Why do you let woman post to this list?
this girl code.
Aimee i'am looking for the sheep
e:
> Aimee wrote:
>
> > > To wit, no two people can safely tell the same
lie to the same person.
>
> Bah. I say it depends entirely on what the lie is,
who's being
> lied to, and how
> confident and artistic the confidence artists are.
You're probably right.
> Choate:
> > Actually they can, only one (or both, if we allow
3 or more agents, only
> > one is required to 'know' the lie) of the people
must believe it is the
> > truth.
>
> If they were good enough (and their targets
comfortable enough), all three
> could be lying their asses off about anything and
nobody would ever be the
> wiser. Likewise, with three or more targets playing
it the other
> direction.
>
>
> >Well, I doan' kno' nuttin' 'bout no agents. That
fact has been
> established.
>
> Careful parsing is the spice of life... :P
So sayeth the academic-researcher-grad student
pretext... :P
> >But, you know, after pondering on that a bit...What
if "the lie" was
> >supposedly "really secret stuff?"
> >You know, "ME LUCKY CHARMS!"
> >I know the little boys and girls are after me lucky
charms.
> >If "3 or more agents" happen to run in the door
with me lucky charms,
>
> Sounds about right.
Yep, they would be lucky and charming.
> >that might smell really fishy to some people since
leprechauns
> are hard to
> >catch.
>
> Somewhere over the rainbow.
> >Furthermore, if you ask them about these lucky
charms in isolation, they
> >better know the lucky charms like the back of their
hand, or further
> >investigation is likely to review not-so-lucky
inconsistencies. The
> >"knowing" part can be rendered irrelevant by
context, indeed it is
> >sometimes imperative that everybody KNOW so as to
> provide...uhm.....secondary
> >alternative consistency.
>
> But what about when the unlucky charmers find
they're actually the victims
> of a
deceivers-deceiving-the-deceivers-deceiving-the-deceivers
> kind of thing.
Recursive is just writing backwards.
> What shows that the snowers know they've slowly been
snowed? Bet
> it keeps a lot
> of people awake at night, that one. Tricky, but
fascinating. If
> anyone knows of
> any good links to counter-deception detection, drop
me a line.
> Not sure how "on
> topic" it is, but something everyone here would do
well to read
> about. Either
> that, or just default to not trusting anyone, ever.
Works for me.
Empathy skills in personal matters.
On a grand scale:
1. counterdeception teams - multidisciplinary,
"non-cultured," outsiders --
creatives, narratives, hoaxers, jokesters, emplotters,
etc.
2. devil's advocacy in the event stream
3. competitive analysis
4. MUST HAVE: highest-level precision black channels
-- requiring nothing
short of a resurrection. Close surveillance. Sneaky
submarines are not good
enough.
5. Cultural change -- a bit of British eccentricity;
decision-maker
sensitization
6. Monitoring of foreign open source media and
organizational theme
variations (quantitative content and textual analysis;
inferential scanning)
7. Monitoring of internal organizational dissenters,
noncomformists and the
intuitives (instead of quashing them, solicit them)
Sounds down your alley of interests, interested in
your thoughts.
Due to the changing nature of the world, the U.S.
could easily find itself
hoodwinked, isolated, paralyzed and worse. It used to
be "Uproar in the
East, strike in the West."
Today, it's "Fool the Sky." (transparent or false-flag
cover plan)
Our goal-states, perceptions, decision-points, etc.
are there for all to
see. Most deceptions play upon expectations. Our
surveillance capabilities
and superior military seem to point to a BARBAROSSA
scenario -- a grand
deception.
Concealed within our strength is our weakness.
> >And, "lucky charm lies" can take many forms,
including physical,
> which might
> >be subject to verification, additional
investigation and other
> stuff I don't
> >want to happen to me lucky charms, because I might
want the
> enemy to believe
> >they are TRULY "lucky," "charmed," and "mine."
> >I'm sure "it depends," but perhaps that wisdom came
from just such a
> >situation.
>
> Oh really? *blink blink* like what?
"The Allies are landing at Normandy!"
..."It's just a trick."
"What does German intelligence say?"
...Just what the British told them.
The comment was from a review of FORTITUDE (deception
plan) by one of the
British designers.
We could learn a lot from them --- save hundreds of
thousands of lives by
using these concepts defensively, domestically, and in
new contexts. With
each day that passes, we loose more of the window, and
waste our resources
on low-return countermeasures which do nothing but
present 'barriers of
certainty' to our adversaries, albeit a thin veil of
comfort to our
population. (I frequently point out that the Germans
practically held hands
along railways, and we still blew them all to heck in
WW II.)
In some places, we are taking actions that play into
deception designs.
Maybe we should change that, along with a few "street
signs." Our
adversaries know deception is a great strategic
advantage, and they don't
want the American public to accept it. Churchill
didn't have a problem. The
answer to some long-standing misperceptions could be
as simple as involving
the American people. Today's adversaries strike at the
rear. Hell, that's
"us." Deception planning has a history in civilian
defense, terrorists
collect intelligence and have decision-makers, so they
offer a deception
target.
As part of Homeland Defense, we need Homeland
Deception. "OPERATION TRICK
TERRORISTS?" Instead of deception coming from the top,
bring it up from the
bottom in a security context. (Some people are working
on it, but we could
be doing more.) I just know there is guy taking ticket
stubs somewhere on a
nontraditional delivery vehicle. I bet he has an idea,
or once exposed to
certain concepts -- could come up with one -- because
he knows his operative
context better than anybody else.
At the present time, much attention is being devoted
to the development of
"gadgetry." ~Brigadier General Samuel B. Griffith,
(USMC) Ret. _On Guerrilla
Warfare_ (1961).
~Aimee
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com
this girl code.
Aimee i'am looking for the sheep
e:
> Aimee wrote:
>
> > > To wit, no two people can safely tell the same
lie to the same person.
>
> Bah. I say it depends entirely on what the lie is,
who's being
> lied to, and how
> confident and artistic the confidence artists are.
You're probably right.
> Choate:
> > Actually they can, only one (or both, if we allow
3 or more agents, only
> > one is required to 'know' the lie) of the people
must believe it is the
> > truth.
>
> If they were good enough (and their targets
comfortable enough), all three
> could be lying their asses off about anything and
nobody would ever be the
> wiser. Likewise, with three or more targets playing
it the other
> direction.
>
>
> >Well, I doan' kno' nuttin' 'bout no agents. That
fact has been
> established.
>
> Careful parsing is the spice of life... :P
So sayeth the academic-researcher-grad student
pretext... :P
> >But, you know, after pondering on that a bit...What
if "the lie" was
> >supposedly "really secret stuff?"
> >You know, "ME LUCKY CHARMS!"
> >I know the little boys and girls are after me lucky
charms.
> >If "3 or more agents" happen to run in the door
with me lucky charms,
>
> Sounds about right.
Yep, they would be lucky and charming.
> >that might smell really fishy to some people since
leprechauns
> are hard to
> >catch.
>
> Somewhere over the rainbow.
> >Furthermore, if you ask them about these lucky
charms in isolation, they
> >better know the lucky charms like the back of their
hand, or further
> >investigation is likely to review not-so-lucky
inconsistencies. The
> >"knowing" part can be rendered irrelevant by
context, indeed it is
> >sometimes imperative that everybody KNOW so as to
> provide...uhm.....secondary
> >alternative consistency.
>
> But what about when the unlucky charmers find
they're actually the victims
> of a
deceivers-deceiving-the-deceivers-deceiving-the-deceivers
> kind of thing.
Recursive is just writing backwards.
> What shows that the snowers know they've slowly been
snowed? Bet
> it keeps a lot
> of people awake at night, that one. Tricky, but
fascinating. If
> anyone knows of
> any good links to counter-deception detection, drop
me a line.
> Not sure how "on
> topic" it is, but something everyone here would do
well to read
> about. Either
> that, or just default to not trusting anyone, ever.
Works for me.
Empathy skills in personal matters.
On a grand scale:
1. counterdeception teams - multidisciplinary,
"non-cultured," outsiders --
creatives, narratives, hoaxers, jokesters, emplotters,
etc.
2. devil's advocacy in the event stream
3. competitive analysis
4. MUST HAVE: highest-level precision black channels
-- requiring nothing
short of a resurrection. Close surveillance. Sneaky
submarines are not good
enough.
5. Cultural change -- a bit of British eccentricity;
decision-maker
sensitization
6. Monitoring of foreign open source media and
organizational theme
variations (quantitative content and textual analysis;
inferential scanning)
7. Monitoring of internal organizational dissenters,
noncomformists and the
intuitives (instead of quashing them, solicit them)
Sounds down your alley of interests, interested in
your thoughts.
Due to the changing nature of the world, the U.S.
could easily find itself
hoodwinked, isolated, paralyzed and worse. It used to
be "Uproar in the
East, strike in the West."
Today, it's "Fool the Sky." (transparent or false-flag
cover plan)
Our goal-states, perceptions, decision-points, etc.
are there for all to
see. Most deceptions play upon expectations. Our
surveillance capabilities
and superior military seem to point to a BARBAROSSA
scenario -- a grand
deception.
Concealed within our strength is our weakness.
> >And, "lucky charm lies" can take many forms,
including physical,
> which might
> >be subject to verification, additional
investigation and other
> stuff I don't
> >want to happen to me lucky charms, because I might
want the
> enemy to believe
> >they are TRULY "lucky," "charmed," and "mine."
> >I'm sure "it depends," but perhaps that wisdom came
from just such a
> >situation.
>
> Oh really? *blink blink* like what?
"The Allies are landing at Normandy!"
..."It's just a trick."
"What does German intelligence say?"
...Just what the British told them.
The comment was from a review of FORTITUDE (deception
plan) by one of the
British designers.
We could learn a lot from them --- save hundreds of
thousands of lives by
using these concepts defensively, domestically, and in
new contexts. With
each day that passes, we loose more of the window, and
waste our resources
on low-return countermeasures which do nothing but
present 'barriers of
certainty' to our adversaries, albeit a thin veil of
comfort to our
population. (I frequently point out that the Germans
practically held hands
along railways, and we still blew them all to heck in
WW II.)
In some places, we are taking actions that play into
deception designs.
Maybe we should change that, along with a few "street
signs." Our
adversaries know deception is a great strategic
advantage, and they don't
want the American public to accept it. Churchill
didn't have a problem. The
answer to some long-standing misperceptions could be
as simple as involving
the American people. Today's adversaries strike at the
rear. Hell, that's
"us." Deception planning has a history in civilian
defense, terrorists
collect intelligence and have decision-makers, so they
offer a deception
target.
As part of Homeland Defense, we need Homeland
Deception. "OPERATION TRICK
TERRORISTS?" Instead of deception coming from the top,
bring it up from the
bottom in a security context. (Some people are working
on it, but we could
be doing more.) I just know there is guy taking ticket
stubs somewhere on a
nontraditional delivery vehicle. I bet he has an idea,
or once exposed to
certain concepts -- could come up with one -- because
he knows his operative
context better than anybody else.
At the present time, much attention is being devoted
to the development of
"gadgetry." ~Brigadier General Samuel B. Griffith,
(USMC) Ret. _On Guerrilla
Warfare_ (1961).
~Aimee
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com
In the name of Allah the most Gracious the most Merciful
Get Your Free Email at www.ajeeb.com
