Subject: IW Mailing List iw/960201
From: winn@Infowar.Com
Subject: Call for Papers
January 31, 1996
              Attention: Information Warriors: 
                ***** CALL FOR PAPERS *****
As a result of the continued interest in the subject, my publisher has asked if 
I would create a 2nd. Edition with substantial updates to the original 
"Information Warfare" which was published in 1994. I told them that the new 
revised edition should include much of the thinking that has evolved on the 
topic in the last couple of years. Believe it or not, they agreed!

So, I am asking (begging? :-)  for a couple of things.

	1. We want to include a comprehensive Appendix "D" to include references 
and bibliographic information for those already in and for those entering the 
field. We would greatly appreciate any and all types of references that you feel 
will be useful for students of Infowar today and in the future. The kinds of 
material we hope to include are:
		- Web sites, mailing lists, usenet, etc.
		- Monographs and their source
		- Published papers and their source
		- Books with publisher, author, date, ISDN (oops, ISBN) price 
and a one sentence commentary.
		- Global resources on the subject.
		- Courses (civilian, military, etc.)
		- Organizations, private and gov't.

We will also add a credit/acknowledgments page for all of the Information 
Warriors who have assisted in this effort. Please supply name, title (or rank) 
contact info, and affiliation as you want it to appear in the book. (If you 
don't want your name or affiliation to appear, please so indicate and we will 
honor your request. (Honest . . . .)

Ideally, we will need to have a hard copy of the materials that we reference.


	2. In order to portray the current thinking of Infowar from its many 
facets, I am also looking for short commentaries on your particular take on 
Infowar - and heavens knows there are so many  . . . perhaps googols! 

I would like to include a large number of 500-800 word overviews, or executive 
summaries of topics of interest to you, comments on my work, or perhaps on the 
efforts that you or your org are putting into the field. I am hoping to find a 
balance between the civilian viewpoints and military and international ones so 
that students and readers can see just how much work in occurring in the field. 
Organizations like AFIWC and DISA (and so on) are invited to submit a similar 
overview of their efforts in addition to individual submissions.

It is not necessary to agree with me (that would be heresy in some cases :-)) 
but let's be civil about it, OK? The purpose is to get the neurons vibrating and 
moving the field forward. 

If you take issue with, or relate to specific items/topics/comments in 
"Information Warfare" please note page number so we can tie it all together 
thematically. There will be suffixes to each chapter, and I am hoping that many 
of the responses will comment on or add to each of the chapters.

As for credit, we will list your name, contact info, affiliation etc., along 
with your particular contribution. With each submission, please just say 
something like, "I hereby give Winn Schwartau, Interpact, Inc., and Thunders 
Mouth Press non-exclusive permission to use this work." That keeps the publisher 
happy and still lets you own your own words. If it's a personal opinion, and not 
an official one of your organization, a simple disclaimer like, "these are the 
opinions of the author, and not necessarily those of my organization." We will 
provide a general suffix disclaimer to that effect anyway. If it is the official 
view of your org, then please indicate so clearly, so we may make an accurate 

If we decide to edit your piece substantively, we will run it back to you for 
approval before printing. All we will ask is a timely return.

To get your brain thinking on the kinds of topics I am looking for:

	- Civilian Defense
	- "This is an act of War"
	- "This is not an act of War"
	- Infowar as an alternative to conventional conflict.
	- Non-lethal conventional warfare
	- Enhancing military efficiency with Infowar
	- PsyOps as Infowar
	- Hackers: A National Resource

Please consider all three Classes of Infowar when deciding what you want to say. 
Since you only have 500-800 words to say it, I suggest that it be clear, concise 
and to the point. 

Controversy is good. But just as good is if your comments are thought provoking 
and stimulate additional discussion about your subject. For each contribution we 
accept, (and there will be a lot we will!) we will provide a free copy of the 
new revised "Information Warfare: Revised Edition" (or whatever they decide to 
call it.)


		3. We have already received a large number of short "pull 
quotes" of one or two sentences for the cover and inside covers where we give 
full attribution. If anyone is so inclined, we are looking for a few more that 
comment on the existing works. 


		4. Robert Steele at has agreed to help me pull 
together a "Who's Who" of Information Warfare. Please supply names, contact 
information and brief biographies to him at CEO@OSS.NET.

Again, I want to thank everyone out there for their support, and I look forward 
to seeing what everyone has to say. Please send your input to

BETTY@INFOWAR.COM no later than February 29, 1996.
Forwarded from:
 C4I-Pro-Digest           Wednesday, 31 January 1996     Volume 02 : Number 157
From: (David K. Probst)
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 14:28:23 -0500
Subject: [C4I-Pro] food for thought

I hope it is not talking out of school to suggest that the following 
questions are of interest to the U.S. government:

1. To what extent are U.S. institutions being created to guarantee
   information survivability?

2. To what extent are foreign institutions being created to guarantee
   information survivability?

3. Is there a theory of information attack that suggests ways and means
   to guarantee information survivability?

4. How much protection against crackers should the U.S. government offer?

5. Should there be public-safety standards for information security the way
   there are public-health standards for (say) drinking water?

6. How is the commercial U.S. security industry doing?

7. How much progress has been made in our ability to recover from a large
   attack on our communication networks?

8. Do we have enough resources dedicated to this area?