On 10/22/13 7:49 PM, Parks, Raymond wrote:
I don't mean attack the servers and systems - I mean the tradecraft necessary
to keep big data algorithms from tracking. That's knowledge that the
protagonists of big data need if they hope to be effective in detecting
sophisticated adversaries.
There seems to be an assumption that individuals who might wish to
`challenge an organization' do so because they've been indoctrinated
somehow. That there must be another party, a command and control, a
boss, or at least conspirators behind any individual action and all
that's needed is to uncover it. Thus the rationale for surveillance.
Yet, reflecting on my own motivations, I separate those goals where I
see true opportunity or intrinsic merit from those goals where I'm one
of many possible hired guns doing some job. Frequently, I find that I
make observations that yield the same conclusions that some of my
colleagues do. We share the same inputs and arrive at the same outputs,
but do not coordinate or communicate in the process. To me, this kind of
pure resonance is one basis for trust in the judgement of others as well
as self confidence.
With such people, I do not need worry much about how they will plan-out
and execute a project. They just will. Those that I have reason to
believe share values similar to mine will probably even arrive at a
result near to what I would do.
What I meant originally is that a fool proof way to defeat big data
(mining) or direct surveillance is to not communicate, but to be of like
mind.
Marcus
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
