Re: [iwar] Re: thought activation

From: c.b r (
Date: 2001-06-08 23:17:30

Return-Path: <>
Received: from by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.1.0) for fc@localhost (single-drop); Fri, 08 Jun 2001 23:18:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 19191 invoked by uid 510); 9 Jun 2001 05:18:11 -0000
Received: from ( by with SMTP; 9 Jun 2001 05:18:11 -0000
Received: from [] by with NNFMP; 09 Jun 2001 06:17:31 -0000
Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 9 Jun 2001 06:17:30 -0000
Received: (qmail 21665 invoked from network); 9 Jun 2001 06:17:30 -0000
Received: from unknown ( by with QMQP; 9 Jun 2001 06:17:30 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO ( by mta2 with SMTP; 9 Jun 2001 06:17:30 -0000
Message-ID: <>
Received: from [] by; Fri, 08 Jun 2001 23:17:30 PDT
In-Reply-To: <>
From: "c.b r" <>
Mailing-List: list; contact
Delivered-To: mailing list
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <>
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 23:17:30 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: [iwar] Re: thought activation
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

OK Tony : While I may be new to this list, I am not to
the matter of morphing you onto TV and having seen
voices faked-in this case -for purposes of the motion
pix industry.  What you really need to worry about is
being taken hostage and then see yourself on the
Beijing Chinese TV station denouncing this government,
or giving away TS CODE info that would aid 3rd world
nations in the CBRN terrorism game, or WMD wanna

If you have seen the movie "Forest Gump", you have
already seen Tom Hanks supposidly having chats with
President Kennedy and Nixon-very convincing stuff-that
was done by a friend who worked at the time for
Industrial Lights and Magic. Actually, he ran their
cgi special effects unit. He is now with SKG
Dreamworks and wrote a paper with a law professor from
Harvard after he did his work on "Gump" that was
simply a one voice in the wilderness on a problem that
is going to become a potential nightmare: The Abuse of
Morphing technology by either nations, or sub-national
actors to spread very convincing disinfirmation. Many
more  discussions on the entire matter of protection
of identity are to come.The only 100% ID is your DNA
and while something that has begun to free people
unjustly convicted of a crime they never committed, it
is-at present-the only exacting differentiator.

You, or someone else in this group from the Labs, or
some policy type like myself could end up on the only
TV station in in Nation Z giving away secrets, or
disinforming the American public that we are in a
crisis and need to negotiate away.....take your pick
and you are a "guest" of the nation who you are being
not so nicely pursuaded to speak for.

Want to make this easier, simply morph your head on
someone elses body and let the voice techs do their
magic. Worse case-BLACKMAIL-you are approached and
told that unless you give whoever the info they want,
you become the anchor on the Iraqui 6pm news spewing
out disinformation for hours on end.

Stealing identities is frightening enough, but forcing
a hostige with classified knowledge to make a major TV
broadcast threatening the US, and you know about our
weapons capibility-that should scare the hell out of
you.  We are way past identity theft, now.  If you
grab the right person who has a high enough TV-Q 
rating, then even sub-national actors with limited
means and TV through a third party nation who they
have befriended-an enemy of the US-and you have a
problem with profoundly nasty implications on your
hands. How about a staged "war crime" with video of US
troops shooting and "killing" innocent citizens.  When
a director says CUT, they all stand up and remove the
"wounds" created by makeup artists playing for the
wrong nation.  Instant war crime-just add no death and
some good video tape.  Video is very convincing
stuff.Dump the tape on the net with a fake human
rights abuse web site name,and as they say, one
picture is worth a thousand words.

I recognize that I have throw out several  possible
scenarios that can be done with technology that
already exists.  However, they all fall loosly into
the arena of the theft of person for use by ill
intentioned folks.


So, Tony-how are you going to defend against either a
politico, or well known expert putting out
disinformation on TV-against their will- and how do
will you correct the situation, before nations who
actually believe your broadcast declair war?

Note-my spell checker is a mess. If I use it, you will
have html tags all over this.  Spello's, I do
appologize for

--- Beth Russell sent this to up the ante on Tonys
question.  Find a technically and politically feasible
answer and you are one step closer to the real world.

This is from Tony:> 
I wanted the list to think these problems
over,)Biometrics? How about kidnapping the head of one
of the LABS for the above purposes, or the Presidents
Science Advisor?
Tony injured digit, or sore throat aside, how quickly
could the US do a convincing job of refuting the
Science Advisor, to the point where Joe and Jane Q.
"Six-Pack" are no longer alarmed by these actions? and
of course I do know about both conventional and nuke 
order of batle matters including PAL
authorization.That is, at least as it stands today.
Otherwise, we all must ask "DR Strangerum"(SECDEF
Rumsfeld as commented on by the sunday NYT) at the
pentagon what he might do other than look for the cold
war.   Consider it an intellectual exercise.
         beth russell


> At 08:34 AM 6/8/01 -0400, 
> This is from Tony at LLNL.

> >But this is related to a serious concern I have
> about biometrics.  Let me
> >admit from the outset that this may be the result
> of a lack of understanding
> >of the technology on my part.  How do biometric
> devices deal with normal
> >deviations in what they sense and act on?  For
> instance, how would something
> >that reads a fingerprint work if I've cut or burned
> a finger while cooking
> >the previous night?  Or in the case of voice
> activation, how does it work if
> >one has a sore throat one day?
> Not very well, I suppose.  Improved techniques
> employ all sorts of fuzzy 
> and statistical measures to produce "templates" that
> can be reliably 
> matched, despite *some* variations in a read.
> My issue with biometrics is that, in the zealous
> desire to find more 
> definitive forms of attribution, it is often
> considered the "final 
> word".  I have wondered, if biometrics were to
> become commonplace, whether 
> it will become a criminal offense to publish your
> biometric data in public 
> fora.  "Here are the holographic images of my
> fingerprints, my retinal 
> scans, and my skin conductivity measurements.  Go
> ahead and use them to 
> impersonate me if you like."  Would this help to
> enable a repudiation 
> defense?  "It wasn't me.  Anyone could have placed
> my prints there."
> The problem with biometrics is that they cannot be
> "revoked" if 
> compromised.  If someone steals my fingerprints, I
> cannot (yet!) get a new 
> set of fingers.
> ___tony___
> Tony Bartoletti 925-422-3881 <>
> Information Operations, Warfare and Assurance Center
> Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
> Livermore, CA 94551-9900

Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 
a year!


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 2001-06-30 21:44:16 PDT