April Fools!
tag: email, war
31 March 2008
first of the month
Pretty cool, I came into work today, they said we're going home tomorrow because the war is over.
random ambiguity measure
I've started using the tag "disclaimer" on posts where I am deliberately altering information (OPSEC, gender anonymity). The trick to this is that while I may omit or alter information, the tag itself is an indicator. It's rather like pleading the 5th: while you can legally avoid incriminating yourself, you have shown the other side where to start investigating.
So it is much more powerful to use a certain element of random ambiguity. John Boyd loved to tell a story about a group of German troops who were retreating from Normandy. Seeking to confuse the Allies, they began reversing every road sign they came across. The Americans following in their path realized after a few such errors that all the signs were reversed and just began to do the opposite of what the signs said. The point of the story is that certain deception is no deception at all. It would have been much more effective, Boyd said, had the Germans only reversed a third or a quarter of the signs. Then the Americans would have had to double check every turn.
Poker offers an interesting analogy to this. What's a bluff in poker? When you play strong even though you think or know you don't have the cards. The trick is that over many hands, your opponents will eventually call many big bets or bold plays. If they call your bluff enough, they will know most of your big plays are bluffs. To introduce uncertainty then, you can't bluff that often, and most of your strong plays have to be based on real cards. Then your opponents will have to allow for the possibility that you are telling the truth.
There is also an element of this in random searches at airports. While you might think it possible to get something past the general inspections, there is always the chance that you will randomly get tagged for the more thorough searches.
I have often wondered at an application of this principle to the spokespeople for companies, organisations, movements, etc. If you always tell the truth, you may sooner or later have to tell an unpleasant truth. This may lead you to try to avoid a question. If this isn't artfully done, you may end up drawing more attention to the very thing you are trying to conceal. If you flat out say you aren't going to answer, you have the same problem as pleading the 5th. On the other hand, if you are willing to lie (as say, most big companies are willing to do), you will use a lie to cover an unpleasant truth. But when the truth comes out, as it often does (Enron anyone? Baseball steroids, Bear Stearns, Savings and Loan scandal, payola, quiz shows, etc.), your reputation for truthfulness is tarnished and now your opponents and concerned citizens will know if there's a suspected wrongdoing and you're reporting all is well, they will start to investigate. In other words, your lie has lost its power. (To return to the poker example, you have to tell the truth the majority of the time, or lying is not just ineffective, but counterproductive.)
So it is much more powerful to use a certain element of random ambiguity. John Boyd loved to tell a story about a group of German troops who were retreating from Normandy. Seeking to confuse the Allies, they began reversing every road sign they came across. The Americans following in their path realized after a few such errors that all the signs were reversed and just began to do the opposite of what the signs said. The point of the story is that certain deception is no deception at all. It would have been much more effective, Boyd said, had the Germans only reversed a third or a quarter of the signs. Then the Americans would have had to double check every turn.
Poker offers an interesting analogy to this. What's a bluff in poker? When you play strong even though you think or know you don't have the cards. The trick is that over many hands, your opponents will eventually call many big bets or bold plays. If they call your bluff enough, they will know most of your big plays are bluffs. To introduce uncertainty then, you can't bluff that often, and most of your strong plays have to be based on real cards. Then your opponents will have to allow for the possibility that you are telling the truth.
There is also an element of this in random searches at airports. While you might think it possible to get something past the general inspections, there is always the chance that you will randomly get tagged for the more thorough searches.
I have often wondered at an application of this principle to the spokespeople for companies, organisations, movements, etc. If you always tell the truth, you may sooner or later have to tell an unpleasant truth. This may lead you to try to avoid a question. If this isn't artfully done, you may end up drawing more attention to the very thing you are trying to conceal. If you flat out say you aren't going to answer, you have the same problem as pleading the 5th. On the other hand, if you are willing to lie (as say, most big companies are willing to do), you will use a lie to cover an unpleasant truth. But when the truth comes out, as it often does (Enron anyone? Baseball steroids, Bear Stearns, Savings and Loan scandal, payola, quiz shows, etc.), your reputation for truthfulness is tarnished and now your opponents and concerned citizens will know if there's a suspected wrongdoing and you're reporting all is well, they will start to investigate. In other words, your lie has lost its power. (To return to the poker example, you have to tell the truth the majority of the time, or lying is not just ineffective, but counterproductive.)
In either case (trying to be truthful or willing to lie), the more powerful position is to not answer all questions, but to set aside a small percentage (1 in 10? 1 in 20?) and simply not answer them of the basis of creating ambiguity.
tags: opsec, disclaimer, history
29 March 2008
minor changes
Not much to post today, trying to catch up on sleep and masters work on my short day, I did work on a couple of longer entries I'm not satisfied with yet.
In an effort to encourage comments, I have opened the blog up for anonymous comments. (I also turned on email notifications for comments, I will know when people post them, I've been bad on responding to a few of them.)
In an effort to encourage comments, I have opened the blog up for anonymous comments. (I also turned on email notifications for comments, I will know when people post them, I've been bad on responding to a few of them.)
28 March 2008
Haircut
See my profile picture for my new haircut.
I used to grow the deployment stache, but I got tired of that so I came up with something else radical to do with my hair. (Our maintainers are all growing beards, but I can't do that obviously.)
I used to grow the deployment stache, but I got tired of that so I came up with something else radical to do with my hair. (Our maintainers are all growing beards, but I can't do that obviously.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
