This link reports this: Changing an IP address to access a public website is ruled a violation of US law.
An IP address is described by Wikipedia here. The following is the first sentence:
"An Internet Protocol address (IP address now defined by IPv6) is a numerical label assigned to each device (e.g., computer, printer) participating in a computer network that uses the Internet Protocol for communication.[1] An IP address serves two principal functions: host or network interface identification and location addressing."
The structure of information is built on this one basic building block: identifying an exclusive, unique one to one entity relationship. Meaning: This one unique thing (a noun, a real thing or a conceptual thing) among all things just like it (an instance of a class of things) is related only, exclusively and directly to this other thing (instance of a class, maybe the same class but another noun that is a real or conceptual thing).
The rule is that all things relate to all other things. There are 3 ways to relate:
One to one
One to many
Many to many
Simply put: That is it. That defines all possible relationships between and among things. "Things" being used here as the plural form of the singular "Thing". A Thing or its plural form Things is an Object. An Object, real and conceptual is a Thing. All Things are all Objects.
Rule Two:
A thing that relates to nothing cannot exist. By definition, a thing cannot relate exclusively to itself because.....just because! It is not allowed. That is a recursive relationship that goes nowhere except infinity. Unless you have all the time in the world then don't waste your time thinking about it. It is a given of reality. It can only be conceived in terms of the spiritual world.
We as individual human beings cannot relate exclusively to ourselves that would violate the rule. Our mind relates to our own body. Two different things. Our mind cannot relate to itself exclusively. It relates to the our own soul of conciseness. That is spiritual. That is another realm. Going into that world, God is the only unique recursive relationship that can possibly exist. He, she or it relates only and exclusively to its own entity and there is only One Entity in that world.
Back to the real world!!!
What does all this have to do with an IP address.
An IP address relates on a one to one relationship to a device in the IP system. It uniquely identifies that device as a single unique entity instance of a class by its unique identity number that can only relate to another entity with a unique IP address. That is the rule.
An IP address can relate to many different people users.
What the legal ruling does is to make it illegal for a user of a system device with an IP number to use a different device and associated IP number to access a public web site.
Note this: The website name is merely an alias for an IP number. We find it more convenient to use web site names rather than numbers. The machine converts the name to the IP number.
The intent to block a specific IP internet system user based on their user identity, individual person or company, only works if by rule (of law) that identified person or entity is allowed to use only a single device that is registered directly to them (and no other system accessing entity) to access the internet system.
In a perfectly controlled internet system world this would be the situation: Blocking an IP number therefore blocks the user of that IP number. It blocks that user absolutely from any access to the internet. The user is not allowed by law to use any other IP address that is not directly connected by system registration to them.
Does that sound like absolute control?
It is all about control.
That is what conceptual information structures are built on. Just like real physical natural structures. Laws that apply in all cases.
Get this: (This is a big thing to hoist aboard, pay attention all that went before was aimed at saying this)
The structure of the information world is headed for the ultimate end where we ourselves, individually are the uniquely identifiable entity interacting with the information system we call the internet. That unique identity also becomes the same identity that we use to interact with the entire world around us whenever any interaction is designated as requiring our unique identity to enable, like a key, the interaction.
Who decides what things in our lives, what systems, will require our unique identities in order to access the capabilities of that system???
Think about that!
It is like somebody deciding that baptism is the unique, one and only way, to access a conceptual structure. All non-baptized need not apply! Gotcha! As a matter of fact, the non-baptized are heathens, those that have no soul to enter. No soul = non existent as a human being. Absolutely true because the mortal mind then has no soul to relate exclusively to. By that definition, it is an extremely controlling system.
Binary system.
I talk about where the structure of information is headed but we are probably almost there. The NSA must (simply because the rules of information structure say so) have a unique identifying number for every single entity they wish to gather information on as a common identification number used to consolidate all the various sources of information about that selected entity.
It will be (is now) much easier to consolidate a variety of information to a single number. A credit card number, telephone number, IP number, license plate number, to a master number.
This legal ruling that I started out examining is a step toward making the IP device number more closely associated to the entity using that device as an access to the the internet system. A step toward a pass word entry, better yet a biometric such as a finger print, etc, as the means of entry to the internet. A step toward the ultimate direct one to one unique identification of all human users as individually identifiable devices on the information system network. Where we are located at an access point and all communication associated with that entry.
NSA nirvana!
Monetary system nirvana also. At least in my monetary system where all digital dollars are uniquely identified by a serial number and a value of "one". All users of that dollar system (money user authorized entities) are also uniquely identified as unique entities. Each single dollar is a unique master record that does not change. Only the relationship of a unique registered and identified user of the money system to that master record single dollar changes (current "owner" of that single dollar to a new owner) conveying rights related to a transaction to transfer ownership to another registered user of the system.
Now that is a tight system!
Think about the role of system administrators in that system!
Freedom works as long as the administrator is always collectively the people.
Its our money.
Yes, but who can dictate or monitor how and when we get it and spend it and what we spend it on.
That is control!
Control the monetary system and everything is controlled!
Control of the government or the media is nothing in comparison.
Just for info and expansion in understanding the situation: This analysis is focused on attackers and identifying who they are beyond the IP devices that they may use. Focus here is on the bad guys. Same focus as the NSA. Get the bad guys by setting up a system that is designed and constructed to identify everybody.
There are many entities on the internet that want to identify me as me associated to the machine I am using. Whatever that machine may be. My computer, my phone, and ATM. They want to connect the machine to me with absolute certainty. PIN, Password.
Caller ID: I talked to someone at my credit card company about a card matter. It started by me putting in the credit card number using the dial pad. When I finally connected to a person they wanted the same number again. I said that you are probably already looking at it on your computer screen as well as the telephone number I am calling from. They did not say yes but they said the call was being recorded and it was necessary for me to repeat the credit card number for verification purposes.
Voice recognition to make sure it was me. For super accurate voice recognition the same voice, same words are recorded many times. How many voice recordings of me saying my credit card number might they have on file?
Every time I give them the digits on the card I say it different just to make them ask my mother's maiden name or last 4 of the social. Like I say twenty for two-zero.
Messing with the system!
I also know that the business I am talking to is data mining the conversation for everything it is worth. One of those things is evaluating the customer service as well as the individual employee giving it. For pleasant, helpful service I give a standard long form "thank you" at the end containing all the key words that I am sure they are looking for to rate and rank the employee. It is kind of like a verbal tip for good service.
Unintended consequences: The mined data base on me might categorize me as a pleasant, cooperative person that does not scream, shout, threaten or use profanity and therefore can be expected to with whatever is offered by the business in the event of a complaint. A nice guy that is an easy mark.
My friend told me that the secret to getting to a customer service rep quickly on the phone is to use profanity when answering the standard litany of machine asked questions. I guess I would rather wait in line. Maybe the data base has that fact on me too?
Record all information all the time! Not just the motto of the NSA!
Maybe I should streamline my "thank you for your service" statement to the customer service rep by making a recording on the smart phone that I activate at the end of the conversation that says what I want to say and them hangs up. Similar to the "leave a message" recording. I could make several recordings ranging from one to nine on the key pad as well a ranging from 1 - 9 in the positive/negative range of choice keywords of what I wish to say?
Hmmmm....Anyone thought of that yet?
If I had a personal info data mining company I would call it "Getting to Know You". (Getting to Know All About You). It would be the background music when someone is on hold. The caller would here it but at the receiving end everything that they said or was audible while on hold would be recorded as well as the follow on conversation or during the follow on conversation when the service rep asks if they may put me on hold while they check something.
Hmmm.....Anyone thought of that yet????
How often does person carry on a conversation with someone they are with regarding the subject matter of the call while the call is placed on hold by the customer service rep?
The call wall has ears. How often does the caller think that the service rep is not continuing to listen to whatever is said by the caller while on hold and the caller therefore believes that the person (computer) at the other end hears nothing?
IP to ID Tracking: This is interesting. The long way around to identify who is using the IP device in absence of a solid association connection of device to personal identity.
Give me a few degrees of separation and I will tell you who you are. Like the guy guessing age at a carnival. Just connect up the clues.
Whois (Who is defined by Wikipedia) is an internet discovery tool that discovers internet devices and associated information. Initially identifying devices more than who is the human being connected or associated to the device it is never the less a good means to get to a human that might be associated to the device. With more devices all the time it is more likely that there is personal identification. Cell phones for example. Where is there a public cell phone. It is a personal thing. Kids even have them. Some people share a single device but they are married, retired and always together or they are poor and use one per household.
Who is anthropomorphizes an internet connected machine to being a "Who". A machine being used by someone is close to "who". The end objective is often the real question what specific human "who" is using this device, a device that is being used as a personal extension of a unique human being. The future will probably bring us a complete and absolute chain to the individual using the device and associated with the content of information passing thru that device. It will identify with a legal certitude the association of the person to the device. The information system will be structured to do that.
That last paragraph brings it around to the focus of the subject even if discussion went far and wide.
It is like watching a tree grow..if you have time..if you don't, you just know that because of the laws of nature it is going to sprout branches and more branches and leaves at the end of an increasing number of branches. All stemming from the same trunk. That is what trees do.
Naturally.
Tuesday, August 20, 2013
Sunday, August 18, 2013
Word Models Suck
Dan Kervick writes good stuff. Here he writes about "Krugmans Flawed Model of Market Operations"
Krugmans model is a word model. A model all described in sentences and paragraphs presenting the complexities of economics.
Dan Kervick uses a word model of structured sentences, paragraphs and their logic content to explain the flaw in Krugman's word model.
Word models just don't suffice anymore in a technical world dealing with technical information relationships. Word models of complex things that are not otherwise expressed in the implementation of computer programs mostly serves as black magic tools to obscure the structure of information that should be at least modeled in more rigorous high level formats like UML using object oriented approaches to define what "is" that most likely lead to programming structures to accomplish whatever the essential "is" does as the functional aspect of its abstract being as a thing (what it is).
Economics is black magic that covers up a broken system. Religion is much the same. The core concept is there but it has been perverted and perpetuated because word models are simply to loosey goosey to pint down and can be presented and so many different ways to confuse whatever issue they deal with. Intentionally confuse when they are serving special interests.
There are math models of economics. Math all based in varying degrees on or manipulated after the fact with the intention to support whatever the creator of the math wishes to support. Also maybe to attempt to present the effect without connecting to a valid cause: Intentional or ignorant misdirection.
Complex word models for real world technical conceptual structures created by human beings independent of natural order physical structures that might serve to enforce validity simply do not cut it anymore no matter how many books and how many words are used to describe them.
Math is too complex for most. Show me the high level relationship UML model with a definitions of the Object Classes, their attributes, the attributes shared by children of the class and the things that the objects know how to do in communication with other objects in the system making calls for them to do something and return a value.
"I love you" is a word model. That's OK. It is not a technical thing, unless you are a geek.
The bible is a word model too.
Both models have a technical application where the rubber meets the road in practical application and that can be modeled in technical terms and methodology.
Thoughts for Sunday.
Am I a geek?
Have to model that out.
Movies are word models constructed in a plot that most often requires the suspension of dis-belief. Politics is a word model. If it was a structured information model it might approach being a science. That however would be counter to its objective to divert attention and obscure true intent.
Law is a word model . The ambiguity of the model employs a lot of people: This link: Measuring the Complexity of the Law
Krugmans model is a word model. A model all described in sentences and paragraphs presenting the complexities of economics.
Dan Kervick uses a word model of structured sentences, paragraphs and their logic content to explain the flaw in Krugman's word model.
Word models just don't suffice anymore in a technical world dealing with technical information relationships. Word models of complex things that are not otherwise expressed in the implementation of computer programs mostly serves as black magic tools to obscure the structure of information that should be at least modeled in more rigorous high level formats like UML using object oriented approaches to define what "is" that most likely lead to programming structures to accomplish whatever the essential "is" does as the functional aspect of its abstract being as a thing (what it is).
Economics is black magic that covers up a broken system. Religion is much the same. The core concept is there but it has been perverted and perpetuated because word models are simply to loosey goosey to pint down and can be presented and so many different ways to confuse whatever issue they deal with. Intentionally confuse when they are serving special interests.
There are math models of economics. Math all based in varying degrees on or manipulated after the fact with the intention to support whatever the creator of the math wishes to support. Also maybe to attempt to present the effect without connecting to a valid cause: Intentional or ignorant misdirection.
Complex word models for real world technical conceptual structures created by human beings independent of natural order physical structures that might serve to enforce validity simply do not cut it anymore no matter how many books and how many words are used to describe them.
Math is too complex for most. Show me the high level relationship UML model with a definitions of the Object Classes, their attributes, the attributes shared by children of the class and the things that the objects know how to do in communication with other objects in the system making calls for them to do something and return a value.
"I love you" is a word model. That's OK. It is not a technical thing, unless you are a geek.
The bible is a word model too.
Both models have a technical application where the rubber meets the road in practical application and that can be modeled in technical terms and methodology.
Thoughts for Sunday.
Am I a geek?
Have to model that out.
Movies are word models constructed in a plot that most often requires the suspension of dis-belief. Politics is a word model. If it was a structured information model it might approach being a science. That however would be counter to its objective to divert attention and obscure true intent.
Law is a word model . The ambiguity of the model employs a lot of people: This link: Measuring the Complexity of the Law
Saturday, August 17, 2013
Big Marshmallow
I spent the morning reading the reaction to Yves Smith gut feeling. That feeling being the sub-conscious structuring of conceptual object relationships into a model that the conscious mind does yet know how to define or in what terms to define it.
Yves (Susan Webber) is my hero.
Yes there is a disturbance in the force.
Comments on what Yves said are crowd-source illumination on the nature of the disturbance. All of the the comments by the most recognized, respected and appreciated contributors are there. The frequency of of comments by "from Mexico" and all the other usual commentors tell how valuable the entire thread is.
I should, must, write so much more of my own thoughts on this.
I have exactly the same gut feeling but can put those feelings into a real object oriented model.
There are now more than 300 blog entry responses to what Yves wrote about her gut feeling. This one nails it about intuition:
"Moneta says:
The first thing we learned in math is how wrong intuition can be thanks to heuristics.
However, If you spend decades absorbing quality facts, experiences and train your brain to account for heuristics, intuition can be a powerful computer that can link many variables together.
Intuition is incredibly underrated in our society and that’s because most people do not train their brains properly… Garbage in, garbage out."
Yves has a brilliant analytical mind. No garbage in it. I trust her intuition.
And this from the comments:
nobody says:
“The concept that the gut and the brain are closely connected, and that this interaction plays an important part not only in gastrointestinal function but also in certain feeling states and in intuitive decision making, is deeply rooted in our language. Recent neurobiological insights into this gut–brain crosstalk have revealed a complex, bidirectional communication system that not only ensures the proper maintenance of gastrointestinal homeostasis and digestion but is likely to have multiple effects on affect, motivation and higher cognitive functions, including intuitive decision making.”
http://www.nature.com/nrn/journal/v12/n8/full/nrn3071.html
***
“Dual-process approaches of decision-making examine the interaction between affective/intuitive and deliberative processes underlying value judgment. From this perspective, decisions are supported by a combination of relatively explicit capabilities for abstract reasoning and relatively implicit evolved domain-general as well as learned domain-specific affective responses. One such approach, the somatic markers hypothesis (SMH), expresses these implicit processes as a system of evolved primary emotions supplemented by associations between affect and experience that accrue over lifetime, or somatic markers. In this view, somatic markers are useful only if their local capability to predict the value of an action is above a baseline equal to the predictive capability of the combined rational and primary emotional subsystems. We argue that decision-making has often been conceived of as a linear process: the effect of decision sequences is additive, local utility is cumulative, and there is no strong environmental feedback. This widespread assumption can have consequences for answering questions regarding the relative weight between the systems and their interaction within a cognitive architecture.”
http://www.frontiersin.org/cognitive_science/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00384/abstract
Think and feeling are two different things. Usually I go with my thinking but thinking was motivated by feeling. The thinking validates (maybe invalidates but that is not often) the feeling. Structures the feeling to rational form.
I called problem domains the "Big Marshmallow" Hard to come to grips with. Hard to get my arms around the problem, hard to get a grip on a handle. Hard to find the key to control it. That one to one core entity relationship on which the entire Marshmallow is structured. Its essence foundation and therefore controlling element. The explanation of the entire structural concept. That is the job of the analyst, the information engineer. The genius of our founding fathers in the concept of one person one vote. It took awhile to bring that concept to reality and it is still a work in progress. Implementation is flawed but the concept is not.
This "gut feeling" of Yves is a Big Marshmallow. There is a way to get a handle on it, to come to grips with it. I believe that way is through the structure of our monetary system. What money is. Not what money does. We must structure what money is. Give it a unit entity identity. Not merely a number representing an aggregate of debt.
The whole world revolves around money. Our conceptual creation. We believe that the world revolves around us. We are the center of the universe. The hero in our own story. We believed that the natural environment revolved around us. We are finding that revolve around it and place ourselves at the center at our own peril. We are learning that we revolve around the environment and if we do not fully comprehend that then we will be taught a painful natural lesson. Are being taught that lesson.
Our conceptual structures that order our society, our world all revolve around money. Money as a tool to extract from the environment. Natural or social environment. Money controls us because we make ourselves the center of the money world. We control money to serve when we create a conceptual information engineered structure that enables us to define money in terms of its own identity as a class object as well as discrete instances of a class: Serialized dollars with a unit value of one with a total finite controlled universe of money which exists on a centralized data base. Money that is not in circulation because it changes hands to new owners as it is spent/acquired through an endless circle of use as a decision making tool but is a static single dollar entity in a data base where the current owner (conceptual "holder" of that dollar in their virtual pocket) is always changing. Changing one dollar at a time in aggregate totals called a money transaction or change of holder ownership as money is used to buy and sell as resources are traded.
The idea is so simple but it threatens the entire existing world order at its very core: What money is. What money is (which we conceptually define) drives what money does. Money is currently a representation of debt. Its purpose and object entity identity is debt. Debt is only a single application program of money. We have made it the operating system. The cart is driving the horse. The entire premise of the money system is wrong and must change. We have a computer based information structure and methodology used to create that structure. Simple apply the model to money and reason tells us what the money model should be: Serialized, digitized dollars all valued at a unit of one existing as a fixed record in a central data base where the "current owner" associated with that single dollar is always changing over time. Once created to serve our purpose that single dollar "lives" as long as we need dollars in a monetary system upon which to structure our societies. This structure applies ultimately to "World Money System" National Sovereignty is currently under attack by the debt money system and is being eroded by it.
We collectively must be the masters of the monetary system design operating system structure, not the bankers that designed an application program of debt money to be the basis of the operating system. It serves them in their sub-optimized financial world where what it does for them is exactly what it was designed to do.
In my wildest science fiction fantasy that is exactly the secret objective of the NSA. Under the cover story of protection the Homeland Security it is to become the infa structure of a new world money system with the US serialized digitized Dollar as its reserve currency.
That is fantasy but it would make a good movie. The kicker is that China is the one that makes the big move to do it. The USA could not allow this at any cost.
A single Fundamental Truth at any cost lowers the price of all other truth.
I really like the gut feel of that thought. There must be something to it in a structural analysis. Something to design and build an entire system on? Just a feeling. I will have to think about it. Gives some structure to that "Big Marshmallow."
Own the money system and dominate the world. The money system is the operating system. Everything else is just and endless progression of increasingly useful application programs that utilize what the basic operating system "is" to "do" something.
Yves (Susan Webber) is my hero.
Yes there is a disturbance in the force.
Comments on what Yves said are crowd-source illumination on the nature of the disturbance. All of the the comments by the most recognized, respected and appreciated contributors are there. The frequency of of comments by "from Mexico" and all the other usual commentors tell how valuable the entire thread is.
I should, must, write so much more of my own thoughts on this.
I have exactly the same gut feeling but can put those feelings into a real object oriented model.
There are now more than 300 blog entry responses to what Yves wrote about her gut feeling. This one nails it about intuition:
"Moneta says:
The first thing we learned in math is how wrong intuition can be thanks to heuristics.
However, If you spend decades absorbing quality facts, experiences and train your brain to account for heuristics, intuition can be a powerful computer that can link many variables together.
Intuition is incredibly underrated in our society and that’s because most people do not train their brains properly… Garbage in, garbage out."
Yves has a brilliant analytical mind. No garbage in it. I trust her intuition.
And this from the comments:
nobody says:
“The concept that the gut and the brain are closely connected, and that this interaction plays an important part not only in gastrointestinal function but also in certain feeling states and in intuitive decision making, is deeply rooted in our language. Recent neurobiological insights into this gut–brain crosstalk have revealed a complex, bidirectional communication system that not only ensures the proper maintenance of gastrointestinal homeostasis and digestion but is likely to have multiple effects on affect, motivation and higher cognitive functions, including intuitive decision making.”
http://www.nature.com/nrn/journal/v12/n8/full/nrn3071.html
***
“Dual-process approaches of decision-making examine the interaction between affective/intuitive and deliberative processes underlying value judgment. From this perspective, decisions are supported by a combination of relatively explicit capabilities for abstract reasoning and relatively implicit evolved domain-general as well as learned domain-specific affective responses. One such approach, the somatic markers hypothesis (SMH), expresses these implicit processes as a system of evolved primary emotions supplemented by associations between affect and experience that accrue over lifetime, or somatic markers. In this view, somatic markers are useful only if their local capability to predict the value of an action is above a baseline equal to the predictive capability of the combined rational and primary emotional subsystems. We argue that decision-making has often been conceived of as a linear process: the effect of decision sequences is additive, local utility is cumulative, and there is no strong environmental feedback. This widespread assumption can have consequences for answering questions regarding the relative weight between the systems and their interaction within a cognitive architecture.”
http://www.frontiersin.org/cognitive_science/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00384/abstract
Think and feeling are two different things. Usually I go with my thinking but thinking was motivated by feeling. The thinking validates (maybe invalidates but that is not often) the feeling. Structures the feeling to rational form.
I called problem domains the "Big Marshmallow" Hard to come to grips with. Hard to get my arms around the problem, hard to get a grip on a handle. Hard to find the key to control it. That one to one core entity relationship on which the entire Marshmallow is structured. Its essence foundation and therefore controlling element. The explanation of the entire structural concept. That is the job of the analyst, the information engineer. The genius of our founding fathers in the concept of one person one vote. It took awhile to bring that concept to reality and it is still a work in progress. Implementation is flawed but the concept is not.
This "gut feeling" of Yves is a Big Marshmallow. There is a way to get a handle on it, to come to grips with it. I believe that way is through the structure of our monetary system. What money is. Not what money does. We must structure what money is. Give it a unit entity identity. Not merely a number representing an aggregate of debt.
The whole world revolves around money. Our conceptual creation. We believe that the world revolves around us. We are the center of the universe. The hero in our own story. We believed that the natural environment revolved around us. We are finding that revolve around it and place ourselves at the center at our own peril. We are learning that we revolve around the environment and if we do not fully comprehend that then we will be taught a painful natural lesson. Are being taught that lesson.
Our conceptual structures that order our society, our world all revolve around money. Money as a tool to extract from the environment. Natural or social environment. Money controls us because we make ourselves the center of the money world. We control money to serve when we create a conceptual information engineered structure that enables us to define money in terms of its own identity as a class object as well as discrete instances of a class: Serialized dollars with a unit value of one with a total finite controlled universe of money which exists on a centralized data base. Money that is not in circulation because it changes hands to new owners as it is spent/acquired through an endless circle of use as a decision making tool but is a static single dollar entity in a data base where the current owner (conceptual "holder" of that dollar in their virtual pocket) is always changing. Changing one dollar at a time in aggregate totals called a money transaction or change of holder ownership as money is used to buy and sell as resources are traded.
The idea is so simple but it threatens the entire existing world order at its very core: What money is. What money is (which we conceptually define) drives what money does. Money is currently a representation of debt. Its purpose and object entity identity is debt. Debt is only a single application program of money. We have made it the operating system. The cart is driving the horse. The entire premise of the money system is wrong and must change. We have a computer based information structure and methodology used to create that structure. Simple apply the model to money and reason tells us what the money model should be: Serialized, digitized dollars all valued at a unit of one existing as a fixed record in a central data base where the "current owner" associated with that single dollar is always changing over time. Once created to serve our purpose that single dollar "lives" as long as we need dollars in a monetary system upon which to structure our societies. This structure applies ultimately to "World Money System" National Sovereignty is currently under attack by the debt money system and is being eroded by it.
We collectively must be the masters of the monetary system design operating system structure, not the bankers that designed an application program of debt money to be the basis of the operating system. It serves them in their sub-optimized financial world where what it does for them is exactly what it was designed to do.
In my wildest science fiction fantasy that is exactly the secret objective of the NSA. Under the cover story of protection the Homeland Security it is to become the infa structure of a new world money system with the US serialized digitized Dollar as its reserve currency.
That is fantasy but it would make a good movie. The kicker is that China is the one that makes the big move to do it. The USA could not allow this at any cost.
A single Fundamental Truth at any cost lowers the price of all other truth.
I really like the gut feel of that thought. There must be something to it in a structural analysis. Something to design and build an entire system on? Just a feeling. I will have to think about it. Gives some structure to that "Big Marshmallow."
Own the money system and dominate the world. The money system is the operating system. Everything else is just and endless progression of increasingly useful application programs that utilize what the basic operating system "is" to "do" something.
Saturday, August 10, 2013
UML and the NSA
I simply have to believe that the NSA has a high level UML model logic for its intelligence system. That is the way things are done at the leading edge of technology. It is a model that serves as system knowledge discovery by those responsible for the system. It was created for them by analysts that know how to create the model that tells the managers about their system and how to operate it.
What is the high level UML model for the NSA? Is it secret? Why should it be? Unless there is something to hide. Things should not be hidden but transparent at this high level.
Publish the high level UML model. Let's look at it as far down as possible without revealing ways and means of intelligence gathering.
There is not much on a google of NSA and UML .
There is more return on a google of DHS and UML. In my opinion DHS is where things get developed for application in NSA. To find the NSA high level UML logic model look in the Department of Homeland Security. It seems to be more public than the NSA.
For example, Serco is a contractor providing UML services to DHS
The UML high level model is what is presented to top level executive management that shows them the big picture of the information system relationships of their enterprise. Maybe called an enterprise model. It is how an analyst looks at the enterprise. They get this view by talking to the top level executives that have some degree of understanding of the enterprise operation in their head, assembling a collective executive view of the enterprise in a logic model and then showing it to the executives that run the show to reveal more than the executives think they already know.
Analysts tend to think that top executives really don't know much about what they are doing. Most of what they do is by force of their personality, those that have that plus a UML view understanding of their operation are extremely effective.
The UML view is proprietary information. A good view costs a lot and is worth even more.
Google UML plus any of the multitude of contractors to the NSA, DHS or any of all the other intelligence agencies and they are all looking for some people with UML experience.
The UML model is the business plan
The UML model is the helm by which the executive steers the ship.
The tighter and more precise, as well as adaptable to rapid change, that all the connections and relationships between the top executive at the helm and where the rudder meets the road the more effective the organizational entity will be.
What kind of a helm does General Alexander have?
The NSA has a very good data model and I expect it looks similar to this just change the problem domain from geospatial information to bad guy information. All existing attribute information for either domain must be known and collated in order to commonly identify specific entity information within the domain. Same as the medical billing problem domain.
Look at all the resources that went into DHS Tracking of Emergency Patients (TEP) here.
change the name to tracking bad guys and the whole schema become a national security intelligence program. Same, same, different name.
What is the high level UML model for the NSA? Is it secret? Why should it be? Unless there is something to hide. Things should not be hidden but transparent at this high level.
Publish the high level UML model. Let's look at it as far down as possible without revealing ways and means of intelligence gathering.
There is not much on a google of NSA and UML .
There is more return on a google of DHS and UML. In my opinion DHS is where things get developed for application in NSA. To find the NSA high level UML logic model look in the Department of Homeland Security. It seems to be more public than the NSA.
For example, Serco is a contractor providing UML services to DHS
The UML high level model is what is presented to top level executive management that shows them the big picture of the information system relationships of their enterprise. Maybe called an enterprise model. It is how an analyst looks at the enterprise. They get this view by talking to the top level executives that have some degree of understanding of the enterprise operation in their head, assembling a collective executive view of the enterprise in a logic model and then showing it to the executives that run the show to reveal more than the executives think they already know.
Analysts tend to think that top executives really don't know much about what they are doing. Most of what they do is by force of their personality, those that have that plus a UML view understanding of their operation are extremely effective.
The UML view is proprietary information. A good view costs a lot and is worth even more.
Google UML plus any of the multitude of contractors to the NSA, DHS or any of all the other intelligence agencies and they are all looking for some people with UML experience.
The UML model is the business plan
The UML model is the helm by which the executive steers the ship.
The tighter and more precise, as well as adaptable to rapid change, that all the connections and relationships between the top executive at the helm and where the rudder meets the road the more effective the organizational entity will be.
What kind of a helm does General Alexander have?
The NSA has a very good data model and I expect it looks similar to this just change the problem domain from geospatial information to bad guy information. All existing attribute information for either domain must be known and collated in order to commonly identify specific entity information within the domain. Same as the medical billing problem domain.
Look at all the resources that went into DHS Tracking of Emergency Patients (TEP) here.
change the name to tracking bad guys and the whole schema become a national security intelligence program. Same, same, different name.
Simply Amazing
At times I am astounded by the simplicity and essential likeness of the information model of the monetary system I propose and the general, rapid evolving of a knowledge system we are developing with technology that almost borders on revolution yet expresses that revolution in logical and reasonable paradigm shifts.
The knowledge system we are currently focusing on is intelligence gathering and the intelligence system. It is the same information model as my proposed monetary system.
Simply what a thing (unique identifiable entity) is and what it does. The thing on one hand being a person and on the other a dollar. All information about it all the time. But the conundrum is that the connection between what the entity is and what it does must be protected except in the case of wrong doing in which the connection must be revealed by exposing the history of what a target entity has done.
Authorizing that connection to be made must be tightly controlled.
The aggregate of what all people do or what all dollars do is vital information. Dollars are about the only best way of quantifying what people do. The other principal way of quantifying what people do is their communications. We should know by measurement and analysis everything the aggregate does. We must know identify the entity responsible when things go wrong according to criteria that we all subscribe to that protect the right of privacy.
Control and freedom. Can we have our cake and eat it too?
Yes, I think we can. We will show ourselves the way with knowledge. Not easy but we are smart.
Unity theory all boils down to one thing.
Simply one.
Obvious.
The knowledge system we are currently focusing on is intelligence gathering and the intelligence system. It is the same information model as my proposed monetary system.
Simply what a thing (unique identifiable entity) is and what it does. The thing on one hand being a person and on the other a dollar. All information about it all the time. But the conundrum is that the connection between what the entity is and what it does must be protected except in the case of wrong doing in which the connection must be revealed by exposing the history of what a target entity has done.
Authorizing that connection to be made must be tightly controlled.
The aggregate of what all people do or what all dollars do is vital information. Dollars are about the only best way of quantifying what people do. The other principal way of quantifying what people do is their communications. We should know by measurement and analysis everything the aggregate does. We must know identify the entity responsible when things go wrong according to criteria that we all subscribe to that protect the right of privacy.
Control and freedom. Can we have our cake and eat it too?
Yes, I think we can. We will show ourselves the way with knowledge. Not easy but we are smart.
Unity theory all boils down to one thing.
Simply one.
Obvious.
"People May Have Better Ideas" --President Obama 9 August 2013
What might those better ideas be and when will we see them.
First: When might we see them? Preliminary; 60 days. Final report: End of this year.
Text quote from his remarks of 9 August:
"So I am tasking this independent group to step back and review our capabilities -- particularly our surveillance technologies. And they’ll consider how we can maintain the trust of the people, how we can make sure that there absolutely is no abuse in terms of how these surveillance technologies are used, ask how surveillance impacts our foreign policy -- particularly in an age when more and more information is becoming public. And they will provide an interim report in 60 days and a final report by the end of this year, so that we can move forward with a better understanding of how these programs impact our security, our privacy, and our foreign policy."
I am sure that what this report will say has already been designed. Not by those that will be tasked to write it but by the information engineers that designed the system.
In his remarks Obama defended the system with a clear position on the problem being a PR problem that everything was being done right but people simply did not understand it but would know there is nothing wrong if they could understand it and believe like he does.
So, what is the silver bullet that will make all that appears to be wrong to really be right and ok?
What will permit capture and examination of every bit of communication data by the government and protect privacy?
Simple answer and the only one. Clue: It is not stopping the collection of data.
It is: Separating the data from all links connecting it to any one, any entity, that originated or received the data as well as any links to those that may be associated with originators or receivers of the data.
In technical terms this is called Anonymizing data. An old idea but even my google spell checker says the spelling of the word is wrong. That is the verb form. I should use the adjective Anonymized, which google also does not recognized as a valid spelling. Maybe the process: Anonymization of data.
If data is anonymized then it has no connection to anything except its own information content which has been stripped of any connection to the personal privacy rights of those it relates to.
Presto! Like waving a magic wand!
Ahh, but here is the rub: Collecting all this communication has one purpose: Identifying the bad guys. There must then be a golden key that (when authorized) will connect for intelligence purposes what was said to who said it when conditions are met to reveal that connection.
A perfectly secure golden key to unlock an intelligence connection of what was said to who said it.
Obviously that key has to have limited access. Snowden had a key. Therefore almost all system administrators will be eliminated. NSA will eliminate 90% of them.
Hopefully they will eliminate them in a kindly manner, not with prejudice. That makes that problem disappear. Sysadmin is going to be a dying job. Business will do the same for the same protection reason.
The finding of the group that Obama proposes will be Anonymization of data with absolute system control over personal privacy protection to the extent that only a selected public and transparent few can authorize the establishment of a link between what was said (all communications captured, all data, all the time) and who said it.
This is more of a machine controlled, but human authorized system, certainly with some criteria that permit automatic machine operation.
Anonymization is a computer science that has already been applied to the medical world.
Google this phrase to find out who paid google the most to be the first hit that you see at the top of the page: "medical data anonymization".
In return I got Treo Solutions.
I got Treo the first time but not the second time I googled the same phrase. Hmmm...
Anyhow, look at what Treo offers:
Treo Solutions is a proven partner that enables payers, providers and government organizations to confidently adjust and adapt to changes in healthcare. By analyzing our enhanced data of over 45 million covered lives, our clients gain clearer insight, which allows them to improve care, control costs and foster meaningful collaborations.
Take a look at this Treo "All Payer Claims Databases" It is transparently the same information engineered model that the NSA must use for intelligence collection. Many sources of information all related to a single identifier and then applying strict controls to analysis of anonymized data to assure no connections to patients information. That is mining the data base without violation of medical privacy.
On the other hand some say there can be no such thing as absolute or even reasonable privacy in an anonymized data system. I tend to agree. There are always those that will benefit, money wise from personal information. A strong incentive to seek it, get it and profit from it.
Back to the group that Obama says will investigate and report on how our intelligence system is to be validated to comply with the legal and privacy protection requirements:
They will, I think find the model in the medical world. This is a technological privacy problem. At about the same time Obama made his remarks he also met with the leaders of technology.
I am sure that he challenged them to come up with a comprehensive information engineering model that sets the standard for privacy protection but also gives authority to collect all information all the time.
We need a new data information Bill of Rights. Commonly being called "Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights.
First: When might we see them? Preliminary; 60 days. Final report: End of this year.
Text quote from his remarks of 9 August:
"So I am tasking this independent group to step back and review our capabilities -- particularly our surveillance technologies. And they’ll consider how we can maintain the trust of the people, how we can make sure that there absolutely is no abuse in terms of how these surveillance technologies are used, ask how surveillance impacts our foreign policy -- particularly in an age when more and more information is becoming public. And they will provide an interim report in 60 days and a final report by the end of this year, so that we can move forward with a better understanding of how these programs impact our security, our privacy, and our foreign policy."
I am sure that what this report will say has already been designed. Not by those that will be tasked to write it but by the information engineers that designed the system.
In his remarks Obama defended the system with a clear position on the problem being a PR problem that everything was being done right but people simply did not understand it but would know there is nothing wrong if they could understand it and believe like he does.
So, what is the silver bullet that will make all that appears to be wrong to really be right and ok?
What will permit capture and examination of every bit of communication data by the government and protect privacy?
Simple answer and the only one. Clue: It is not stopping the collection of data.
It is: Separating the data from all links connecting it to any one, any entity, that originated or received the data as well as any links to those that may be associated with originators or receivers of the data.
In technical terms this is called Anonymizing data. An old idea but even my google spell checker says the spelling of the word is wrong. That is the verb form. I should use the adjective Anonymized, which google also does not recognized as a valid spelling. Maybe the process: Anonymization of data.
If data is anonymized then it has no connection to anything except its own information content which has been stripped of any connection to the personal privacy rights of those it relates to.
Presto! Like waving a magic wand!
Ahh, but here is the rub: Collecting all this communication has one purpose: Identifying the bad guys. There must then be a golden key that (when authorized) will connect for intelligence purposes what was said to who said it when conditions are met to reveal that connection.
A perfectly secure golden key to unlock an intelligence connection of what was said to who said it.
Obviously that key has to have limited access. Snowden had a key. Therefore almost all system administrators will be eliminated. NSA will eliminate 90% of them.
Hopefully they will eliminate them in a kindly manner, not with prejudice. That makes that problem disappear. Sysadmin is going to be a dying job. Business will do the same for the same protection reason.
The finding of the group that Obama proposes will be Anonymization of data with absolute system control over personal privacy protection to the extent that only a selected public and transparent few can authorize the establishment of a link between what was said (all communications captured, all data, all the time) and who said it.
This is more of a machine controlled, but human authorized system, certainly with some criteria that permit automatic machine operation.
Anonymization is a computer science that has already been applied to the medical world.
Google this phrase to find out who paid google the most to be the first hit that you see at the top of the page: "medical data anonymization".
In return I got Treo Solutions.
I got Treo the first time but not the second time I googled the same phrase. Hmmm...
Anyhow, look at what Treo offers:
Treo Solutions is a proven partner that enables payers, providers and government organizations to confidently adjust and adapt to changes in healthcare. By analyzing our enhanced data of over 45 million covered lives, our clients gain clearer insight, which allows them to improve care, control costs and foster meaningful collaborations.
Take a look at this Treo "All Payer Claims Databases" It is transparently the same information engineered model that the NSA must use for intelligence collection. Many sources of information all related to a single identifier and then applying strict controls to analysis of anonymized data to assure no connections to patients information. That is mining the data base without violation of medical privacy.
On the other hand some say there can be no such thing as absolute or even reasonable privacy in an anonymized data system. I tend to agree. There are always those that will benefit, money wise from personal information. A strong incentive to seek it, get it and profit from it.
Back to the group that Obama says will investigate and report on how our intelligence system is to be validated to comply with the legal and privacy protection requirements:
They will, I think find the model in the medical world. This is a technological privacy problem. At about the same time Obama made his remarks he also met with the leaders of technology.
I am sure that he challenged them to come up with a comprehensive information engineering model that sets the standard for privacy protection but also gives authority to collect all information all the time.
We need a new data information Bill of Rights. Commonly being called "Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights.
Friday, August 9, 2013
HHS
This is very interesting. Written by Jason Poblete
Lead paragraphs:
"Rather than beat up on the NSA on data privacy matters, you may need to look no farther than your healthcare provider. Your doctor or local clinic will be means by which the federal government will know more about you than any intelligence agency. HHS should be more of a concern, not the FBI, NSA, CIA, DIA, or any other national security entity.
If your family uses Aetna, Humana, Kaiser Permanente, or UnitedHealthCare, your “de-indentified” personal healthcare information is being used in a national study that includes various federal agencies (non of which include the NSA, CIA, DoD). You can read more about the Health Care Cost Institute (HCCI), here. As far as “de-identified” information (a term used by the HCCI and other groups to ameliorate data privacy concerns), as the Snowden leaker case demonstrates, when the data and keys fall into the wrong or unscrupulous hands bad things happen.
Do you think your electronic healthcare data is safe and secure?"
While he uses the term "de-identified" the more common term is anonymized. That is a separation of personal identity from the information related to that person in a manner that theoretically cannot be connected. Therefore, personal information is safeguarded.
Secret government intelligence gathering seeks to connect people to to communication information content. Communication content in the case of anonymization is protected by separation. In both cases data interception/acquisition and mining are the same or similar processes certainly using similar or the same computer/network system programs. Programs obviously funded in the intelligence world being applied to the non-intelligence, generally commercial world.
Some say (google what some say on this topic) that there is no such thing as anonymization. What is anonymized can always be connected back to the source connection. That is the business of intelligence.
Anonymizing in the non-intelligence world is a bonus for the intelligence world of information gathering. While apparent protections of data in the non-intelligence world protect data, and probably protect it well, the connection cannot be be protected from the intelligence gathering world.
Funny how I came across this by accident while researching HHS, the stock symbol for Hart Hankes.
I stumbled on Hart Hankes while researching Dragon Research Group
Dragon Research Group is connected with a CERT team member (through sharing the same telephone number in a Florida city) which is where my research began. I connected to CERT through CYMRU. More about Team CYRMU here. CERT has interesting worldwide connections.
The intent of all this research is the investment strategy that says what is good for all the NSA intelligence effort (Nothing of any real value by any measurement of investment to results) is good for the commercial world where intelligence results in big bucks. Those contractors creating/providing/hosting intelligence to the NSA are also making commercial application where there is a big pay off in marketing. Hart Hankes is a marketing company but it looks more like a commercial intelligence company.
Marketing is morphing into intelligence.
Lead paragraphs:
"Rather than beat up on the NSA on data privacy matters, you may need to look no farther than your healthcare provider. Your doctor or local clinic will be means by which the federal government will know more about you than any intelligence agency. HHS should be more of a concern, not the FBI, NSA, CIA, DIA, or any other national security entity.
If your family uses Aetna, Humana, Kaiser Permanente, or UnitedHealthCare, your “de-indentified” personal healthcare information is being used in a national study that includes various federal agencies (non of which include the NSA, CIA, DoD). You can read more about the Health Care Cost Institute (HCCI), here. As far as “de-identified” information (a term used by the HCCI and other groups to ameliorate data privacy concerns), as the Snowden leaker case demonstrates, when the data and keys fall into the wrong or unscrupulous hands bad things happen.
Do you think your electronic healthcare data is safe and secure?"
While he uses the term "de-identified" the more common term is anonymized. That is a separation of personal identity from the information related to that person in a manner that theoretically cannot be connected. Therefore, personal information is safeguarded.
Secret government intelligence gathering seeks to connect people to to communication information content. Communication content in the case of anonymization is protected by separation. In both cases data interception/acquisition and mining are the same or similar processes certainly using similar or the same computer/network system programs. Programs obviously funded in the intelligence world being applied to the non-intelligence, generally commercial world.
Some say (google what some say on this topic) that there is no such thing as anonymization. What is anonymized can always be connected back to the source connection. That is the business of intelligence.
Anonymizing in the non-intelligence world is a bonus for the intelligence world of information gathering. While apparent protections of data in the non-intelligence world protect data, and probably protect it well, the connection cannot be be protected from the intelligence gathering world.
Funny how I came across this by accident while researching HHS, the stock symbol for Hart Hankes.
I stumbled on Hart Hankes while researching Dragon Research Group
Dragon Research Group is connected with a CERT team member (through sharing the same telephone number in a Florida city) which is where my research began. I connected to CERT through CYMRU. More about Team CYRMU here. CERT has interesting worldwide connections.
The intent of all this research is the investment strategy that says what is good for all the NSA intelligence effort (Nothing of any real value by any measurement of investment to results) is good for the commercial world where intelligence results in big bucks. Those contractors creating/providing/hosting intelligence to the NSA are also making commercial application where there is a big pay off in marketing. Hart Hankes is a marketing company but it looks more like a commercial intelligence company.
Marketing is morphing into intelligence.
If A equals success, then the formula is A = X + Y + Z. X is work. Y is play. Z is keep your mouth shut. By Albert Einstein
- Team Cymru, Inc. 901 International Parkway Suite 350 Lake Mary, FL 32746 US
Thursday, August 8, 2013
Einstein 2.0 and 3.0 Cover Story
The government surveillance program called Einstein is in the news today.
If it is so blatantly obvious that NSA does unrestricted recording and monitoring all Internet communications of all Americans then it is equally obvious that there must be a cover story program that presents a legitimate scenario to what has been developed and applied to illegitimate use.
I think that the program cover story is the Einstein program. An apparently ligitimate publicly documented government program to protect government communications that hide the actual use of the product of the program in its application to all internet traffic.
Wikipedia describes the Einstein program here. that is the public face of the program. The secret face of the program application is most likely Prism. The tell-tale is the level of legal comment on the legality of the Einstein program. It has government legal defense. Therefore all that work on the the development and application of the program in DHS to government communications inspection and analysis have legal protection from any legal wrong doing.
Hand the entire program over to the NSA, remove the flags that describe user entry to the government agency sites and what do you have? This: One of the major programs use by the NSA to monitor all internet communications.
Einstein is simply a cover program to legitimize an in house government internet protection program but also disguise its development and use as an illegitimate surveillance program by the NSA.
Seems obvious to me. It simply takes too many people to create a program for illegitimate use. All those people have to be given some legal protection from prosecution even if it is a wink and nod cover story for those that really know what it is all about as well as what most of those involved probably believe is the true story.
Einstein: Created by DHS for use by NSA?? Is that really much of a question?
Invest in Tibco! (TIBX) Looks good here.
If it is so blatantly obvious that NSA does unrestricted recording and monitoring all Internet communications of all Americans then it is equally obvious that there must be a cover story program that presents a legitimate scenario to what has been developed and applied to illegitimate use.
I think that the program cover story is the Einstein program. An apparently ligitimate publicly documented government program to protect government communications that hide the actual use of the product of the program in its application to all internet traffic.
Wikipedia describes the Einstein program here. that is the public face of the program. The secret face of the program application is most likely Prism. The tell-tale is the level of legal comment on the legality of the Einstein program. It has government legal defense. Therefore all that work on the the development and application of the program in DHS to government communications inspection and analysis have legal protection from any legal wrong doing.
Hand the entire program over to the NSA, remove the flags that describe user entry to the government agency sites and what do you have? This: One of the major programs use by the NSA to monitor all internet communications.
Einstein is simply a cover program to legitimize an in house government internet protection program but also disguise its development and use as an illegitimate surveillance program by the NSA.
Seems obvious to me. It simply takes too many people to create a program for illegitimate use. All those people have to be given some legal protection from prosecution even if it is a wink and nod cover story for those that really know what it is all about as well as what most of those involved probably believe is the true story.
Einstein: Created by DHS for use by NSA?? Is that really much of a question?
Invest in Tibco! (TIBX) Looks good here.
Wednesday, August 7, 2013
Let a Hundred Flowers Bloom
A country that was afraid of its own people had a good solution.
"Let a Hundred Flowers Bloom"
President Obama, here is a solution. Instead of government workers and military personnel spying on each other for signs of security violations encourage in house discussion meetings where those with the same level of security clearance or access to special program as directed to meet and discuss the civil/constitutional correctness of what they are doing.
It promotes freedom of expression in a closed environment where the input of those dealing with the security programs is sought without retribution or recrimination but actually praised and rewarded.
At the conclusion of letting a hundred flowers bloom a hundred flowers die.
Discussion group attendance would be mandatory.
The epitome of free expression in a free society. An American core value applied to groups of people with the same security clearance within which they may discuss the role of their jobs and relationship to the constitution freely including any doubts they may have about the nature of their jobs or mission performance.
My comment on Pentagon Insider Threats and the program that addresses it:
On the contrary: Let a Hundred Flowers Bloom.
Flush out with finesse those you seek to find. Why be so clumsy about it? No need to spy on others, set up rewards for those that question what they are doing. Then give them their true reward.
Bill the family for the expense.
"Let a Hundred Flowers Bloom"
President Obama, here is a solution. Instead of government workers and military personnel spying on each other for signs of security violations encourage in house discussion meetings where those with the same level of security clearance or access to special program as directed to meet and discuss the civil/constitutional correctness of what they are doing.
It promotes freedom of expression in a closed environment where the input of those dealing with the security programs is sought without retribution or recrimination but actually praised and rewarded.
At the conclusion of letting a hundred flowers bloom a hundred flowers die.
Discussion group attendance would be mandatory.
The epitome of free expression in a free society. An American core value applied to groups of people with the same security clearance within which they may discuss the role of their jobs and relationship to the constitution freely including any doubts they may have about the nature of their jobs or mission performance.
My comment on Pentagon Insider Threats and the program that addresses it:
On the contrary: Let a Hundred Flowers Bloom.
Flush out with finesse those you seek to find. Why be so clumsy about it? No need to spy on others, set up rewards for those that question what they are doing. Then give them their true reward.
Bill the family for the expense.
Pentagon Insider Threats
Following on to my prior comment that the NSA certainly spies on its own people with as much priority as it gives to spying on known terrorists: Spying is a multi threat environment an the threat can come from anywhere. Lately that "anywhere" is from within. Bradley Manning was simply a lowly troop in a sensitive position. The Pentagon is the military. Our own people are the greatest threat not to national security but to the security of those who gather and analyze all information all the time.
Today's headline:
Unhappy With U.S. Foreign Policy? Pentagon Says You Might Be A 'High Threat'
Link here
It is absolutely ironic that the "greatest threat" that potentially has equal or greater damage (as far as our keeper's of secrets are concerned) is our own military and civilians, (government or contractors) that work with and have knowledge of things that we do not know about but they feel compelled to expose!!!
Ironic!
When there was danger from the troops or they must be taught a lesson the action taken by those in authority was to instill fear (terror) by decimating the ranks.
With all information all the time there are more modern ways to instill terror on a very precise surgical basis by collecting all information all the time on all those that have the highest security clearance or access to high security programs.
What a way to run a free country???
Categorically, those that hold and keep the secrets must simply be under the same level of observation as the terrorists that threaten our security. They that hold the secrets are a far greater number. They are also our own citizens.
From the Link:
"Notably, the CyberAwareness Challenge is given to a wide range of federal employees whose roles have far less to do with security threats than that of a National Security Agency contractor like Snowden. The Department of Housing and Urban Development even requires its private business partners accessing a tenant rental assistance database to complete the training. "
How many attending the training ask the question "Is this necessary?"
Or: "Is the right?"
Don't ask or you will be.....
I immensely respect the analysis of Andrew Bachevech: "Are Manning and Snowden Patriots? That Depends on What We Do Next."
The government is very afraid of its people. It has good reason to be and that is exactly a healthy situation. Secrets are for protection. What is the government protecting? Itself while it presents itself as protecting the people. Maybe not so much the government protecting itself but those that profit from the government protecting their franchise and owning a police state to protect it.
Unhappy With U.S. Foreign Policy? Pentagon Says You Might Be A 'High Threat'
Link here
It is absolutely ironic that the "greatest threat" that potentially has equal or greater damage (as far as our keeper's of secrets are concerned) is our own military and civilians, (government or contractors) that work with and have knowledge of things that we do not know about but they feel compelled to expose!!!
Ironic!
When there was danger from the troops or they must be taught a lesson the action taken by those in authority was to instill fear (terror) by decimating the ranks.
With all information all the time there are more modern ways to instill terror on a very precise surgical basis by collecting all information all the time on all those that have the highest security clearance or access to high security programs.
What a way to run a free country???
Categorically, those that hold and keep the secrets must simply be under the same level of observation as the terrorists that threaten our security. They that hold the secrets are a far greater number. They are also our own citizens.
From the Link:
"Notably, the CyberAwareness Challenge is given to a wide range of federal employees whose roles have far less to do with security threats than that of a National Security Agency contractor like Snowden. The Department of Housing and Urban Development even requires its private business partners accessing a tenant rental assistance database to complete the training. "
How many attending the training ask the question "Is this necessary?"
Or: "Is the right?"
Don't ask or you will be.....
I immensely respect the analysis of Andrew Bachevech: "Are Manning and Snowden Patriots? That Depends on What We Do Next."
The government is very afraid of its people. It has good reason to be and that is exactly a healthy situation. Secrets are for protection. What is the government protecting? Itself while it presents itself as protecting the people. Maybe not so much the government protecting itself but those that profit from the government protecting their franchise and owning a police state to protect it.
Monday, August 5, 2013
Spying on NSA Analysts
In my prior post I looked at how obvious, reasonable and absolutely logical it is that the NSA must record and analyze all communications of employees as well as contractors to assure security of SCI related programs.
The NSA analysts in these programs must know that! That is what they do! Do they specifically agree to this as a condition of employment or do they agree with the reasoning that if they have nothing to hide then they have no need to fear constant personal monitoring. Just like the NSA would enjoy a public attitude that if we have nothing to hide then we have nothing to fear.
Interesting to know how the NSA analysts feel about this. It is my opinion that they are given an interview test to determine if they are a type of person that believes that in order for the government to protect the people certain rules and regulations must be circumvented in order to do their job.
Might the NSA analysts have the feeling that someone is watching them all the time? How do they feel about that? A bit paranoid? Probably not if they agree that in order to protect our country even they must be monitored on a level equal to terrorists.
Does everybody have something to hide? Not hidden if you work in a sensitive position at the NSA
The NSA analysts in these programs must know that! That is what they do! Do they specifically agree to this as a condition of employment or do they agree with the reasoning that if they have nothing to hide then they have no need to fear constant personal monitoring. Just like the NSA would enjoy a public attitude that if we have nothing to hide then we have nothing to fear.
Interesting to know how the NSA analysts feel about this. It is my opinion that they are given an interview test to determine if they are a type of person that believes that in order for the government to protect the people certain rules and regulations must be circumvented in order to do their job.
Might the NSA analysts have the feeling that someone is watching them all the time? How do they feel about that? A bit paranoid? Probably not if they agree that in order to protect our country even they must be monitored on a level equal to terrorists.
Does everybody have something to hide? Not hidden if you work in a sensitive position at the NSA
NSA Surveilance SCI Who Will Guard the Guards?
It is so obvious! Just think about it and I know that it must be true because it is so obvious.
No brainer!
The NSA is spying on their own people as well as everyone else.
Sensitive Compartmented Information is for the "in group". People that have been read into a program. Not a classification exactly but a category that deals with the most sensitive stuff. Compartmented so that nobody can connect to other segments of the same project to understand the big picture or true intent. Cover stories.
Cover stories are not as effective as when there was no google search. People were given the cover stories and did not ask questions about it even if it was full of holes if you started to put together what limited real information was available. Now a story can be researched with google. That ups the game of the cover story creators. It has to stand up. Some people are curious about what they are really doing/contributing to that have access to SCI. They may also have moral beliefs about what is being done. That is dangerous.
Moral beliefs are most likely swayed by arguments that what is being done is for the good of the American people. It has to be done to protect them. It is for their own good that they should not know, nor their representatives. They could not handle the truth.
People that work with SCI matters are responsible for good judgement. The highest paying jobs require the best judgment. Those responsible for exercising judgment often feel that they have certain rights to do what is considered "best" as custodians of freedom and our way of life. That is the convincing argument that justifies what they do.
People that work with SCI matters are the greatest security threat. To assure their dependability they are given background checks. Snowden had one. Very effective!
The best way to monitor the security of a program is to know everything about all the private communications of those in the program.
Here is the obvious: The NSA is certainly concerned about capturing, retaining and examining all communications of those working in their own SCI category projects. Since BI only looks at history, the NSA must know what all their employees are communicating on a real time basis, on the job or off.
Initial Background Investigation focus will certainly shift to examining any applicants prior private communication history. All information, all the time on everyone is therefore necessary and continuing to monitor all information on all employees is mandatory. There will be less FBI footwork knocking on doors of high school teachers and asking about their prior students. Not very efficient or effective screening.
The NSA has data mining programs applied to their own internal communications. Meta data as well as the connected verbal and written content in order to discover information in a Crowd Sourced manner. Private Enterprise does the same thing.
I bet that NSA also has a special flag on all SCI personnel that gather every last private personal information detail about their lives.
NSA has to do that to protect us from our protectors that may conclude that they are doing something that is wrong and exposing it.
It is so obvious. NSA employees are certainly aware that they are being monitored in a category of interest and attention devoted to known terrorists. The same employees are also probably convinced it is appropriate because of the sensitivity of their jobs.
Good editorial: Who Will Guard the Guards?
All information all the time about NSA employees also means that the spouse/children/associates of the employee are also being monitored as high priority scrutiny.
Funny how so many people are worried about their potential association with an NSA target of interest! They are probably targets if they are related in any manner to an NSA employee working in an SCI area!
Not good to be too close the the "good guys" as well as the "bad guys".
The logic of the obvious....obviously extends to everyone with a government security clearance with scrutiny relative to the degree of clearance. Millions. Perhaps there is some small print or secret law someplace that makes this all legal since they are employees, even contractors by extension, and a security clearance is applicable 24/7?
No brainer!
The NSA is spying on their own people as well as everyone else.
Sensitive Compartmented Information is for the "in group". People that have been read into a program. Not a classification exactly but a category that deals with the most sensitive stuff. Compartmented so that nobody can connect to other segments of the same project to understand the big picture or true intent. Cover stories.
Cover stories are not as effective as when there was no google search. People were given the cover stories and did not ask questions about it even if it was full of holes if you started to put together what limited real information was available. Now a story can be researched with google. That ups the game of the cover story creators. It has to stand up. Some people are curious about what they are really doing/contributing to that have access to SCI. They may also have moral beliefs about what is being done. That is dangerous.
Moral beliefs are most likely swayed by arguments that what is being done is for the good of the American people. It has to be done to protect them. It is for their own good that they should not know, nor their representatives. They could not handle the truth.
People that work with SCI matters are responsible for good judgement. The highest paying jobs require the best judgment. Those responsible for exercising judgment often feel that they have certain rights to do what is considered "best" as custodians of freedom and our way of life. That is the convincing argument that justifies what they do.
People that work with SCI matters are the greatest security threat. To assure their dependability they are given background checks. Snowden had one. Very effective!
The best way to monitor the security of a program is to know everything about all the private communications of those in the program.
Here is the obvious: The NSA is certainly concerned about capturing, retaining and examining all communications of those working in their own SCI category projects. Since BI only looks at history, the NSA must know what all their employees are communicating on a real time basis, on the job or off.
Initial Background Investigation focus will certainly shift to examining any applicants prior private communication history. All information, all the time on everyone is therefore necessary and continuing to monitor all information on all employees is mandatory. There will be less FBI footwork knocking on doors of high school teachers and asking about their prior students. Not very efficient or effective screening.
The NSA has data mining programs applied to their own internal communications. Meta data as well as the connected verbal and written content in order to discover information in a Crowd Sourced manner. Private Enterprise does the same thing.
I bet that NSA also has a special flag on all SCI personnel that gather every last private personal information detail about their lives.
NSA has to do that to protect us from our protectors that may conclude that they are doing something that is wrong and exposing it.
It is so obvious. NSA employees are certainly aware that they are being monitored in a category of interest and attention devoted to known terrorists. The same employees are also probably convinced it is appropriate because of the sensitivity of their jobs.
Good editorial: Who Will Guard the Guards?
All information all the time about NSA employees also means that the spouse/children/associates of the employee are also being monitored as high priority scrutiny.
Funny how so many people are worried about their potential association with an NSA target of interest! They are probably targets if they are related in any manner to an NSA employee working in an SCI area!
Not good to be too close the the "good guys" as well as the "bad guys".
The logic of the obvious....obviously extends to everyone with a government security clearance with scrutiny relative to the degree of clearance. Millions. Perhaps there is some small print or secret law someplace that makes this all legal since they are employees, even contractors by extension, and a security clearance is applicable 24/7?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)