Re: [iwar] Re: thought activation

From: c.b r (fastflyer28@yahoo.com)
Date: 2001-06-09 22:50:17


Return-Path: <sentto-279987-1315-992152217-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com>
Delivered-To: fc@all.net
Received: from 204.181.12.215 by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.1.0) for fc@localhost (single-drop); Sat, 09 Jun 2001 22:51:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 14464 invoked by uid 510); 10 Jun 2001 04:50:56 -0000
Received: from ci.egroups.com (64.211.240.235) by 204.181.12.215 with SMTP; 10 Jun 2001 04:50:56 -0000
X-eGroups-Return: sentto-279987-1315-992152217-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com
Received: from [10.1.4.55] by ci.egroups.com with NNFMP; 10 Jun 2001 05:50:17 -0000
X-Sender: fastflyer28@yahoo.com
X-Apparently-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 10 Jun 2001 05:50:17 -0000
Received: (qmail 71550 invoked from network); 10 Jun 2001 05:50:17 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 10 Jun 2001 05:50:17 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO web14502.mail.yahoo.com) (216.136.224.65) by mta3 with SMTP; 10 Jun 2001 05:50:17 -0000
Message-ID: <20010610055017.85405.qmail@web14502.mail.yahoo.com>
Received: from [12.78.117.44] by web14502.mail.yahoo.com; Sat, 09 Jun 2001 22:50:17 PDT
To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
In-Reply-To: <20010609061730.57363.qmail@web14501.mail.yahoo.com>
From: "c.b r" <fastflyer28@yahoo.com>
Mailing-List: list iwar@yahoogroups.com; contact iwar-owner@yahoogroups.com
Delivered-To: mailing list iwar@yahoogroups.com
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:iwar-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 22:50:17 -0700 (PDT)
Reply-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [iwar] Re: thought activation
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Tony: I understand the matter of biometrics is a
serious problem and  devices that are present
generation are clearly far from perfect.  This leaves
us all in a bad position, and it is hard to regain
possession of your fingerprints, or voice as you had
questioned.  All I was trying to do was extend your
problem out to a dimension where the technology to
steal even you personal "image" is available.

I had no intention of not answering your question of
biometrics-AIAA is very interested in that matter at
present-and I only hoped that theft of a person voice,
or image would be considered.  Check the AIAA website
on biometrics.Also check with OPSEC.









--- "c.b r" <fastflyer28@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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
> haves.
> 
> 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.
> 
> HAVE A NICE WEEKEND!
>   
> 
> 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
> 
> THIS INFORMATION IS NOT FOR ATRIBUTION AND FOR USE
> ONLY BY INDIVIDUALS PARTY TO THE
> IWAR@YAHOOGROUPS.COM.
>
------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> > 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 <azb@llnl.gov>
> > Information Operations, Warfare and Assurance
> Center
> > Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
> > Livermore, CA 94551-9900
> > 
> > 
> 
=== message truncated ===


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 
a year!  http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

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

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 



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