Return-Path: <sentto-279987-3088-1003409159-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); Thu, 18 Oct 2001 05:47:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 11635 invoked by uid 510); 18 Oct 2001 12:45:37 -0000
Received: from n32.groups.yahoo.com (216.115.96.82) by 204.181.12.215 with SMTP; 18 Oct 2001 12:45:37 -0000
X-eGroups-Return: sentto-279987-3088-1003409159-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com
Received: from [10.1.4.54] by n32.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 18 Oct 2001 12:45:59 -0000
X-Sender: ellisd@cs.ucsb.edu
X-Apparently-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 18 Oct 2001 12:45:58 -0000
Received: (qmail 69600 invoked from network); 18 Oct 2001 12:45:58 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 18 Oct 2001 12:45:58 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO n35.groups.yahoo.com) (216.115.96.85) by mta2 with SMTP; 18 Oct 2001 12:45:58 -0000
X-eGroups-Return: ellisd@cs.ucsb.edu
Received: from [10.1.10.103] by n35.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 18 Oct 2001 12:44:27 -0000
To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
Message-ID: <9qmir7+6re9@eGroups.com>
User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82
X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster
X-Originating-IP: 128.29.4.2
From: ellisd@cs.ucsb.edu
X-Yahoo-Profile: danielrellis
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: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 12:44:23 -0000
Reply-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [iwar] The role of self-attribution
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Why didn't the organization behind the 9/11 attack take credit?
Why hasn't the organization behind the ongoing anthrax saga taken
credit?
Is there more information strength in ambiguity?
The pros (as I see them) to not taking credit are:
-Our inference mechanisms may be incorrect leading to misdirection
-Psychological effects of uncertainty
-subjects insite more fear within themselves than actors could
-in a forest-like organization (as opposed to a tree-like
organization), it is more difficult to attribute credit when there
maybe multiple forces involved, not taking credit avoids rifts
The cons:
-Other psychological effects
-Being deemed a coward and summarily dismissed
Undetermined (by myself):
-Which has a greater influence to insight would-be followers? If you
have no followers but want to take advantage of somebody else's
followers, then obviously not taking credit is a good thing. This, I
suppose goes along with the misdirection pro.
I am sure there are better reasons (pros and cons) and I just haven't
been enlightened yet. Regardless, the lack of self-attribution in the
recent events has really bothered me. It seems more "manly" for lack
of a better word (forgive me here, e.r.) to take credit, but so far, I
can so no real reason to take credit when attribution can be avoided.
If you feel that I am way off target in context of the recent attacks,
then please generalize my comments. I am aware of a great deal of
evidence which provides some degree of attribution, but that
attribution is far from complete.
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Pinpoint the right security solution for your company- Learn how to add 128- bit encryption and to authenticate your web site with VeriSign's FREE guide!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/yQix2C/33_CAA/yigFAA/kgFolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
------------------
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 : 2001-12-31 20:59:55 PST