... I cannot resist ... :)
At 08:50 AM 9/5/01 -0500, you wrote:
>I agree with some of what Vamosi has stated - The Honourable Rumsfield
>should know better than to display his hoof-in-mouth illness so publicly -
Perhaps he was taking a page from Sun Tsu: When you are strong, make the
enemy believe you are weak.
> >From the "Say It Ain't So" Desk:
>The EP-3 was working for the NSA (duh)!? And this is supposed to be news?
>To Whom? Certainly not to the PRC folks...
Gee, I thought it was the Department of Agriculture that conducted foreign
signals surveillance ...
> >From the "Buy the Farm, But Don't Bet Your Life On It" Department:
>Just because it appears to be frustrated hackers doing their own thing
>against the soulless, repressive Western Capitalist pigs doesn't mean it is.
>Seemingly disorganized, disparate groups using diverse methods to harass is
>a very old tactic employed by the USSR (and others, including the US) in
>years past. It is currently in use by terrorist groups that we all know.
>The spreading of disinformation is an old trick that continues to work well
>- even better with the Internet to help it. This is once again an example
>of [naive] perception becoming the asymptotic equivalent of reality.
Too much to say on this one. The observation cuts both ways. The activity
in question is so easily accomplished by almost any small ring of dedicated
code-heads, it could have been Elbonians who developed the virus and
planted it surreptitiously.
The related article on the GAO report seems particularly provocative. "...
is believed to have started at a university in
Guangdong, China." Without any further elaboration. Does the GAO maintain
foreign operatives that ferret out this information? Was the conclusion
based upon some kind of firsthand evidence? Perhaps a leak from a U.S.
security agency? Or was the statement simply a reflection of the
"consensus gut feeling". Curiously gratuitous offering from a
> >From the "Trust But Verify" Division:
>Re The PRC Government's denial of involvement in Code Red: How difficult is
>it to flatly deny something you know with certainty can't be conclusively
>proven, especially when you control the source?
Not sure what you mean by "control the source". I can "flatly deny"
involvement myself (or, claim to be the actual author, having subsequently
destroyed all source material.) What percentage of people who hear this
proclamation would be in a position to assess its accuracy?
For that matter, suppose both that China "created or endorsed" this virus,
and knew that it could be "conclusively proven" (to some tiny band of
highly compartmented analysts.) What harm would there be in "flatly
denying" involvement? Some 99.99% of the audience would have no way to
appreciate or understand such a "proof of involvement". What would China
care about the fact that some tiny number of people know that the denial
was a falsehood? Do they get assessed some extra penalty points in the big
(Man, this iwar/misinformation stuff can make you real cynical ;)
Tony Bartoletti 925-422-3881 <azb@...
Information Operations, Warfare and Assurance Center
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Livermore, CA 94551-9900