The United States needs a unifying information strategy. America’s adversaries gain political and military advantages every day the U.S. goes without clear priorities in the current information war. To succeed, American military leaders and political scientists emphasize prioritizing the us
Defenders have not gained any lasting advantage from four decades’ worth of innovation.
Editor’s Note: This is the fourth installment in “Off Guard,” a series on surprise in war inspired by a new CSIS study. Read the rest of the series here. Saddam Hussein and George W. Bush saw different worlds in early 2003, but shared a common belief: Each was certain that his read of the strategic situation was
Aleksandr Kogan, Cambridge Analytica and Facebook face a dizzying array of legal problems. In an attempt to clear its good name, Facebook is creating the political conditions for its downfall.
Wise words on risks of accuracy in profiling, customized crafting of messages, impersonation and loss of confidence in authentication of individual. I am not sure how otherwise relevant scale and speed of AI can be. Limitations on information input, absorption and processing capability of human beings are blessings that cap the output power any information presentation system. The danger is not in death by a thousand cuts of utterly confused and zombie citizens, but one mission bullets which then are not effective for mass deception, and easier to defend against their best logical targets of critical decision makers.
Today, waging information warfare is a manpower-intensive effort. What if that changes?
Presidents and generals depend upon timely intelligence to shape their decisions in a world of ambiguity, hostile actors and disinformation. The savviest leaders in the private sector do the same. Governments have broad intelligence authorities and powerful tools unavailable to the private sector, but they do not have a monopoly on the application of intelligence.
The EU data law is scheduled to take effect May 25.
But then so many people on FB are legends in their own minds and curate their profile to scream so.
From the information coherence perspective, the requirement of longer running, more consistent public information with independent public validations (interactions, relationships, location presence, etc.) makes the personas not concurrently replicable, transferable or reusable. (Not taking into account creating fake social media cross referenced identities on the fly which is done for law enforcement and undercover purposes but not for deep cover.)
The required exposure and public undercover networks are also mutual damage multipliers. Once burnt they are operationally finished with cascading affects. Add instant facial recognition, biometrics and a whole network can get nuked before they know. The technology is not future, it is operational now.
In the age of social media, where the complete absence of a detailed social media presence can be a red flag, how do spies conceal their identity?
On May and June 2013, when New Orleans’ murder rate was the sixth-highest in the United States, the Orleans Parish district attorney handed down two landmark racketeering indictments against dozens of men accused of membership in two violent Central City drug trafficking gangs, 3NG and the 110ers. Members of both gangs stood accused of committing 25 murders as well as several attempted killings and armed robberies.
Very nice thought through paper. The challenge is in the details and implementation. Practically impossible to arrive at common baseline standards, implement and monitor/ensure compliance and change.
A new paper from New America introduces a novel framework for data flow controls.