[iwar] [fc:Decoding.Minds,.Foiling.Adversaries:.Information.warfare...]

From: Fred Cohen (fc@all.net)
Date: 2001-10-25 20:42:18
Next message: Fred Cohen: "[iwar] [fc:Now.is.the.time.for.two-factor.security.[?]]"
Previous message: Fred Cohen: "[iwar] [fc:White.House.asks.industry.to.develop.secure.federal.network]"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Message-Id: <200110260342.f9Q3gIj28501@red.all.net>
To: iwar@onelist.com (Information Warfare Mailing List)
Organization: I'm not allowed to say
From: Fred Cohen <fc@all.net>
Mailing-List: list iwar@yahoogroups.com; contact iwar-owner@yahoogroups.com
Precedence: bulk
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 20:42:18 -0700 (PDT)
Reply-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [iwar] [fc:Decoding.Minds,.Foiling.Adversaries:.Information.warfare...]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Decoding Minds, Foiling Adversaries: Information warfare is no longer
just about machines; it is also about how users think.

By Sharon Berry, Signal, 10/25/2001
<a href="http://www.us.net/signal/CurrentIssue/Oct01/decoding-oct.html">http://www.us.net/signal/CurrentIssue/Oct01/decoding-oct.html>

Whether a threat comes from pilot error or enemy aggression, scientists
are finding that multisensor mapping and analysis of the brain lead to
systems with human-machine interfaces that can correct human error, aid
counterintelligence work and guard against attacks. 

A technology, known as bio-fusion, combines sensors to examine
biological systems to understand how information and neural structures
produce thought and to display the thought in mathematical terms.  By
creating an advanced database containing these terms, researchers now
can look at brain activity and determine if a person is lying, receiving
instructions incorrectly or concentrating on certain thought types that
may indicate aggression. 

Mapping human brain functions is not new; however, using multiple
components of the electromagnetic spectrum allows investigators to
produce a different snapshot of the brain to gain additional insight. 
Dr.  John D.  Norseen, systems scientist for embedded systems, Lockheed
Martin Aeronautics Company, Marietta, Georgia, is developing the
bio-fusion concept further.  "If you went into a hospital and had an EEG
[electroencephalogram], it is just telling you if your electrical
patterns look fine, but maybe your magnetic components are not
functioning properly," he explains.  "What I am encouraging is
multisensor analysis of the brain--looking at many areas of the spectrum
to get a different picture."

After the information is placed in a database, a composite model of the
brain is created.  "Now, just by getting an EEG, we can begin to
interpolate a better hyperspectral analysis," Norseen says.  "The model
provides us amplified information."

Simple interaction with subjects has been used to test the system.  A
researcher shows a picture to a person or asks a person to think of a
number between one and nine.  Information is gathered and displayed on a
monitor much like on a television.  It shows that the person is thinking
about the number nine.  The researcher then tells the person to say the
same number, an action that appears in another part of the brain, the
parietal region.  "By looking at the collective data, we know that when
this person thinks of the number nine or says the number nine, this is
how it appears in the brain, providing a fingerprint, or what we call a
brainprint," Norseen offers.  "We are at the point where this database
has been developed enough that we can use a single electrode or
something like an airport security system where there is a dome above
your head to get enough information that we can know the number you're
thinking," he adds.  "If you go to an automatic teller machine and the
sensor system is in place, you could walk away and I would be able to
access your personal identification code."

Norseen shares that the defense industry is interested because this type
of data is culturally independent information.  Worldwide, most
individuals process certain information in the same regions of the
brain. 

Brainprints are unique to each person.  While the number nine will
appear in the same brain areas of different people, it still occurs as a
unique signature of how a person specifically thinks of the number. 
Biology has the tendency to create things that are self-similar, Norseen
says.  "The proteins that lay down your fingerprints are the same
protein materials that lay down the neurons of the brain," he offers. 

He also has been asked by military and law enforcement agencies to show
how brainprints can be used to determine probable cause, which could be
used for an anti-terrorism situation.  "If someone is walking through
the airport and he goes through the security checkpoint and we get a
feeling that this person is preoccupied with certain numbers or certain
thought types that may indicate hostility or aggression we could ask him
questions and verify the answers.  Then it gives you probable cause to
say, 'Sir/Ma'am, may we step aside with you and ask you additional
questions?' It allows you to find a problem set within a large group."
Norseen is confident that if such a system were fully developed it would
be accepted if it meant everyone would be safer at the airport gate. 
The data he collects may not only show probable cause but also truth
verification, he adds.  The brain, which uses energy, does not want to
expend it needlessly, he says.  If someone is telling the truth, it is
kept on the outside portion of the brain in low-energy domain areas of
the brain.  "If someone starts to light up in more areas of the brain
and at a higher energy level, it means that the person is now starting
to confabulate or obfuscate." Research so far indicates a 90 to 95
percent accuracy rate. 

Now that bio-fusion research has developed beyond the initial stages and
the database of what, how and where thoughts occur in the brain is
mature, scientists are looking at information injection, a contentious
issue, Norseen admits.  The concept is based on the fact that human
perception consists of certain invariant electromagnetic and biochemical
lock-and-key interactions with the brain that can be identified,
measured and altered by mathematical operations.  If researchers can
re-create the inverse function of what has been observed, they gain the
ability to communicate or transmit that information back--intact or
rearranged--to the individual or someone else, Norseen says.  "When you
get down to the mathematical properties, information injection is
beginning to be demonstrated."

The brain is very susceptible to accepting information that is either
real and comes from its own memory mechanisms or from injection from an
outside source, Norseen notes.  "I am sure you have memories of when the
lawn was being cut in late summer and of the smell of the chlorophyll,"
he says.  "The chlorophyll would then evoke other memories.  I could
possibly ping you with a light sequence or with an ELF [extremely low
field] radiation sequence that will cause you to think of other things,
but they may be in the area that I am encouraging.  Those are direct
ways in which I can cause the inverse function of something to be fired
off in the brain so that you are thinking about it.  I have now caused
you to think about something you would not have otherwise thought
about."

By using information injection, a person could be isolated from a group
and made to believe that something is happening, while others in the
group are being left alone.  Likewise, someone at a command post
monitoring information on a screen could be affected.  Some experts
believe that adversaries now are designing techniques that could affect
the brain and alter the human body's ability to process stimuli. 
Norseen hopes his work will lead to filters and walls that would block
intentional or unintentional corrupted information.  "Look at the
incident in Japan where a lot of young children were watching a cartoon,
and it caused many of them to have cerebral seizures," he explains. 
"The information that came over the screen showed lights at particular
timing and pulsing frequencies and in a certain combination of colors
that caused the brain to go into a seizure.  If you were alerted, you
could slow parts of the video stream or change the timing mechanisms so
the stream would not have a negative impact on the brain."

Modifying corrupt information may not always be enough.  Norseen
compares this type of offensive attack to cyberspace attacks in which
viruses infiltrate computers.  "Now there's potential for the viruses to
affect the video stream," he says.  "They can be corrected or defended
against, but more complex protective measures would have to be
installed.  Instead of electronic warfare countermeasures and software
virus countermeasures, we're getting into information countermeasures."

Norseen believes his work with bio-fusion and the human-machine
interface is revolutionary and that a new set of questions must be asked
when looking at the state of information warfare.  "We're so concerned
with information corrupting our machines that we're spending millions of
dollars for our protection against people writing Trojan horses.  What
about the human side of the human-machine interface? What's happening to
the operator?" he asks. 

Some experts believe that the information operator is a weak spot in the
nation's military assets.  Additionally, some developers in the field
see Russia, China and several Middle Eastern countries as more advanced
than the United States in this area. 

"The United States is not behind other countries [in this field],"
Norseen argues.  "Government leaders are very aware of the information
threat to the soldier, but they are concerned about being careful to
work on the defensive side.  However, other countries may be more
interested in the offensive/exploitative side.  When we talk about our
ability to have information dominance, we know that our machines can be
better and faster, but sometimes we underplay what could happen to the
operator.  We are aware that the enemy is going to go after the mind of
the operator to bring down the system, not by corrupting the machine but
by corrupting the individual soldier or decision maker."

One of the challenges of addressing the human side of the human-machine
interface is creating quantitative means to measure the impact of
information on the human brain and neurophysiology.  "We're looking at
incidents such as Columbine or teenagers playing games like Doom," he
says.  "How are they being influenced negatively? There have been no
quantitative measures like what I've been developing.  When we can show
that, we can identify more ways to protect the human side of the
human-machine envelope."

Bio-ethics specialists are reviewing bio-fusion and its applications,
specifically neural emulation software.  Rather than involving a human,
the software captures human mental activity and can be tested against
psychological attacks.  Software corrections and builds then would be
put in place to protect users.  "Our ethics people are excited about
this because this is a way to protect people without subjecting them to
experimentation," he says. 

Synthetic reality is another approach to protection.  "If I pick up a
phone right now, is it a person I talked to or a recording of the
person's voice? Or was it synthetically generated?" Norseen asks. 
Scientists can look at components of a personality in a software
application, select certain components of the personality and create a
synthetic person.  "We can look at 150 things that Joe Smith, a special
forces agent, does.  He smiles 20 percent of the time.  He has a tick in
his eye.  We can extract those features and create mini-morphs of
him--we create identical Joes on the computer.  I want to communicate
with Joe about secret information, but I want other parts of my system
to communicate with avatars of Joe.  If someone tried to find our
communication, they would have to sift through a lot of other
communications that looked an awful lot like Joe.  I would bury Joe in
the noise of himself."

Scientists have found that human errors also could possibly be corrected
using external means.  A recent discovery determined that error
correction coding parameters of the brain involve the globus pallidus, a
powerful error correction mechanism.  When people consider a decision,
they visualize it and talk to themselves and send it to the kinesthetic
nerve to say, "Do you feel good about this?" Then it comes back through
the globus pallidus for one more visual look, and people decide to do it
or not do it--a go/no go decision.  "If we proceed and do something that
is in error, our globus pallidus comes into play," Norseen notes.  "It
is connected to the kinesthetic nerve, which is ineffable.  It can't
talk to the 'talk' areas of the brain, but it can send signals that go
back through the stomach, and that's why you get that sick feeling in
your stomach.  Something's wrong here."

For example, a pilot in the cockpit and the aircraft's system both may
hear an instruction, "Come right 90 degrees." The human hears the
instruction, but the brain may actually have heard 80 degrees.  "Even
though the pilot may confirm 90 degrees, the system can see that the
person actually misunderstood," Norseen notes.  "The machine can say,
'I'm monitoring you and even though you said you're coming 90 degrees,
your brainprint analysis indicates that you only understood 80 degrees. 
I request you come an additional 10 degrees so we're in compliance with
the overall command of the system.' If we can show the globus pallidus
'go/no go' display of error correction, we can create a checklist that
says, 'Am I in accordance with the globus pallidus?'" Today, more than
70 percent of all accidents are caused not by the machine but by humans
using information incorrectly, Norseen says. 

Many of Norseen's ideas are still in early development.  "As the areas
of the brain that reflect behavioral components of the human are
identified and understood, and as the software components are laid down,
I can begin to conduct tests on the synthetic human without using a real
human," he says.  "I can find out more things about the human now in a
year than it took me in the past 10 years � where I can actually launch
a truth verification system or a knowledge warfare protection system. 
To do what? Enhance, strengthen and protect the human side of the
human-machine interface in any domain, any weapon system," he concludes. 

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Get your FREE VeriSign guide to security solutions for your web site: encrypting transactions, securing intranets, and more!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/UnN2wB/m5_CAA/yigFAA/kgFolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

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

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Next message: Fred Cohen: "[iwar] [fc:Now.is.the.time.for.two-factor.security.[?]]"
Previous message: Fred Cohen: "[iwar] [fc:White.House.asks.industry.to.develop.secure.federal.network]"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 2001-12-31 20:59:57 PST