RE: [iwar] Information Warfare Explained ;-)
From: Tony Bartoletti
From: azb@llnl.gov
To: iwar@egroups.com
Tue, 22 Aug 2000 12:24:41 -0700
fc Tue Aug 22 12:16:38 2000
Received: from 207.222.214.225
by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.1.0)
for fc@localhost (single-drop); Tue, 22 Aug 2000 12:16:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by multi33.netcomi.com for fc
(with Netcom Interactive pop3d (v1.21.1 1998/05/07) Tue Aug 22 19:16:31 2000)
X-From_: sentto-279987-498-966971745-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com Tue Aug 22 14:16:14 2000
Received: from hj.egroups.com (hj.egroups.com [208.50.99.212]) by multi33.netcomi.com (8.8.5/8.7.4) with SMTP id OAA13861 for ; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 14:16:14 -0500
X-eGroups-Return: sentto-279987-498-966971745-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com
Received: from [10.1.10.37] by hj.egroups.com with NNFMP; 22 Aug 2000 19:15:50 -0000
Received: (qmail 1618 invoked from network); 22 Aug 2000 19:15:44 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 22 Aug 2000 19:15:44 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO poptop.llnl.gov) (128.115.41.70) by mta1 with SMTP; 22 Aug 2000 19:15:44 -0000
Received: from catalyst (catalyst.llnl.gov [128.115.222.68]) by poptop.llnl.gov (8.8.8/LLNL-3.0.2/pop.llnl.gov-5.1) with ESMTP id MAA20970 for ; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 12:15:43 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <4.2.2.20000822113324.00b85340@poptop.llnl.gov>
X-Sender: e048786@poptop.llnl.gov
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2
To: iwar@egroups.com
In-Reply-To:
References: <4.2.2.20000821175926.00ab1e10@poptop.llnl.gov>
From: Tony Bartoletti
MIME-Version: 1.0
Mailing-List: list iwar@egroups.com; contact iwar-owner@egroups.com
Delivered-To: mailing list iwar@egroups.com
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe:
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 12:24:41 -0700
Reply-To: iwar@egroups.com
Subject: RE: [iwar] Information Warfare Explained ;-)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
At 10:38 PM 8/22/00 +0500, Mohammad Ozair Rasheed wrote:
>Tony >>>>Of all liberties, the ability to freely obtain
>"information" is paramount.
>
>Shall I remind you a term which has become a Clich=E9 "Information is Powe=
r".
Absolutely.
>There are both pros and cons of providing free and unrestricted access to
>information, I would not like to debate them here, however I am sure that =
a
>person should look at the culture, environment and creed of people before
>providing such sweeping statements as "... control of information leading =
to
>strife...". I am sure that you must be right in all respects when
>considering a democratic state but at the same time I am also sure that
>Genghis Khan never allowed the freedom of speech.
I believe I referred to "restricted civil liberties" and strife.
Although I am a supporter of free speech principles, I was not referring
to free speech per se when I wrote about free access to information.
It is one thing to say "you are restricted in what you may say", and
another to say "you are restricted in where you may turn your senses".
I posit that, at least, the belief that one can choose among many
independent sources of information tends to put people at rest, in
that they feel they have a degree of control over their situation.
In a crowded room, people tend to get nervous when the lights go out,
and ones access to "information" is compromised. Why?
I don't know specifically how Genghis Khan felt about free speech.
But I believe that one of the reasons for his success was a policy
that did not attempt to usurp or interfere with the "belief systems"
of those he conquered. So long as you paid the taxes imposed, all
was well. But this is another matter.
It (perhaps) digresses from the strict topic of "IWAR", but I appreciate
you comments to the effect that different cultures will have different
needs, and definitions of "civil liberties". Even in staunchly
democratic institutions, you find that some people crave "independent
thought and action", and hate being told what to do, while there are
others who crave being told what to do, and are almost paralyzed when
they must decide for themselves how to proceed. I think that one of
the great debates regarding politics is whether some policies tend to
create (over time) a populace whose balance is either direction-dependent
or direction-independent, and whether either form leads to greater
stability (internally or internationally) in the long run.
>What I think we should realize is that every empire no matter how solidly
>built no matter how honestly governed no matter how much freedom of speech
>is allowed, they have to reach a Nadir. Empires spanning thousand years ha=
ve
>reached an end and history is full of such examples, therefore I am sure
>that there is no "RIGHT" way to manage information/perception.
I agree. There is no right way to manage information/perception.
(OK, I confess to being disingenuous here. I really mean that any
attempts to "manage" information/perception is wrong, as it implies
(to me) introducing deceit. That is, it is a "tactic" to be employed
against one's enemy, and thus cannot be justified when applied to one's
own citizens.)
>Ozair
>
>P.S. Unless I am mistaken, most of the answers I got were of the
>military/governmental types with least interest on b2b side. Somehow I fee=
l
>that in the case of Information Warfare Corporations would more interested=
.
They may be interested, but they may not distinguish IWAR from "crime",
in that their central concerns are monetary and not (we assume) political.
___tony___
Tony Bartoletti 925-422-3881
Information Operations, Warfare and Assurance Center
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Livermore, CA 94551-9900
---------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------
http://all.net/