Re: [FRIAM] asymmetric snooping
It seems unacceptable that a statement could stand like X is 52% classified where X is not an aggregate disconnected set of things, but some single fact in context. It would be just muddy guidance. The fact in context can be disclosed to a specific audience, or it cannot. It can't be disclosed 52% of the time. Often, though, there is confusion about what the parameter to be discretized is. For example, you might use 'facts' as the parameter, and say something like 52% of the facts about Project X are disclosed in the press release. Ignoring the point that you have not disclosed what defines a fact, if you do not specifically say what parameter (I am sure there is a better word, not coming to mind right now) you are basing a measure on, there is room for confusion. If you say Project X is 52% disclosed a person could possibly thing that 52% of the times people asked about Project X, you told them all about it, and the other 48% of the instances you told them nothing. I posit that any such measure can be made about anything (which probably boils down to claiming that all discrete values can be made continuous, which at once feels wrong and is unsurprising) given enough formal surrounding structure defining the communication, but that such a qualification renders such a claim almost meaningless. -Arlo James Barnes FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] asymmetric snooping
On 9/25/13 12:00 AM, Arlo Barnes wrote: It seems unacceptable that a statement could stand like X is 52% classified where X is not an aggregate disconnected set of things, but some single fact in context. It would be just muddy guidance. The fact in context can be disclosed to a specific audience, or it cannot. It can't be disclosed 52% of the time. Often, though, there is confusion about what the parameter to be discretized is. For example, you might use 'facts' as the parameter, and say something like 52% of the facts about Project X are disclosed in the press release. Right. That's why I qualified it with aggregate disconnect set of things. I mean that the hypothetical fact or relation was a primitive not a composite, e.g. bin Laden believed to be in Abbottabad (prior to his death). Another 99 facts, of which, say, 51 of them were, say, about locations of Galeb-4 fighter aircraft in the former Yugoslavia in 1999 prior to NATO bombings (info now available at www.foia.cia.gov, but then secret), and another 48 which were about the popular flavors of ice cream in Oklahoma City. In the case of one person probing sensitive personal information of another person, the latter might say I'm not comfortable talking about that or modify/truncate the details of story on the fly to not reveal their discomfort nor their information. In a triple store database, a query for relations would return different rows depending on who was asking, and no triples could be added for a lower security level if they were derived from queries made at a more restrictive level. Probably simply limiting records isn't sufficient -- a triple store front end might also sometimes need to invent proxy information (cover stories) to maintain self-consistency. Quantitative information is tricky, since anything that is revealed is a stake in the ground for future queries, e.g. Glen's example of the black budget could be deduced within wide error bars by starting with the country's GDP as an upper bound. Bit it is absurd to make the GDP a secret. Marcus FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] asymmetric snooping
Marcus G. Daniels wrote at 09/25/2013 05:26 AM: In the case of one person probing sensitive personal information of another person, the latter might say I'm not comfortable talking about that or modify/truncate the details of story on the fly to not reveal their discomfort nor their information. In a triple store database, a query for relations would return different rows depending on who was asking, and no triples could be added for a lower security level if they were derived from queries made at a more restrictive level. Probably simply limiting records isn't sufficient -- a triple store front end might also sometimes need to invent proxy information (cover stories) to maintain self-consistency. Arlo's point brings up the difference between a measure and a generator. While it makes perfect sense to use a digital classification scheme (confidential, secret, top secret, nuclear, etc.) as a guide for an individual (artifact or human) making a decision, it is unreasonable to expect that classification scheme to arise naturally. The thing about measures is that they can't really be planned, at least not completely. E.g. whether George W. Bush will be considered anything other than an idiot 100 years from now is not something we can specify. Hence, measures tend to produce continua, even if forcibly discretized. So, again, it seems the qualitative difference we've identified is not, say, between source code and companies, it's between artifacts and organisms. But this makes me wonder if it even makes _any_ sense to talk of open, muxed, or closed artifacts at all? The end behind the means of all this is the living beast constructing the artifacts. And, as Steve points out, only to the extent we can create artificial beasts (like your semi-intelligent database), to install higher functions like agency into our artifacts, can we can begin to call those beasts open, muxed, or closed. I suppose this is just another form of Stallman's argument for viral openness in the face of the weaker forms. The real target is the behavior of the humans. The fossilized imprints of their behavior is only a side effect. But that takes me back to the main issue, which is the privileged access of the morlocks. Can the eloi _ever_ expect privacy? -- ⇒⇐ glen e. p. ropella Who cares to care when they're really scared FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
[FRIAM] Data Broker Giants Hacked by ID Theft Service
To me, this is spookier than NSA. http://krebsonsecurity.com/2013/09/data-broker-giants-hacked-by-id-theft-service/ Basically huge organizations with our data, legally, yet were compromised since April?! WTF? -- Owen FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] asymmetric snooping
On 9/25/13 9:44 AM, glen wrote: While it makes perfect sense to use a digital classification scheme (confidential, secret, top secret, nuclear, etc.) as a guide for an individual (artifact or human) making a decision, it is unreasonable to expect that classification scheme to arise naturally. The thing about measures is that they can't really be planned, at least not completely. E.g. whether George W. Bush will be considered anything other than an idiot 100 years from now is not something we can specify. Hence, measures tend to produce continua, even if forcibly discretized. I don't really see what you mean by arise naturally, nor do I see why W's historical significance is something that needs to be anticipated. People, I think, can come to `classify' the importance of their information. For example, if a gay person applies for a job and has reason to think that their employer would be biased against that, they might either avoid that employer, or keep their status a secret. A person might not disclose their age or marital status for similar reasons, say, because they believed the employer preferred a young, single person would work harder. The process of growing up, and observing how social systems impinge on individuals forces a person to extrapolate to anticipate outcomes, and to discriminate how they reveal information. It seems to me the difference between the `classification' that government or a corporation performs is just that the rules are formed by powerful organizations rather than individuals or families, political advocacy groups, churches, etc. I suppose this is just another form of Stallman's argument for viral openness in the face of the weaker forms. The real target is the behavior of the humans. The fossilized imprints of their behavior is only a side effect. Of course.. But that takes me back to the main issue, which is the privileged access of the morlocks. Can the eloi _ever_ expect privacy? I think no, unless they go to the trouble of thinking hard about how they reveal information, and employ a means by which they enforce it (not just relying on mechanisms provided by a company that will happily betray their users when the government comes down on them). This may just make them, or select them as, morlocks. Marcus FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] asymmetric snooping
On 09/25/2013 11:24 AM, Marcus G. Daniels wrote: I don't really see what you mean by arise naturally, Hm. A classification can be descriptive or prescriptive. You can imagine any process being observed and every aspect being classified according to a theory-laden measure. Then you can imagine either multiple simultaneous observers or multiple, sequential observers. Each measure is theory-laden. But unless they are all structured around the same theory, you'll eventually see some generic properties across all the individual measures. This meta-measure usually arises without the imposition of a master theory. The multiple discretized classifications, because they classify the process slightly differently, the meta-measure that arises will often 'smooth out' many (most?) of those discretizations into things like real number percentages. nor do I see why W's historical significance is something that needs to be anticipated. Well, many of the examples we talk about where humans control the openness of whatever channels is a direct function of the individual's expectations of the audience/receiver. Managing expectations is the primary justification for opening or closing a channel. It seems to me the difference between the `classification' that government or a corporation performs is just that the rules are formed by powerful organizations rather than individuals or families, political advocacy groups, churches, etc. OK. But the difference underlying _that_ difference is that individuals/families don't usually write down the rules. I assert that the bases for individuals' closing/opening channels is not _rules_, it's perfectly situational. But even if there are rules, they are implicit or unstated, allowing the higher degree of variability in their control over the opacity of the information. The govt or corporation, being artifacts in themselves _must_ encode and make somewhat permanent their rules. I think no, unless they go to the trouble of thinking hard about how they reveal information, and employ a means by which they enforce it (not just relying on mechanisms provided by a company that will happily betray their users when the government comes down on them). This may just make them, or select them as, morlocks. I agree. Personally, I think I'd love it if we were all morlocks. And if we buy into the arguments of the utility of specialization (exhibited best by large corporations like walmart), then to some extent, we _are_ all morlocks. We all have our area of expertise and can be considered asymmetrically powerful within that domain. But for some reason I can't articulate, I don't buy that. I think there are zombie-like humans wandering around who never get good (or adequate) at anything. Or perhaps they get good at one thing but then unjustifiably believe they are good at other things without doing the work needed to become actual morlocks in that new domain. (If that's true, then it brings a whole new dimension to outsider everything.) Regardless, open artifacts don't _facilitate_ morlocks. Morlocks are facilitated by other morlocks and the artifacts are just media for morlock-morlock communication. Perhaps the openness of the artifacts is (largely) irrelevant. -- ⇒⇐ glen e. p. ropella I learned how to lie well and somebody blew up FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] asymmetric snooping
On 9/25/13 2:06 PM, glen wrote: This meta-measure usually arises without the imposition of a master theory. The multiple discretized classifications, because they classify the process slightly differently, the meta-measure that arises will often 'smooth out' many (most?) of those discretizations into things like real number percentages. I suspect a choice in practice is often between the people that like theories and the people that don't. Making theories is labor intensive so the folks that like theories tend get together and debate 'em, write papers, build tools, etc. The others press +1 on Facebook and act instinctively or imitate some alpha dog. OK. But the difference underlying _that_ difference is that individuals/families don't usually write down the rules. I assert that the bases for individuals' closing/opening channels is not _rules_, it's perfectly situational. Worriers are people that are modeling and in some sense making up rules -- playing out scenarios, thinking of contingencies, etc. Rules can be a shorthand for thought, rather than just carrying the connotation of influence and regulation from the outside. Marcus FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
[FRIAM] Google Glass at a cocktail party | News on Google Glass
For those interested in the impact of Google Glass http://miamiherald.typepad.com/google-glass/2013/09/google-glass-at-a-cocktail-party.html -tom johnson Santa Fe FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
