nettime's_roving_reporter on Mon, 8 Apr 2002 14:33:15 +0200 (CEST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
<nettime> jya on mil disnfo |
[via <tbyfield@panix.com>] To: cypherpunks@lne.com Subject: CDR: Re: mil disinfo on cryptome From: John Young <jya@pipeline.com> x2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To: cypherpunks@lne.com Subject: CDR: Re: mil disinfo on cryptome From: John Young <jya@pipeline.com> Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 16:17:11 -0800 It is likely that Cryptome and the Net will be used to spread disinfo, as with predecessor means of information spread. What better way to contaminate citizen tools than to try to make them unreliable compared to official sources. Dotty Rumsfeld is certainly practicing that with relish, rather being used for that purpose by smarter people who used Reagan and other big-smile dotters similarly. Even without disinfo, sources of information of all kinds need a beady eye and skeptical mind. One of a series we're assembling is on protection from explosives now that digital terrorism has been diminished by 9/11 and attention has returned to physical security of the homeland. We've looked at some of the homeland security opportunism of professionals in the built environment field -- engineers, architects, builders, real estate promoters, banks, insurance -- and see that they are advocating restriction of information on protective measures to professionals and those entrusted to camouflage scary threats from the citizenry reassure against panic. This smells of protection racket which parallels the early argument for restricting crypto to specialists and hiding Net security threats from trusting users. Here's a link to a group of building associations set up in March to aid homeland security: http://www.tisp.org/ Here's a link to architects promotion of work on homeland security: http://www.aia.org/security/ However, some more seasoned parties say that it's time to share sensitive technology for protecting the physical infrastructure more broadly as the homeland comes under increasing threat. That military-grade protective measures need to be more widely known and incorporated into building codes and construction practices. It is expected that this could take up to 10 years to become effective, to rewrite codes, to retrain current professionals, to blend into professional students' curricula, to adjust budgets for safer construction. Blast Mitigation for Structures (1999) http://cryptome.org/bmfs99.htm Protecting Buildings From Bomb Damage (1995) http://cryptome.org/pbfbd95.htm So what is to be done in the meantime? We think more information on self-protection needs to be disseminated, following the crypto model, to liberate classified and restricted documents and foster development of practices which do not require state-licensed professionals to implement. We expect there will be bitching about putting dangerous information on the Net for amateurs to blow up themselves and neighbors, and rightly so, for it is needed to offset the soothing and deliberately scary disinfo associated with relying upon trusted parties who never quite live up to their promises to protect and hinder access to means of self-protection. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To: cypherpunks@lne.com Subject: CDR: RE: mil disinfo on cryptome From: John Young <jya@pipeline.com> Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2002 21:22:35 -0800 Disinfo is a complicated topic, and it's not easy to know for sure when it is occurring; if it was easy to tell then it wouldn't be very effective disinfo. For all its admirable reputation RAND continues to be a forum for disinformation of high quality. This follows from its classified work and the cross- contamination of its unclassified output. But this is true of all persons and institutions which provide both classified and unclassified products. For a goodly part of the reputation of such actors is derived from their classified work and the imputation of value of unclassified stuff due to access to classified information. Contrarily, one can argue, that anybody who has access to classified material cannot be trusted for their unclassified work. 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. 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. 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. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2002 19:31:01 -0700 To: cypherpunks@lne.com From: John Young <jya@pipeline.com> Subject: RE: mil disinfo on cryptome The Pentagon Papers was a classic disinfo operation confected by RAND. The NYT and Ellsberg will never let us forget their valor, credible only for those who abide a fairly narrow belief system, highly elitist and condescending toward the populace. Then there's Bill Sheehan's tragic price to remind what can go wrong with career-enhancing, arranged revelations when a beneficiary attempts to go beyond a neat, heavily promoted formulation oh so satisfying to those who arranged the op. Faustine, you lose your cool whenever established methodologies for handling information and belief about it are challenged, as if your faith in the way things are and should be is being unduly questioned. Reputation is a trap not an accomplishment, and you appear to have been ensnared by desire to be knowledgeable in a particularly sanctioned way. All those citations, all that homework, cannot beefup what's missing from your own original contribution. Abundant citing of authority, beware what it tells about your vacuity. Losing your cool, though, is swell, for it is a sign of advancement over over over-false-confidence and the yearning to have gotten matters of the world right once and for all. Nothing more crippling than a desire to be free of doubt, but that desire is a salient characteristic of those who are recruited into privileged circles: a promise of access to privileged information and behavior is the bait, the trap is never being able to talk about how sleight the secrets are, and how shitty the insiders treat one another, to anyone outside the magic circle. All secret societies fear disclosure of their vacuity, that's why secrets are invaluable. Just don't go there is the best advice, and a way to guard against that is to show characteristics that assure you will never be invited, that you can't keep secrets, not even false ones. Desire to part of an coseted elite is sucker's candy. The desire to reputable a pale shroud over insecurity and need for backing of reputable authority. That's why reputable people and forums are erected and selected for leaking worthless shit as if shinola. RAND didn't invent this hagiography of burnished research but it is a stellar producer of such icons and has an admirable network of distribution. You will hear what is intllectually corrupting about this orchestrated warped and incomplete information about world affairs when you talk to a RAND insider who has been dumped for stepping out of line, that is putting one's ideas and product outside the fearsome editorial board of the hallowed institution, as with RAND so with the hagiography of the New York Times, Washinton Post and others of the centrist compulsion. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net