RE: [iwar] Information Warfare Explained
From: Tony Bartoletti
From: azb@llnl.gov
To: iwar@egroups.com
Wed, 23 Aug 2000 13:54:31 -0700
fc Wed Aug 23 13:48:15 2000
Received: from 207.222.214.225
by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.1.0)
for fc@localhost (single-drop); Wed, 23 Aug 2000 13:48:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by multi33.netcomi.com for fc
(with Netcom Interactive pop3d (v1.21.1 1998/05/07) Wed Aug 23 20:48:08 2000)
X-From_: sentto-279987-503-967063647-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com Wed Aug 23 15:48:01 2000
Received: from ck.egroups.com (ck.egroups.com [208.50.144.69]) by multi33.netcomi.com (8.8.5/8.7.4) with SMTP id PAA27294 for ; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 15:48:01 -0500
X-eGroups-Return: sentto-279987-503-967063647-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com
Received: from [10.1.10.37] by ck.egroups.com with NNFMP; 23 Aug 2000 20:47:34 -0000
Received: (qmail 12193 invoked from network); 23 Aug 2000 20:47:14 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 23 Aug 2000 20:47:14 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO poptop.llnl.gov) (128.115.41.70) by mta1 with SMTP; 23 Aug 2000 20:47:14 -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 NAA25585 for ; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 13:47:13 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <4.2.2.20000823132335.00ab5910@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: <200008230822.BAA04609@smtp-in-1.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: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 13:54:31 -0700
Reply-To: iwar@egroups.com
Subject: RE: [iwar] Information Warfare Explained
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
At 10:21 AM 8/23/00 +0200, Riccardo Sibilia wrote:
>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.
If I, a member of the populace that tends to believe what the (major)
media or government says, decide tomorrow to be one of the "interested
ones", and access other media, am I free to do so?
I feel that I am. I can access, for instance, news services broadcast
in Japanese or Farsi, not to mention the BBS. (I assume, of course,
these are authentic broadcasts.)
Do I avail myself of these services? Usually not (except BBS).
But I know that I may do so.
> >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.
Not quite the same results. I grant you that the majority of the
populace is rarely interested in foreign stories (except when they
are some form of sensationalism) and this is unfortunate.
If my neighbor regularly tunes in to foreign broadcasts for news,
and he is one in ten thousand, perhaps I will just view him as a
curiosity, as I and the majority remain ignorant of world views.
But if I find he has been arrested for "accessing unauthorized
news channels" then it is not at all the same thing, is it?
Or if I find there is no access to outside news services because
the TV cable company is not allowed to carry them by law, then
this is again not the same as "choosing to be ignorant".
Choosing to be ignorant is a liberty. Enforcing ignorance is
a different matter.
___tony___
Tony Bartoletti 925-422-3881
Information Operations, Warfare and Assurance Center
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Livermore, CA 94551-9900
---------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------
http://all.net/