RE: [iwar] Information Warfare Explained


From: Riccardo Sibilia
From: sibilia@ims.ee.ethz.ch
To: iwar@egroups.com

Wed, 23 Aug 2000 10:21:34 +0200 (MEST)


fc  Wed Aug 23 01:23:14 2000
Received: from 207.222.214.225
	by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.1.0)
	for fc@localhost (single-drop); Wed, 23 Aug 2000 01:23:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by multi33.netcomi.com for fc
 (with Netcom Interactive pop3d (v1.21.1 1998/05/07) Wed Aug 23 08:23:08 2000)
X-From_: sentto-279987-502-967018939-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com  Wed Aug 23 03:22:45 2000
Received: from hm.egroups.com (hm.egroups.com [208.50.99.198]) by multi33.netcomi.com (8.8.5/8.7.4) with SMTP id DAA01230 for ; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 03:22:45 -0500
Message-Id: <200008230822.DAA01230@multi33.netcomi.com>
X-eGroups-Return: sentto-279987-502-967018939-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com
Received: from [10.1.10.35] by hm.egroups.com with NNFMP; 23 Aug 2000 08:22:17 -0000
Received: (qmail 14685 invoked from network); 23 Aug 2000 08:22:18 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 23 Aug 2000 08:22:18 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO ims.ee.ethz.ch) (129.132.163.195) by mta1 with SMTP; 23 Aug 2000 08:22:17 -0000
Received: (qmail 2672 invoked from network); 23 Aug 2000 08:21:18 -0000
Received: from lacrosse.ethz.ch (HELO lacrosse) (129.132.163.215) by gnome.ethz.ch with SMTP; 23 Aug 2000 08:21:18 -0000
To: iwar@egroups.com
Content-MD5: W4DPpZlgmpeVWQHf8ba15w==
X-Mailer: dtmail 1.3.0 @(#)CDE Version 1.4 SunOS 5.8 sun4u sparc 
From: Riccardo Sibilia 
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: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 10:21:34 +0200 (MEST)
Reply-To: iwar@egroups.com
Subject: RE: [iwar] Information Warfare Explained
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Tony, despite the fact that I agree with you on the principles, 
some points need to be made here IMHO:


>
>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.


The access to dissenting viewpoints is often granted to the interested
ones. Not for the populace, that in general tends to believe what the
media or the governement is trying to sell them.


>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.


In the USA the knowledge of for example European matters, opinions,
problems, etc. is - for the broad part of the population - very 
limited. In this case there is almost no governement control on that
but your media considers these matters as a "non-runner" on the news 
market. Different reasons but same results.


>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.


--
Riccardo Sibilia                              sibilia@ims.ee.ethz.ch
Inst. fuer militaerische Sicherheitstechnik   http://www.ims.ee.ethz.ch/
Auf der Mauer 2                               Tel. +41 1 252 6260
8001 Zurich / Switzerland                     Fax. +41 1 252 1667


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

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