** He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. - --Thomas Paine -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBPKjdGfg5Tuca7bfvEQJRYQCg2l8O3Fb5AAN0MV9JBsh0j42ELH4AnjOd 18BNYI4knpTECfBZC9QdPcS7 =o80c -END PGP SIGNATURE-
RE: IWAR Threat Model
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Aimee wrote: Faustine wrote: > > http://www.metatempo.com/IWARThreatModel.pdf > > Seems awfully dated and rudimentary. Current online books which go a lot > deeper and put crypto its due place, dead center: >Well, it says it's an old paper, and the audience could be general. Anyway, >I enjoyed one of his other papers, and somebody else considered it worthy >enough to pass along. The source that passed it along probably wouldn't ever >read a RAND publication, and view the relevance of their materials the same >way I view lint. Their loss. One of the most interesting qualities of "RAND-style" research as opposed to purely academic work--and believe me, I've read a lot of it--is the phenomenal number of practical ideas lurking just under the surface of every pub. All it takes is someone knowledgeable and imaginative enough to extract them and make it happen. >I don't know Mr. Wilson's situation, but some people with operational >mind-sets are "awfully dated and rudimentary," but damn good in operational >contexts, whereas some people with contemporary analytical mind-sets >couldn't drive a cow out of a barn unless it was a theoretical cow in a >theoretical barn, the entire situation transpired on paper, and adhered to >game theory, graphs and flow-charts. In contrast, operational mind-sets work >best in a continual state of mistake and against the laws of gravity. Even >though they might not be especially rigorous, they are especially relevant, >and prone to decision-making and risk-taking, rather than analysis and >hedging. :P Point well taken, but I think history amply proves that whoever first masters both the operational and the theoretical is going to come out ahead. The problem with the pointyhead/donutchomper dichotomy (or "simp/ knuckledragger", if you prefer--or "bone lazy visionary/schizo snackycake posse" problem, as it manifests itself around here) is that none of these approaches are particularly well-equipped to adapt to a changing reality. Strictly Darwinian, predictable outcomes. Blend the best of both and there'll really be something to write home about. >Again, I don't know his bio, but one of his papers kind of struck me that >way, and you run across it a lot in military theory. I found his style >refreshing and conversational. It was okay, it just seemed to lack the real bite of "Networks and Netwars", that's all. >I have great respect and appreciation for RAND people, (not just for their >work, but for their approachability). My comments aren't slurring the >authors you cited, nor their works, nor you. I appreciate the references of >interest. Jeez, don't be so polite, it makes me nervous. This is Cypherpunks: vent a little, it'll do you good. ;) ~~Faustine. *** He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. - --Thomas Paine -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBPKi0kPg5Tuca7bfvEQJgIQCg+rZtq2k52nJaOvEpIHQOErCLaeUAnjGE Vc3brVj6pY5Qj05KeMpbujc9 =dbdk -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: IWAR Threat Model
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 lurker wrote: > from our collegues at metatempo---neither villifying nor praising > crypto/remailers etc.. in the operational world of information warfare. > > http://www.metatempo.com/IWARThreatModel.pdf Seems awfully dated and rudimentary. Current online books which go a lot deeper and put crypto its due place, dead center: Networks and Netwars: The Future of Terror, Crime, and Militancy John Arquilla, David Ronfeldt (editors) http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1382/ Strategic Appraisal: The Changing Role of Information in Warfare Zalmay Khalilzad, John P. White, Andrew W. Marshall http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1016/ The Emergence of Noopolitik: Toward an American Information Strategy, John Arquilla and David Ronfeldt, MR-1033-OSD,1999 http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1033/ If only Tim had it in him to expand his chapter in the Vigne into a full-blown, full-length magnum opus. Failing that, I think this is about as good as it gets. ~~Faustine. *** He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. - --Thomas Paine -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBPKd+sfg5Tuca7bfvEQJ7XQCfTeJPJPwwryp0CCEVGOHuM9MyN1YAn07h D5eX1QF3GFxmWNCuxbjaU0iN =JScS -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: E-Gold
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 James wrote: >It would seem far more sensible, since the US dollar is now far >better accepted as a medium of exchange, to have something like >e-gold, but providing convertibility to Federal Reserve dollars, >based on fractional reserves. Interesting thought, but have you worked out what kind of mechanism you'd use to implement this without undermining your system? Seems problematic, but a lot better than nothing. What Would Mises Do? ;) More generally, it's seems you'll have an uphill psychological battle trying to convince your average gold bug with a closet-safe full of coins to buy into the non-tangible cypherspace version--warranted or not, just the mention of the phrase "fractional reserve" might be enough to spook them away. What advantages can you offer that will convince "Joe Gold Bug" he's better off trusting you than keeping his physical gold in his physical hands? Or is this yet another case of designing crypto systems for those who already know enough to appreciate them, the un-Elect be damned? As the owner of a portable closet-safe full of silver myself, I think the trust issues need a little more resolution before I start anonymously turning over my assets online. Actually, a lot more, in light of the recent news. Oh well, any links or pointers that deal specifically with the trust question would be welcome. ~~Faustine. *** He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. - --Thomas Paine -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBPKZgx/g5Tuca7bfvEQInLACdFH/zqxTycxRMjTQFD+xicxhDsjYAn0ic FLQbzgbdcohUJBxYihgdTNNF =R0en -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Homeland Deception (was RE: signal to noise proposal)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Gil wrote: Faustine writes: >best is write code, write code. The main thing is to DO something, whatever >your skills and talents are. Spare everyone the hot air and just do it. >>What *you* say is hot air; what *I* say is "policy analysis." But who's listening? It's all hot air until you start seeing results. I'm rather fond of the "billions of taxpayer-dollars saved" metric myself; others might be "lives saved", "strategic assets protected" etc. Once again: what matters to you and what are you doing about it? I'll be the first to admit there are few things more intrinsically worthless and boring than policy analysis done for its own sake in a vacuum. It's just a tool to be put to USE, like any other. Tools can be shoddy or well-crafted, simple or complex--but at the end of the day, can you say you really got the job done with it or not. Despite anything certain people around here have said to the contrary, precision and accuracy in analysis matter: I'm sure they wouldn't have any confusion about whether it's better to arm themselves with a bag full of rocks or a FN Herstal 5.7mm Weapons System. Think about it. You have all these fucking idiots on Capitol Hill stumbling around making policy by the equivalent of whacking each other over the head with stones. Crude tools that--despite being messy, ugly and inefficient--get the job done, more or less. I say it's time for libertarians to step up to the plate and start training with the analytic equivalent of precision weaponry. ~~Faustine. *** He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. - --Thomas Paine -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBPKN+//g5Tuca7bfvEQIesACg7Hyysg/3KyAVw3+thCM/da1KS+4AoKIs kip/pU0+G5qlCzYTGTi90xTC =cdAv -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Homeland Deception (was RE: signal to noise proposal)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Morlock wrote: >> And whatever deceptive advantages might possibly come from the *public >> perception* of rampant incompetence and donutchompery, the drawbacks are >Optimism may somatize one against dread of reality, but it will surely >impair accuracy of predictions. Sure. But for the life of me I can't see where you ever got the idea I'm an optimist just because I don't think it's time to retreat to a bunker watch the whole world go up in flames. As bad as it may very well be now, you seem to be forgetting it could be a WHOLE lot worse. The more people who care about liberties give up and do nothing, the uglier it's going to get. Should the emphasis be on developing technology instead of fretting over laws? Actually, I agree. Like I said in a previous post, the only way you can counter math is with better math. If what you do best is write code, write code. The main thing is to DO something, whatever your skills and talents are. Spare everyone the hot air and just do it. Take a good look in the mirror and ask yourself: what are you doing that matters to anyone besides yourself? If all you're doing is going to a meaningless job for the paycheck, coming home, watching TV, puttering around and grousing on the Net, you're part of the problem--as useless and irrelevant as the faceless horde of sheep you despise. On that account, my conscience is clear. Maybe when I'm old and tired I'll give up and join you in the bunker. But unlike some of you, I'm not fooling myself that there'll be some magical Galt's Gulch safe-haven to get away to. I'm a libertarian realist. I believe in doing what I can in this world rather than ignoring history and human nature and pining away for an imaginary one. >Unless you have some historical examples of well-concealed government >competence ? In the main? Not particularly. But I could go on all week with case studies of incompetence, waste, and abuse which could have been avoided if only a decisionmaker-- interested only in staying elected-- had been persuaded to follow sound advice instead of bad. Say what you will, but I think chipping away at the state by facilitating privatization is a bigger achievement than than throwing rocks at pigs in a parade. I'd rather be able to know I did my part to save the taxpayer literally billions of dollars than know I cost the police department a couple of bandaids and a couple of man-hours to write up my criminal record. To each his own. ~~Faustine. *** One of the chief sources of cultural paranoia is the ever-widening rift between the beliefs of people and their actual behavior, and the tacit assumption among these same people that this practice---this contradiction between idealism and practice---is a normal state of affairs. Lionel Rubinoff, "The pornography of power" -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBPKIT+fg5Tuca7bfvEQI3ngCfV6rJkX9F2XkhSOg83idmDwqH/AcAoI+l G7PVUTU9moLmgcJvA5Hye2lA =x/sW -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Homeland Deception (was RE: signal to noise proposal)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Faustine: > Aimee wrote: > >Well, I doan' kno' nuttin' 'bout no agents. That fact has been > >established. > Careful parsing is the spice of life... :P >>So sayeth the academic-researcher-grad student pretext... :P ITS A CONSPIRACY -some poor idiot, right now > >But, you know, after pondering on that a bit...What if "the lie" was > >supposedly "really secret stuff?" > >You know, "ME LUCKY CHARMS!" > >I know the little boys and girls are after me lucky charms. > >If "3 or more agents" happen to run in the door with me lucky charms, > Sounds about right. >>Yep, they would be lucky and charming. Ha! Look, even if you like the idea of PSYOPS in Afghanistan (for instance), you have to admit whats surfaced in the media has been embarrassingly crude and ham-handed. I suppose the best you could hope for is that its really all part of a play the idiot and look ineffectual strategy while diverting attention from the real business at hand. Risky, at any rate-- since as any good poker player knows, the merest twitch of the eyelid risks being interpreted as weakness, causing your opponent to raise the stakes. Not good. Failing any evidence to the contrary, its likely just wishful thinking though. Im really not in the all feds are incompetent donutchompers camp, but more and more its looking suspiciously like the donutchompers have the upper hand. And whatever deceptive advantages might possibly come from the *public perception* of rampant incompetence and donutchompery, the drawbacks are deadly. Strength is good. I think Ashcroft and co. are making a HUGE mistake playing up the Christian goody goody schtick it plays straight into the Arab fundamentalist interpretation of the US; and the realists wont believe it (and wouldnt give a crap anyway. And never did.) Even more worriesome, though, is that some of them actually seem to believe it. America ought to deserve better than to be run by a bunch of simps. Emphasis on ought. By the way, did you catch the video of Ashcroft singing some cheezy maudlin patriotic gospel song at a theological seminary? At a fake press conference podium, yet. Surreal. Absolutely nauseating, made my blood boil. Didnt know whether to laugh or throw up... John Ashcroft SINGS! Let the Eagle Soar http://www.ifilm.com/ifilm/product/film_credits/0,3875,2424640,00.html AAAAAAaaaAAAGH! Ahem. Where were we. As someone once said, Id rather side with someone who burns the flag and wraps themselves in the Constitution than someone who burns the Constitution and wraps themselves in the flag. > What shows that the snowers know they've slowly been snowed? Bet > it keeps a lot of people awake at night, that one. Tricky, but fascinating. If > anyone knows of any good links to counter-deception detection, drop me a line. > Not sure how "on topic" it is, but something everyone here would do well to > read about. Either that, or just default to not trusting anyone, ever. Works >for me. >>Empathy skills in personal matters. You mean like gaydar for bullshitters? >>On a grand scale: >>1. counterdeception teams - multidisciplinary, "non-cultured," outsiders -- >>creatives, narratives, hoaxers, jokesters, emplotters, etc. Yeah but where? In the TLAs themselves? Consultants? Heres my card, Im with Flimflam Inc, an In-Q-Tel startup... Wheres the oversight? Getting a room full of natural-born bullshitters together sounds dangerous no matter whos footing the bill. And put a con in a room full of squares call it personal bias if you want to, but I know where Id put my money as to whod come out ahead. Hm, unless you consider the case of Hanssen, the genuinely square con. Just goes to show you the limits of pigeonholing and profiling. >>2. devil's advocacy in the event stream Yep. Complacently blocking out opinions you disagree with is always a bad idea. >>3. competitive analysis >>4. MUST HAVE: highest-level precision black channels -- requiring nothing >>short of a resurrection. Close surveillance. Sneaky submarines are not good >>enough. Catch 22 re. the Deutch prohibition on working with scummy types. I think it points to the need to re-evaluate exactly what it is were trying to accomplish. >>5. Cultural change -- a bit of British eccentricity; decision-maker >>sensitization Reminds me of the classic story about the time Herman Kahn was asked about Dr. Strangelove: "Dr. Strangelove would not have lasted three weeks at the Pentagon... he was too creative." >>6. Monitoring of foreign open source media and organizational theme >>variations (quantitative content and textual analysis; inferential scanning) Absolutely; open source analysis is for
Re: signal to noise proposal
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jim wrote: On Mon, 25 Mar 2002, Faustine wrote: > Bah. I say it depends entirely on what the lie is, who's being lied to, and > how confident and artistic the confidence artists are. > If they were good enough (and their targets comfortable enough), all three > could be lying their asses off about anything and nobody would ever be the > wiser. Likewise, with three or more targets playing it the other direction. >>There is a time factor involved. Inconsistencies must accumulate. Maybe, but whether they're picked up on is the only thing that counts. We see what we want to see: if something moves the target from a state of unfocused suspicion to a tightly focused suspicion, they're going to be seeing inconsistencies and drawing inferences where there are none. Which is what makes being hypervigilant so dangerously counterproductive: if you're all wound up and madder than hell about the idea of being fed a line of disinformation, all anyone who wants to damage you and your informant has to do is insinuate you're being taken for a ride: you find the "proof" yourself and take it out on the innocent person. Classic Iago. "Credo in un dio crudel che m'ha creato simile a se." heh. (who says a Wagnerian can't like Verdi? Magificent aria.) >And I'm not sure the problem applies to somebody who WANTS to be lied to as you >posit by implication with your extension. The most obvious example here is a little kid whose parents feed them a line of crap about Santa Claus. The kid wants to believe, and I never heard of parents who tipped them off by not getting their story straight! Even after they realize they're seeing different-shaped Santa Clauses in the shopping malls etc, they still manage to convince themselves it's real. Why? Beacuse their parents told them so, they saw the NORAD BS on CNN, they like the presents, they take comfort in the the idea of a benevolent father-figure sailing through the sky... He sees you when you're sleeping He knows when you're awake He knows if you've been bad or good So be good for goodness sake! Though this looks like the perfect set-up for a frothing rant on the evils of religion, the state, and how we delude ourselves in the name of security, I'll pass and leave you to draw your own conclusions. ;) > There is an implicit 'critical' factor in the original problem as posed, we >assume no cooperation between-all- the players, there is at least one 'honest' >one. Honest? You mean someone acting in good faith without the expectation of being conned? Think of other games where someone is acting in good faith WITH the expectiation of being conned, or acting in BAD faith without the expectation of being conned. Honest, bah. Right now I'm thinking of the second half of that Iago aria. > The game where there is one honest player is -not- the same game as no > honest players. Who's the honest player in a game of Chicken? Cooperate Not Cooperate Cooperate2,21,3 Not Cooperate3,10,0 Just a thought... ~~Faustine. *** He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. - --Thomas Paine -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBPKDfAfg5Tuca7bfvEQL+kQCg0yHDglcIIJmKSpWSBTx4oar6sp8An2O7 xt4ncaF0wX3fzyfZBqhpsT/T =tTGs -END PGP SIGNATURE-
