RE: [iwar] Information Warfare Explained


From: Tony Bartoletti
From: azb@llnl.gov
To: iwar@egroups.com

Tue, 22 Aug 2000 14:27:03 -0700


fc  Tue Aug 22 14:20:14 2000
Received: from 207.222.214.225
	by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.1.0)
	for fc@localhost (single-drop); Tue, 22 Aug 2000 14:20:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by multi33.netcomi.com for fc
 (with Netcom Interactive pop3d (v1.21.1 1998/05/07) Tue Aug 22 21:20:08 2000)
X-From_: sentto-279987-500-966979085-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com  Tue Aug 22 16:18:31 2000
Received: from f19.egroups.com (f19.egroups.com [208.50.99.238]) by multi33.netcomi.com (8.8.5/8.7.4) with SMTP id QAA26723 for ; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 16:18:31 -0500
X-eGroups-Return: sentto-279987-500-966979085-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com
Received: from [10.1.10.36] by f19.egroups.com with NNFMP; 22 Aug 2000 21:18:06 -0000
Received: (qmail 4458 invoked from network); 22 Aug 2000 21:18:05 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 22 Aug 2000 21:18:05 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO poptop.llnl.gov) (128.115.41.70) by mta2 with SMTP; 22 Aug 2000 21:18:04 -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 OAA29193 for ; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 14:18:03 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <4.2.2.20000822134558.00aa08a0@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: <39A2A7E9.25378.1280437@localhost>
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 14:27:03 -0700
Reply-To: iwar@egroups.com
Subject: RE: [iwar] Information Warfare Explained
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

At 04:18 PM 8/22/00 -0400, T. Dean Tate wrote:
>Tony:
>"Of all liberties, the ability to freely obtain 'information' is paramount."
>
>I tend to disagree with this.  The control of information access is the
>basis for most interaction in society.  By restricting access to
>information members of the governance, shaman, scientist, or
>common man differentiate individuals and groups one from another.

You are right, and I should have been more careful in my wording.
I did not mean to imply that "state secrets should be made public".
Rather, I meant that the ability to access dissenting viewpoints,
or to choose to hear divergent accounts of events, is fundamental.

Hence, I am troubled to hear of countries that feel a need to cut
themselves (that is, their citizens) off from "outside influences".
In such regimes, access to differing world opinions of events, or
"outside information" equates to a compromise of state security.

This is a curious form of security, and to me begs the question
"who is being made secure" in this endeavor.

In a hypothetical extreme, a regime might lock each citizen in a
padded cell, provide food and warmth, and protection from enemies.
There would be no crime.  Is this a definition of security?  Does
the voluntary or mandatory nature of this "lockup" have a bearing?

It might qualify for the term "stability preserving", but to
what end such stability?  How can stability have value in such
a context?

>Tony:
>"Deliberate activity accomplished through manipulation or
>neutralization of information or information systems, to destroy,
>disable, subvert, or otherwise destabilize critical defensive or
>economic resources, physical or otherwise."
>
>Well said sir. This definition does not limit the scope of information
>warfare to only include acts committed by for or against sovereign
>nations.  Warfare like beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  The
>actions of Mandela and Kaczynski, both of whom considered
>themselves warriors, are considered very different by others in the
>society.

Thank you.  Indeed, national sovereignities have their place, and yet
when the world itself is under threat (say, CFC emissions destroying
the world's UV protection) some mechanism ought exist to represent
the global concern.  I tend to see the Internet in such terms, at least
in the long run.  But I am against establishing a "body", national or
extra-national, empowered to "impose" security on this resource.
I prefer that action be taken to make it evermore "self-sustaining"
and thus, a bit immune to the changing winds of politics.

___tony___




Tony Bartoletti 925-422-3881 
Information Operations, Warfare and Assurance Center
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Livermore, CA 94551-9900


---------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------
http://all.net/