Home Up INFOSEC Tomorrow Object INFOSEC Transitions Compartment of Memory




Multimedia Information Security Expectations



Multimedia Communication Demands

Multimedia is the principal presentation and distribution technology emerging from data network and distributed processing communications.   Multimedia is also a rational progression from desktop publishing technologies.  With the advent of open system design in software and hardware, multimedia is here and is changing the expectations users have of computer information.   Because of the widespread adoption of all types of computer information into "multimedia productions,"  the security of multimedia is a hot topic.  Until recently, security experts assumed that traditional INFOSEC models, involving system high or end to end encryption, could be directly adapted to all impending multimedia environments.  The underlying security philosophies of traditional INFOSEC model remain similar to the models presented for paper cable traffic available since the late 1940's.  Localized policies regulate what can and can't be communicated.  What has changed is the basic nature of  the information to be communicated, transported, stored and retrieved.  In 1988, the Congressional Board of the 100th Congress wrote a paper entitled " Overview of Science, Technology, and the Constitution" (OTA-BP-CIT-43)  In this paper they said,  "Our way of life in the U.S has, to a large extent, been shaped by changes in science and technology.  And as we enter our third century of constitutional history, these changes are likely to continue with increased importance."   Widespread application of multimedia presents an acute problem for both outdated INFOSEC security models and outdated expectations of security in society.[1]  Any future INFOSEC solution must interact successfully with the essential qualities of multimedia, qualities that involve enhanced user performance.

Multimedia represents an aggregate of  "objects", consisting of audio, visual and textual information.  Conceptually, each "information object" has many flavors and durations.  Multimedia has an underlying objective of the transmission of more than just the symbolic information of text or literal and symbolic qualities of images and graphics.  Operationally, multimedia represents a production of values that is designed be transmitted and reproduced in concert with the cognitive nature of receiver.  Because multimedia is an engagement of interactions between the author and the receiver,  it is most complex.  The complexity of multimedia is much more than the complexity of the technologies.  Like the nature of fine art and science, for which it shall serve, it is the nature of multimedia that the whole of the qualities are greater than the sum of the parts.[2]  This is due in part because multimedia is a receiver oriented form of communication, whose effects are often more related to interactive video production than text processing.  Information in the form of standard text does not have the same human impact as well designed multimedia.  Any restriction or timing delay of the elements of multimedia can change that impact on the receiver and can significantly change the message of the author.  The question is: Can a generic multimedia INFOSEC model be developed to insure security without affecting performance? The answer is simply that it must.  Multimedia INFOSEC solutions that do not perform well enough can either be ignored or, when enforced, present a crippling overhead to operational resources.

INFOSEC models that have worked in favor of  National Security in the past are inadequate for the complexity of multimedia and our distributed processing society.  The purpose of this paper is to discuss fundamental technical implications of multimedia security and present an strong and dynamic alternative INFOSEC data separation model that can operate within future multimedia systems.  

Traditional INFOSEC models provide security for systems by using a arrangement of unyielding standards and policies that often limit the potential software applications that can be used.  Today's more advanced Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) multimedia software  take advantage of many kinds of simultaneously input and output formats.  It is certain that these systems will become more complex and will be designed take advantage of the user's every physical sense, in order to better communicate and interact faster and more effectively.  If INFOSEC models remain fixed, as multimedia software becomes more common and more sophisticated, the INFOSEC model will, through operational necessity, be forced to relax rigid policies in favor of user performance.  If so, there could be two potential destructive  side effects.  First, rigid INFOSEC security policies could be maintained in spite of performance.   Second,  with no viable options at hand,  existing INFOSEC security policies risk being forced to relax and reduced or simply wavered for the convenience of operational production. 


Even without the complexity of multimedia, the United States national security policy has been confronted with a gulf of problems associated with realizing empirical validity across different organizational  INFOSEC models.[RDF1]   Cross organizational INFOSEC problems can be traced to a fundamental conflict of philosophies associated with inappropriate integration of open and closed systematic approaches to communication and information security along with  illogical data classification policies. [3]   To more clearly understand "why" these conflicts occur it is important to maintain a high view of the problems.  The assessment of information security must be  presented and  considered from open and natural organizational communications and Information Science perspectives.[4][RDF2]    From this level, information security problems most often occur because there are critical philosophical gaps in the rational for embedding INFOSEC products across open and closed communities of networks and systems doing similar work.  Traditional INFOSEC approaches often involve expensive integration of security products that protect explicit links in the communications paths between organizations .  As new technology comes and goes, new and less secure data paths arise as a byproduct of unplanned organizational engineering requirements and normal organizational change.    Because of this, many of today's INFOSEC models began by generalizations of requirements but operate by an unending series of costly "security bandaids."  Tracking "what is, as opposed to what should be" and "what is expected" becomes the all time consuming effort of an army of INFOSEC "experts."  The result under existing INFOSEC models is that as information systems become more complex so too has the model.  The more complex the INFOSEC model the more INFOSEC "experts" are required to manage the complexity.  This adds up to enormous cost to the organization in the form of overhead, loss of productivity and unknown expense in missed human to human communication.  All of this occurs because the appropriate paths for communication were not available and/or were not secure.  Inappropriate INFOSEC multimedia models could amplify this problem and, as we shall see, significantly distort the message in much the same manner as the product of poor editing of censors preparing film for television.  Multimedia will drive technologies to improving INFOSEC solutions and asking fundamental questions concerning what we know about this problem.  There are two questions that must be considered essential to providing a multimedia INFOSEC solution.  (1.) Why is  the present INFOSEC lacking?  (2.) How can a solution be best approached?


All INFOSEC models must formally and fundamentally deal with risk.  These risks include, but are not limited to those risks associated with the formation and maintenance of axiomatic security policies.   Present INFOSEC  policy suffers from the inability to maintain axiomatic  policies with rapidly changing technologies and shifting user needs.  Security becomes problematic and difficult for organizations to adhere when meeting operational needs.  INFOSEC can too quickly become a barrier to organizational production demand.  Pitted against the survival of organizational production, INFOSEC wavers are then either formally or informally authorized, creating uncharted craters in the INFOSEC model.    Even under ideal circumstances, barriers to information access are a continual and difficult problem and cause dangerous gaps of information provided to analysts and decision makers.[5]  


From the organizational view, a typical INFOSEC  model simply describes many virtues, rules and requirements of information security without directly bridging them to issues of organizational performance.  It mostly consists of do this and don't do that.  This causes at least two often conflicting views for designing information security measures.  For users and managers who are interested primarily in results, traditional information security  measures are viewed as policies that tend to degrade both individual and organizational performances.   Viewed from a the security management perspective, INFOSEC protects the opportunity of the individuals to perform through the protection of critical information.  Once an organizational INFOSEC model is designed, risk analysis to determine the continuing viability of INFOSEC is rarely performed.  The machinery of security remains in place often as artifacts for which organizations have learned to budget future resources.  The cost of doing reoccurring information systems security analysis as well as the uncertainty of occurring risks may prevail year after year.  Why not leave the existing security measures in place and integrate other measures as required?  The answer is that the organizational requirement for quality  information that is "just in time" parallels the production models for modern manufacturing.   Technologies are rapidly evolving critical definitions and applications of information.[6]  New technologies will generate new questions that shift the fundamental nature of security to quality performance issues.  Industries are openly operating in environments of ever higher competitive markets while Government programs and organizations are engaged in a dance of shifting competition for funding. 


The premium preoccupation of security experts has been  that security was is equated to organizational survival.  Because of the argument that organizational survival is "essential," it was easy to persuade managers of the need for "absolute" security solutions.  Security products often provide "absolute" security by limiting user performance.  Very little work has been done by security designers to intentionally improve existing organizational performance and communication quality using modern security technologies.  The traditional direction of security engineers has stressed damage control over performance improvement.  Can quality INFOSEC  models be designed and  developed not only to protect but also to enhance individual and organizational performance in an age of  computer mediated audio, video, hypertext and graphics?  Can INFOSEC be integrated so intimately with improved performance that security is virtual to the operation of the system?  The short answer is that for multimedia to be productive and successful as communications technologies in secure environments, it must!   Quality INFOSEC solutions should be a virtual byproduct of increased organizational system performance.  Modern programming techniques and strategies can reverse many of the differences and much of the cost by implementing  a fundamentally integrated and automated "Virtual INFOSEC Systems Architecture."  Virtual INFOSEC represents the expectation that the burden of future INFOSEC policy will not be born by organizational members.  INFOSEC will be hidden from the user,  encapsulated in the systems that users operate.  At the heart of  Virtual INFOSEC there is no requirement for users to be INFOSEC system aware.  The systems that users operate would take care of the INFOSEC requirement.  Taking maximum advantage of technology,  Virtual INFOSEC policies will provide empirical solutions to data categorizing and aggression issues as well as data, information, and knowledge separation.[7] 


To  provide a consistent philosophical baseline for multimedia security we need to reconsider the rock bottom rational, the natural foundations of INFOSEC.  We must rediscover and realign what we know of modern Information Science philosophies and in the process update our conceptions of INFOSEC.   In doing this, we can view INFOSEC free of much of the technical and political bias that often cloud policy making judgments.  There is a swarm of views concerning what makes good INFOSEC.  They range from problematic observations to forecasts.  The observation that the final objective of multimedia is direct communication of human minds through the full use of human senses is enough to set off a storm of controversy.  Statements that multimedia's final potential is the process of computer mediated communication using many human physical and cognitive senses to convey meaning and understanding (knowledge) might also be just as controversial to others.  Multimedia is a general term meaning many things to different people.   It can also be a general solution for many specific problems.  Like all general solutions multimedia invokes opportunistic responses and also resistance due to personal investment.  Multimedia is a term that implies the adaptation of technologies to presentations and interactions that are appropriate to desired physiology's and cognitive products.  Multimedia can therefore be considered akin to both psychology and physiology  and the "natural human to human" communication process.  What happens to idea of security if in multimedia technologies if we agree that multimedia is leading to a fuller and more natural way of communication using modern technologies?  

If INFOSEC can be thought of as a natural process, what can we learn from natural models? 

Signals are used to communicate information and communication of information by signaling is not unique to man.    It is therefore follows that many of the applied information security issues are not unique to humans.   Animals have been communicating, intercepting and mimicking each other naturally for millions of years.  These organisms represent communications and INFOSEC systems that interact and compete.  Certain species of fireflies, for instance, mimic the mating signals of other species, to eat them when they arrive.[RDF3]   

Information science begins as a natural science.  INFOSEC can be considered a natural part of information science.[8]   From this perspective, there is a wealth  of important information to be learned and many immediate advantages for understanding. There are many fundamental questions that can be posed for meeting our objective of rationally specifying the INFOSEC data separation model that can enhance future multimedia systems and organizational communications.

This World has always been a very dangerous place for both man and beast.  Was communication originally created to sustain organizations of interacting interdependent life?  We know that survival of an individual's genetic memory is not always enough to promote survival of a distinct species.  From the point where the first two single cells, by accident, or by act of God,  found each other, clung to each other and then thrived, there has existed a need to communicate between organisms.  For microorganisms, communication of individual existence and common needs were certainly the first requirement for cooperation and interaction between independent cells. 

Millions of years of cyclic evolutionary successes by independent cells have produced the elaborate multicelled organisms we conceptualize as independent animals.   Modern man may take for granted the fact that very dissimilar internal cells of animals communicate through biological and genetic messages to cooperate for the good of the body.  Perhaps it is the nature of civilized man to forget that the philosophies of our modern computer technologies are founded on early perceptions of these discoveries, many within our lifetime.   It is more than blind oversight to consider the act of communication between human beings within organizations and then ignore the opportunity for fundamental first principal observations found in natural organizational communications models.  If organizations of people communicating independently and in groups across boundaries securely is an INFOSEC problem, then there is much that can be learned and directly applied through observation of natural models whose successful design must be based on the successfully secure solutions of private and public transfer of information between competitive and cooperative species.  This is a point that is not within the scope of this paper and is best to be resolved in future basic research.  At the same time, the issue of natural INFOSEC is brought forward for two reasons.  First, in many ways much of modern hardware and software science technologies are designed and operate in cellular progression. Second, modern research over the last three decades have presented more appropriate models of human organizations than the traditional mechanical view of dynamics often referenced in "wiring diagrams" of authority.  These models have been well researched and are often based on Natural Systems theories found in the Natural Sciences. Converging philosophies of the physical, logical and natural sciences have driven home unique opportunities for the true integration of  INFOSEC into both the intimate functional model of the organization and the enabling technological transport.

Humans have inherited requirements for both  inter and intra organizational communication that arise from the same source of requirements as fireflies, or micro cells in our environment.  The message remains much the same, "This World is still a very dangerous place and survival of single organisms are not enough to promote the survival of a society."


Improved Communication Improves Organizational Sensitivity To The Environment

Security in any natural system is never as simple as it may first seem .   This is due in part to the notion that survival may have many incongruent qualities associated with success.   It is rational to assume that the animal brain evolved from the fact that simple automatic reflex actions associated with light and sound were not enough to assure success of total cell group survival.  For animals, more information could be acquired from light and audio stimulation, information that presents opportunistic solutions, and information that is secure of natural or induced external error.   Like most animals, individual human beings balance survival both as a society of communicating interdependent cells and associated interdependent beings forming communicating groups. 

Like animals, people use their brain to infer the presence of danger from all possible senses.   To survive, brains must be capable of taking a maximum of appropriate sensory activations and quickly associate the activations with the presence of environmental danger.  There is a physical limitation to the speed and sensitivity at which this process can take place, but there is also a system that improves the correctness, and therefore the survival security of the activations.   Both animals and humans naturally group together as organized supersystems to improve the potential of such sensory activations, to communicate,  and through interaction,  amplify and often re transmit (maintain) the urgency of the danger.

Organizational supersystem structures impart a high degree of sensitivity and complexity to the communications process.  An ant colony is often presented as a "body" for instance.  Organized complexity has both an overhead and a reward for all groups.   Errors associated with organized transmission and recognition communicated danger signals must be reduced for the good of the body.  The use of multiple senses, such as those found in the audio, visual and tactile senses,  reduce the prospect of imperfect environment noise by redistributing the potential of error across different dimensions of time and space.  Moreover, multiple senses act to authenticate the communicator's intentions and state of mind.    Like our ancient ancestors, modern organized people still depend on groups to amplify their senses in detection of danger and performance of critical work.  We reduce error and authenticate through multiple senses.  We build our organizations to reach common goals through communications in very similar ways as our ancestors. 


Nonverbal organizational action is a form of communication that greatly improves group reaction time, allowing members critical reaction time to take appropriate independent action and save itself.       Schools of fish, flocks of birds and herds of grazing animals all use organizational action as a basis of communicating danger.  For natural nonverbal organizational action to act as a form of communication  requires learning in the presence of a group in a dangerous environment.  We may consider hand gestures and movement of face muscle as nonverbal forms of communication.  Nonverbal communication is not necessarily primitive, in fact it is often very sophisticated.  Consider that many social scientists believe that over 80 percent of information transferred between people working in contact with each other is presented and received as  nonverbal information.  It is speech or text that may quickly represent procedure and concept but it seems that it is often that nonverbal glance that can often prioritize the importance or lend credence to the overall message.  The multisensual presentation of information is essential to both the convergence of the cognitive state of the communicator and to the authentication of the message.

 Did people have incentives to learn to communicate through symbols rather than just nonverbal action?   The advantages of group security humans enjoy today hinge on the fact that the actual presence of danger is no longer absolutely necessary.  Individual people can be informed of the indications of danger and understand that danger without ever having experienced it.  The communication of information through symbolic information provides groups of humans with more individuals capable of predicting more than what they personally witness. [9]   Accepted symbols of the community have come to represent or replace many of the direct actions of the group.  It appears that most truly fundamental communications are associated in some way with survival information to the individual as a part of an organization.  Security information is still the principal obligation an individual maintains as a member of  any organization.

A lot of communication is necessary in organizations that insist on ordered information in propriety.  Clearly the largest and most important commodity of our modern society is information. Without good information, humans can't make good decisions.  This observation doesn't mean that good results can't come from bad decisions, or that bad results don't come from the best of decisions.   Humans don't always accept or act on good or bad information.  The maintenance of the proper supply of good and truthful information allows individuals more opportunities to improve upon independent decision  making and thus their independent survival prospects.  Information systems that attempt to impose external INFOSEC solutions on individuals, where immediate organizational survival directly conflicts with individual survival, are fundamentally flawed. 

The process of information sharing is critical for the very existence of  organized people.  Simplistic notions that organizational decisions are directly made and actions are directly taken does not consider the requirement of communication for facilitating planning, decision making and ultimate actions.  Organizations are designed more to facilitate the communication process than for any other reason.  The ways in which societies are ordered affect the production and sharing of information.  Trustworthy information provides mankind with the quality of life associated with informed choices.   Those activities surrounding the sharing of information are often the predominate processes of organizations. 

History effectively demonstrates that organizations and societies as well as individual humans and animals compete for different qualities necessary for survival.  Societies of our time produce and share immense quantities of information.    Organizational communication can be seen as a series of networked objects with tangled dynamic pathways that stream together for common purpose.   When viewed from these higher perspectives it is the organizational communications pathways that represent the true formal organizational communication boundaries.

From a technological perspective, data communication begins as binary elements representing either an "on" or "off," "yes" or "no."  Enough "yes" or "no" data elements and  it is the complex association of "yes" and "no" that can be considered as information.   The act of association requires the act of remembering previous data elements.  Loss of one or more data elements changes the context of the information and therefore the meaning.  It is the association of these elements together and the individual's memory of data elements in data groups that give meaning not provided by any single data element alone. 

At the same time, most data must be lost for information to be understood.  This is because it simply isn't true  that data alone represents information.   Most data in the World is simply representing noise from an individual's perspective.  The choice of what is noise and should be lost and what isn't and should be maintained is vital to the information in context.

Data is useful only if exploitable by the assumption that there are detectable relationships to other data along with further refinements and evaluations that can be transformed into new information.  Data must be presented in context with other data to make sense as a body of information.[10]  For data to become information, other relative data must preexist and must therefore be accountable.  It is therefore this associated matrix of data that becomes information. 

Using similar reasoning, it is an associated matrix of information that becomes knowledge.  Knowledge is thus built of information, which in turn is built upon data as differentiated from noise.  The lowest of organisms might function well with data as their highest order of communications.  Larger and more complex animals must improve their survival performance by responding to information. 

Humans attempt to use knowledge as the basis of formulating  communications and actions.  Organizations in turn rely on intricate inter and intra personal relationships to organize the rational transfer of information and act on the formulated knowledge.   Along with the increase in complexities of organizations have come increased complexities in the communications process itself. 

Denial of internal organizational information can be the result of guileless organizational or individual error, or the intentional falsification or expunging of data and/or information.  People can't freely act for or against things they don't know of, but people can and often do act on information that is incomplete and/or incorrect.

The Protection of the integrity and distribution of information through organizational communication channels is vital to the transformation of knowledge into organizational action.  All information, formal and informal,  operates to reduce uncertainty and introduce bias for organizational members to act or not to act.    

The intentional falsification or expunging of organizational information is the modification of organizational knowledge.  Falsification changes information and therefore knowledge during knowledge transfer.    Expunging information also modifies knowledge as transferred.  Thus the same organizational consequences are found both in altered information and completely fabricated information.  

Expunged information may lead to gaps in information that are detectable.  Altered information carries an additional distinction of often being more difficult to initially detect  simply because the information may be partially true.  The parts that are true could have originated within legitimate organizational channels.   Altered information carefully inserted can be much more difficult to correct in organizations because it can be tailored to support existing individual and organizational bias for or against change.

The methods and qualities associated with the classification of information are intimately tied to the organizational information flow process.  Information is usually qualified relative to it's known function.  Generally this qualification is associated to the accomplishment of a particular organizational mission.  In many organizations, however, the idea of information classification is pinned to the organizational structure.  Analysts in intelligence communities, for instance, are often required to place classifications on information simply because they wrote a document.  Their position in context to the material becomes the overriding criteria for the classification process.  As we can see, local policy can irrationalize the process of information classification where information sensitivity and organizational structure are also at stake.

It is often said in such organizations that where everything is classified, nothing is classified.

At issue here is not just the logic and rationality of the data classification process, but what is more important for INFOSEC, the central question of a logical and rational process of data separation.  How does one maintain multi-level data separation, and at higher levels, information and knowledge separation on highly integrated networks?  Certainly the logical aspects of security can be demonstrated and local rationales for classification proven to exist in different forms.  The major difficulty arises in the maintenance and adjudication of information classification across organizational boundaries.  Assume for instance that the logical means of classification are uniform in a given system of cooperative and interactive organizations.  One organization's culture might heavily weight the classification of that information concerning the performance of information in meeting chartered objectives.  A second organization, might classify information more heavily toward the sensitivities associated with hierarchical positions.  Assume that there is a reason for these two organizations to communicate.  They have good reason to accept and use each other's data. 


In this scenario there are several types of classification errors that can occur which can ultimately lead to serious INFOSEC data separation compromise.  One type of classification errors would occur when information that should not have been classified at a particular level, was classified at that level or higher.  A different type classification error would occur when information that should have been classified to a particular level was not classified or was not classified to a high enough level.  In the case of the two organizational examples, there would be a high probably of both type one and type two security classification errors during  communication.  It is known that human value systems for decision making, such as make classification decisions, operate differently depending on the state of the environment.  Given that no two organizational environments can be exactly the same, classification will always present a problem for INFOSEC models as long as the classification of information is performed entirely by unaided humans.           

Part 2: INFOSEC Tomorrow

Part 3: Object Oriented INFOSEC Elements

Part 4: INFOSEC Transitions


Multimedia Defined


Text information is the basis of present computer communications.  Text information is both symbolic and coded.  The letters "IBM" for instance, represent symbolic and coded information.  Users can "infer" multiple meanings from text.  Text is not natural to humans.  All humans must learn the symbolization, grammar rules and spelling in order to read and write text.  Emotional information is represented symbolically in text.  Text is presented in standardized visual code.


All normal humans access and manipulate audio information.  Speech and hearing centers are integrated into human physiology and psychology from birth.  Humans can recognize minute differences in speech patterns.  Because of this, audio information can efficiently carry emotional information as well as logical information.  In conversations, timing and tonality is critical to meaning.


Humans are primarily visual creatures.  All normal humans access visual information.  Text information represents on a tiny proportion of visual information available to humans.  Most visual information is qualitatively interpreted by people.  When visual information shows certain qualities that are of interest, it is focused upon by the mind.  Humans can perceive minute changes in visual information.


The process of using a rapid series of abstract static symbols to visually convey temporal change  among a group or groups of symbols.  Animation is often used to represent a simplified symbolic reality in order to convey complex concepts.


The activity of processing and providing processed visual information to people using electronic methods that accurately package, transmit and display qualities of the original scene.


  Justification for Decentralization of Communications 

from the Communist Manifesto, by Marx Karl/Engels Friedri

     Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the  hands of the state.              






Critique of Judgement                  by   Kant Immanuel              127


    Cognitions and judgments must, together with their attendant conviction, admit of being universally communicated; for otherwise a correspondence with the object would not be due to them. They would be a conglomerate constituting a mere subjective play of the powers of representation, just as skepticism would have it. But if cognitions  are to admit of communication, then our mental state, i.e., the way  the cognitive powers are attuned for cognition generally, and, in  fact, the relative proportion suitable for a representation (by  which an object is given to us) from which cognition is to result,  must also admit of being universally communicated, as, without this,  which is the subjective condition of the act of knowing, knowledge, as an effect, would not arise.   And this is always what actually happens  where a given object, through the intervention of sense, sets the  imagination at work in arranging the manifold, and the imagination, in  turn, the understanding in giving to this arrangement the unity of  concepts. But this disposition of the cognitive powers has a  relative proportion differing with the diversity of the objects that  are given. However, there must be one in which this internal ratio  suitable for quickening (one faculty by the other) is best adapted for  both mental powers in respect of cognition (of given objects)  generally; and this disposition can only be determined through feeling  (and not by concepts). Since, now this disposition itself must admit  of being universally communicated, and hence also the feeling of it  (in the case of a given representation), while again, the universal  communicability of a feeling presupposes a common sense: it follows  that our assumption of it is well founded. And here, too, we do not  have to take our stand on psychological observations, but we assume  a common sense as the necessary condition of the universal  communicability of our knowledge, which is presupposed in every  logic and every principle of knowledge that is not one of scepticism.




  Critique of Judgement                        Kant Immanuel    

  Eventually, when civilization has reached its height it makes this  work of communication almost the main business of refined inclination,  and the entire value of sensations is placed in the degree to which  they permit of universal communication. At this stage, then, even  where the pleasure which each one has in an object is but  insignificant and possesses of itself no conspicuous interest, still  the idea of its universal communicability almost indefinitely augments  its value.


Justification Of the Need For Private Communications


Rights of Man                                Paine Thomas         








Object Oriented  Knowledge from  the Dialogues of Socrates

Charmides                                     by Plato                      35


    And if we could find something which is at once greater than itself, and greater than other great things, but not greater than those things  in comparison of which the others are greater, then that thing would  have the property of being greater and also less than itself?

    That, Socrates, he said, is the inevitable inference.

      Or if there be a double which is double of itself and of other  doubles, these will be halves; for the double is relative to the half?

    That is true.

    And that which is greater than itself will also be less, and that  which is heavier will also be lighter, and that which is older will  also be younger: and the same of other things; that which has a nature  relative to self will retain also the nature of its object: I mean  to say, for example, that hearing is, as we say, of sound or voice. Is  that true?


    Then if hearing hears itself, it must hear a voice; for there is  no other way of hearing.


    And sight also, my excellent friend, if it sees itself must see a  colour, for sight cannot see that which has no colour.


    Do you remark, Critias, that in several of the examples which have  been recited the notion of a relation to self is altogether  inadmissible, and in other cases hardly credible-inadmissible, for  example, in the case of magnitudes, numbers, and the like?

    Very true.

      But in the case of hearing and sight, or in the power of  self-motion, and the power of heat to burn, this relation to self will  be regarded as incredible by some, but perhaps not by others. And some  great man, my friend, is wanted, who will satisfactorily determine for  us, whether there is nothing which has an inherent property of  relation to self, or some things only and not others; and whether in  this class of self-related things, if there be such a class, that  science which is called wisdom or temperance is included. I altogether  distrust my own power of determining these matters: I am not certain  whether there is such a science of science at all; and even if there  be, I should not acknowledge this to be wisdom or temperance, until  I can also see whether such a science would or would not do us any  good; for I have an impression that temperance is a benefit and a  good. And therefore, O son of Callaeschrus, as you maintain that  temperance or wisdom is a science of science, and also of the  absence of science, I will request you to show in the first place,  as I was saying before, the possibility, and in the second place,  the advantage, of such a science; and then perhaps you may satisfy  me that you are right in your view of temperance.

    Critias heard me say this, and saw that I was in a difficulty; and  as one person when another yawns in his presence catches the infection  of yawning from him, so did he seem to be driven into a difficulty  by my difficulty. But as he had a reputation to maintain, he was  ashamed to admit before the company that he could not answer my  challenge or determine the question at issue; and he made an  unintelligible attempt to hide his perplexity. In order that the  argument might proceed, I said to him, Well then Critias, if you like,  let us assume that there is this science of science; whether the  assumption is right or wrong may hereafter be investigated.

  Admitting the existence of it, will you tell me how such a science  enables us to distinguish what we know or do not know, which, as we  were saying, is self-knowledge or wisdom: so we were saying?

    Yes, Socrates, he said; and that I think is certainly true: for he  who has this science or knowledge which knows itself will become  like the knowledge which he has, in the same way that he who has  swiftness will be swift, and he who has beauty will be beautiful,  and he who has knowledge will know. In the same way he who has that  knowledge which is self-knowing, will know himself.

    I do not doubt, I said, that a man will know himself, when he  possesses that which has self-knowledge: but what necessity is there  that, having this, he should know what he knows and what he does not  know?

    Because, Socrates, they are the same.

      Very likely, I said; but I remain as stupid as ever; for still I  fail to comprehend how this knowing what you know and do not know is  the same as the knowledge of self.

    What do you mean? he said.

    This is what I mean, I replied: I will admit that there is a science  of science;-can this do more than determine that of two things one  is and the other is not science or knowledge?

    No, just that.

    But is knowledge or want of knowledge of health the same as  knowledge or want of knowledge of justice?

      Certainly not.

    The one is medicine, and the other is politics; whereas that of  which we are speaking is knowledge pure and simple.

    Very true.

    And if a man knows only, and has only knowledge of knowledge, and  has no further knowledge of health and justice, the probability is  that he will only know that he knows something, and has a certain  knowledge, whether concerning himself or other men.


      Then how will this knowledge or science teach him to know what he  knows? Say that he knows health;-not wisdom or temperance, but the art  of medicine has taught it to him; and he has learned harmony from  the art of music, and building from the art of building, neither, from  wisdom or temperance: and the same of other things.

    That is evident.

    How will wisdom, regarded only as a knowledge of knowledge or  science of science, ever teach him that he knows health, or that he  knows building?

    It is impossible.

    Then he who is ignorant of these things will only know that he  knows, but not what he knows?


    Then wisdom or being wise appears to be not the knowledge of the  things which we do or do not know, but only the knowledge that we know  or do not know?

    That is the inference.

    Then he who has this knowledge will not be able to examine whether a  pretender knows or does not know that which he says that he knows: he will only know that he has a knowledge of some kind; but wisdom  will not show him of what the knowledge is?

    Plainly not.

     Neither will he be able to distinguish the pretender in medicine from the true physician, nor between any other true and false  professor of knowledge.


Concerning the differences in the purpose & methods of media

   Critique of Judgment                        Kant Immanuel              284

    The arts of speech are rhetoric and poetry. Rhetoric is the  art of transacting a serious business of the understanding as if it  were a free play of the imagination; poetry that of conducting a  free play of the imagination as if it were a serious business of the  understanding.

    Thus the orator announces a serious business, and for the purpose of  entertaining his audience conducts it as if it were a mere play with  ideas. The poet promises merely an entertaining play with ideas, and  yet for the understanding there enures as much as if the promotion  of its business had been his one intention.


Concerning Knowledge & Aggregate Knowledge 

from Critique of Pure Reason         by      Kant Immanuel              52


    But, though all our knowledge begins with experience, it by no means  follows that all arises out of experience. For, on the contrary, it is  quite possible that our empirical knowledge is a compound of that  which we receive through impressions, and that which the faculty of  cognition supplies from itself (sensuous impressions giving merely the  occasion), an addition which we cannot distinguish from the original  element given by sense, till long practice has made us attentive to,  and skilful in separating it. It is, therefore, a question which  requires close investigation, and not to be answered at first sight,  whether there exists a knowledge altogether independent of experience,  and even of all sensuous impressions? Knowledge of this kind is called  a priori, in contradistinction to empirical knowledge, which has its  sources a posteriori, that is, in experience.    But the expression, "a priori," is not as yet definite enough  adequately to indicate the whole meaning of the question above  started. For, in speaking of knowledge which has its sources in experience, we are wont to say, that this or that may be known a  priori, because we do not derive this knowledge immediately from experience, but from a general rule, which, however, we have itself borrowed from experience.




Access to classified information:  (DOD, IADB)  The ability and opportunity to  obtain knowledge of classified information.  Persons have access to classified information if they are permitted to gain knowledge of the  information or if they are in a place where they would be expected to  gain such knowledge.  Persons do not have access to classified     information by being in a place where classified information is kept if security measures prevent them from gaining knowledge of the information.


Near real time:  (DOD)  Delay caused by automated processing and display between the occurrence of an event and reception of the data at some other location.  See also real time; reporting time interval.


Need to know :  (DOD, IADB)  A criterion used in security procedures which requires the custodians of classified information to establish, prior to disclosure, that the intended recipient must have access to the information to perform his official duties.




The following is from

Book:        Science, Technology, and the First Amendment

Author:      Udall, Morris K.

Affiliation: US Congress

Date:        1988


Individual database entries do not necessarily pose a threat to national security that would justify restraining them.  It is ostensibly the concatenation of individual database entries that raises national security concerns, but this concatenation may not be specifiable before a given database search. 

Satellites, computers, electronic bulletin boards, teletex, videotext, and other new ways of gathering, editing, and delivering news are blurring legal and regulatory distinctions between common carriers and "the press," thus changing arguments about the constitutional rights that they have each enjoyed.


    As science and technology become ever more important to our economy and our military strength, the delicate balance between individual rights and the national interest becomes both more important and more difficult to maintain.


      Taken together, advances in computers and telecommunications may change the concept of "the press" from one in which one organization publishes for many to one in which many share information amongst themselves.  With these changes will come new First Amendment challenges to the power of the government to regulate access to and ownership of communications media.  New technologies, such as electronic publishing, may not fit easily into old models of regulation, and First Amendment distinctions between the rights of print publishers, broadcasters, and common carriers will become increasingly difficult to justify.


           New capabilities for the press to gather, store, and retrieve information on individuals may require that rules of liability for constitutionally protected speech be reexamined.  The potential for technology to decentralize the editorial function may raise questions of editorial control and liability under the First Amendment.  And, in an era of global communications, the question of whether First Amendment rights extend to foreign speakers in this country, or to speakers in foreign countries when they are heard or read here, will also be raised.


     The open communication of scientific information - data, hypotheses, conclusions, explanatory theories, technological know-how - is a special kind of speech or publication.  There is no consensus on the question as to whether scientific communication enjoys the full protection provided by the First Amendment to political communications.  In a society in which science and technology play a central and critical role, this is an issue meriting continuing attention and debate.


     It is well established that scientific communication can be limited when necessary to protect national security. 


  As science and technology become ever more important to our economy and our military strength, the delicate balance between individual rights and the national interest becomes both more important and more difficult to maintain.


In a society in which science and technology play a central and critical role, this is an issue meriting continuing attention and debate.


     It is well established that scientific communication can be limited when necessary to protect national security.  But how severe can and should that limitation be?  As science and technology become ever more important to our economy and our military strength, the delicate balance between individual rights and the national interest becomes both more important and more difficult to maintain. 


     In fields such as mathematics, biology, or physics, basic research results in certain areas can have direct and immediate implications for technological development.  In those cases, where the line between basic knowledge (science) and its implementation (technology) becomes thin and difficult to discern, a balance between the right of expression and interests of the state in preserving security is very difficult to achieve.  There are likely to be many situations in the future in which the government will assert compelling reasons for limiting basic scientific communications.


Despite its origins in the context of printing, "freedom of the press" has come to be interpreted as protecting communication to the public generally, regardless of the medium. 


As the Supreme Court has said, "[press] comprehends every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion."  Moreover, while some have argued that freedom of the press was only intended to shield the dissemination of news and opinion, the protections of the First Amendment have been extended to protect scientific, literary, and artistic messages as well.

The "freedom of the press" had a more or less literal meaning; government was prohibited from licensing or otherwise controlling the use of the technology.



Computer Storage of Information

 The Software Toolworks Illustrated Encyclopedia (TM)

     (c) 1991 Grolier Electronic Publishing, Inc.


          In modern society the task of the storage and retrieval of vast  amounts of information has been taken over almost entirely by COMPUTER systems. No longer a tool exclusively for mathematical computation, the computer now handles large collections of information called DATABASES.

     Government agencies such as the Internal Revenue Service, the Social Security Administration, and the National Crime Information Center maintain databases, as do private industry (personnel records) and other organizations (medical records, credit records). Computer access to such stored information raises questions of great importance to modern society:

     How accurate is the information, and how can inaccuracies be corrected?

     Who has access to the information? How is improper or illegal access prevented? These questions are currently under study by computer scientists, lawmakers, and those with an interest in databases.


          Information is stored on various media by means of devices interfaced to computers. This storage is considered secondary, as opposed to the primary, internal COMPUTER MEMORY. Secondary memory has greater capacity than primary, but access is slower. Computer access to secondary memory  may take time on the order of several thousandths of a second up to several seconds. This speed is in contrast to primary memory access times of less than one-millionth of a second.

               Memory hierarchies extend to a tertiary, or archival, level with capacity for trillions of bits of information. An 8-million-word encyclopedia such as this one contains about 400 million bits of information (8 million words X 6 characters per word X 8 bits per character). A trillion-bit storage can store 2,500 times as much information as there is in such an encyclopedia, all of it directly  accessible to the computer.


  Title:     World Future Society predicts information jukeboxes.                Magazine:               Newsbytes, Jan 7, 1991  NEW01070021                                  

  Author:                McCormick, John

  Topics: World Future Society * Outlook * Jukebox Storage Systems * Optical Disks * Multimedia Technology

COPYRIGHT Newsbytes Inc. 1991


                                - FULL TEXT -


WORLD FUTURE SOCIETY PREDICTS INFORMATION JUKEBOXES 01/07/91 BETHESDA, MARYLAND, U.S.A., 1991 JAN 7 (NB) -- The World Future Society, a nonprofit scientific and educational association, has predicted that by the end of the century the average office will be transformed by an information jukebox that "shuffles" information and stores it in optical media. The prediction involves an integrated telephone, fax, photocopier, color printer, and computer, something that a number of industry observers have long rejected as impractical since the failure of one component would likely lead to the failure of the entire system.


In the published statement covering this report, the Society has apparently confused the music CD and the computer CD-ROM information storage system, but the author of the article told Newsbytes that his original article didn't make this basic mistake.


Samuel Bleecker, author of the article in the January-February issue of The Futurist, told Newsbytes that people would soon be receiving full color interactive brochures electronically rather than through the mail. Asked about the future of multimedia, Mr. Bleecker, a business technology consultant, pointed out that, while the present barrier to multimedia is the entry level cost of the hardware, just a year or two ago the cost of an 80386 was quite high but has recently dropped markedly.


The author of the story also predicted that portable computers linked together via cellular phone modems would become commonplace. (True in 1992 as well)


(John McCormick/19910104/Press Contact: Timothy Willard, World Future Society, 301-656-8274)


(c) 1991 Information Access Company



  #90191u2543..  07/10/1990 ~United Press International

     WASHINGTON (JULY 10) UPI -  An astronomer who cracked a computer spy ring warned Tuesday that computer security remains riddled with gaps and if the United States does not act now to develop standard safeguards it could lose out in the world market.


     Appearing at a Congressional hearing, Clifford Stoll, who tracked down the German hackers who stole U.S. military information by breaking into computer networkers, said he thinks Americans may be trailing other nations when it comes to developing practical ways of protecting computer information from such intrusion.


     Most U.S. security measures now under development center on protecting a single, large computer shared by dozens of users - a situation common 10 years ago, but now being supplanted by thousands of small, table-top computers hooked up to giant networks, Stoll said. Protection for such modern network systems ''is developing at a snail's pace, if at all,'' he said.


     Stoll told the House Science, Space and Technology subcommittee that England, France, Germany and the Netherlands have already hammered out a tentative set of standards for computer security. Those guidelines appear to ''pull in opposite directions'' of ideas being mulled over in the United States, and if the differences are not ironed out ''eventually we may not be able to sell computers in those countries,'' he said.


     ''It would be a wise idea to do it (set standards) here now so that we ... could set an example for others,'' said Stoll, who chronicled his pursuit of the German hackers in a 1989 book entitled ''The Cuckoo's Egg.''


     Rep. Robert Torricelli, D-N.J., chairman of the subcommittee, agreed, noting that past U.S. failures to adopt worldwide standards for electrical goods and railroads produced situations in which ''we find ourselves only able to market goods to ourselves.''


     Torricelli said he was disturbed by a recent General Accounting Office report, which found that as of January, federal agencies had implemented only one-third of 145 computer safeguards deemed necessary by the Computer Security Act of 1987.


     ''Terrorists shut down the Federal Aviation Administration's air traffic system in a new summer movie called 'Die Harder.' While most of the movie is farfetched, that basic premise is not. It could happen, and we have done very little to prevent it,'' said the New Jersey Democrat, whose committee watched short excerpts of the violent film starring Bruce Willis.


     But Stoll said, ''I don't see terrorist organizations taking over computer systems as a threat to national security.''


     James MacRae Jr. of the White House Office of Management and Budget criticized federal agencies' failure to quickly achieve the goals of the Computer Security Act.


     OMB has found ''pockets of ignorance'' about computer security in all agencies, MacRae said, adding that his staff plans to visit top agency managers and check their computer protection strategies.


     If progress is not seen soon, OMB may take stronger action. ''We have the ultimate weapon ... that is to de-fund some of the (computer) systems whose security plans are not adequate,'' MacRae said.


     Stoll emphasized the need to design security systems so they can be easily used by an average worker, like a secretary who uses a computer several hours a day. So far, most of the security plans ''seem to be very technical, very obscure, very hard to apply,'' he said.


     Most protection strategies also fail to take into account - or add as an afterthought - ways to protect against the devastation that can be caused by a rogue computer program, like the ''virus'' or ''worm'' that crashed a nationwide network in November 1988.




     -30- 3925


Cite Correctly -- Front-Page-News (tm) -- (c) Buckmaster Publishing



Critical Areas For MultiMedia Security Research & Development



[1]  The issues of privacy driven by  technologies that we use during the normal course of commercial and Government operations were not envisioned by our Founding Fathers.  The ready ability call up information about one person or project from a multitude of government or commercial databases, compare and integrate it and, in effect, create new information about that person without "official public" knowledge .  Multimedia provides the means to present this resulting "non official public knowledge" as products of powerful communication and  manipulation.  Using multimedia, a tide of sophisticated users will be able to present persuasive evidence for any interpretation of events they desire. 

[2]  The foundation of the "object" representing knowledge was proposed by Plato.  Plato wrote his famous analysis reasoning the nature of  knowledge as objects in the Socrates' Dialogues of Charmides, between 428 and 348 BC.

[3] In the closed system view, an ideal organization is  considered as a kind of information vessel, impermeable to unauthorized external information flow.  

[4] The open organizational systems approach views organizations as similar  to complex organisms in that the flow of intra organizational information is critical to the success of the organization. 

[5] The Software Toolworks Illustrated Encyclopedia (TM), (c) 1991 Grolier Electronic Publishing, Inc.,  "information science", Paragraph 2

    "It is common to speak of the present as the Information Age, or to refer to the information explosion. About 50 percent of all workers in the United States today are in some way involved in information processing.  Many people do not receive the right information at the right time,  however, because they are not aware the information exists, because they do not know where to look for it, or because it is buried in a mass of      extraneous information and is difficult to find."

[6] The Software Toolworks Illustrated Encyclopedia (TM), (c) 1991 Grolier Electronic Publishing, Inc., "information science" Paragraph 8                                         

    "A number of factors are coalescing today to make information science  quite different in the future. Computer conferencing uses sophisticated  computer networks to permit interchange of a great variety of computer conferencing messages among users. Although still experimental, computer conferencing shows promise of rapid development and may lead to the  integration of all current processes of generation, storage, and transfer of information. Advances in communication technology may produce the  "global village" envisioned by Marshall McLuhan--or they may instead lead  to greater isolation."

[7]Object Oriented communications systems will reduce the complexities of integrating new inter and intra organizational communications channels.

[8]The Software Toolworks Illustrated Encyclopedia (TM), (c) 1991 Grolier Electronic Publishing, Inc., "information science" Paragraph 1

    "Information science is the study of the ways in which organisms  process information. It embraces such disparate topics as the means of  genetic information processing in cells, the individual's use of  information concerning the environment, and the methods of human learning  and information generation. The dominant emphasis of information science today, however, is the last of these: human information processing at the conscious level. Information science integrates parts of other disciplines, such as biology, physics, computer science, sociology,  psychology, and librarianship, insofar as they involve human information  processing."

[9]   It is no accident that the term community and communication are similar words.

[10] When a lawyer presents a case in Court it is the body of the evidence that is presented to lead the jurors to the truth.  In the same concept, data is presented as a body, for the creation of information.

[11]In both cases, there would be required an adequate data sample on which to initially train.

[12]The Software Toolworks Illustrated Encyclopedia (TM), (c) 1991 Grolier Electronic Publishing, Inc., "information science" Paragraph 9                                                                         

          In the near future, a researcher who is engaged in experimental work and  needs the advice of colleagues in other locations may go to a computer  terminal and send a message concerning the work in progress. The  colleagues, at their own terminals, would receive the message, and reply at their convenience. This dialogue could continue for some time, until the researcher's work was completed, whereupon a report would be prepared  at the same terminal and transmitted by computer to the editor of a journal, to be considered for publication. After the editor receives it,   he or she would transmit it to reviewers who would judge its publication  worthiness and send their comments back to the editor, who would  synthesize them for the author. After revising the paper, the author would retransmit it; the editor would then arrange for it to go through  composition and publication in the journal. At the same time the paper would go to the abstracting and indexing services that covered it in their publications.

[13]  A major software engineering  effort is underway by the Object Management Group to use OOP to 'request' and broker information services from different types of programs and computer systems. 

Page: 2
 [RDF1] Much of INFOSEC arose from a heredity of hot and cold war policies which, by design, considered only organizationally closed information environments.

Page: 3
 [RDF2]   Organizational communication theory and Information Science philosophy is an important foundation for this paper because it provides a consistent rational means of considering essential security implementation.   These philosophies are root of the issues driving national information security policies. While National Security Policy also may be said to be rooted in National a National Security Philosophy, it is also often predicated on outdated technical and political philosophies.  To discuss the future of Information Security (IS) in future WorkStations requires a greater scope than can be expressed in the narrow concepts of the present IS policies.


Page: 6
 [RDF3] These natural systems are open. Nature is full of other examples.  The skill nature in masking and spoofing in divergent species in different environments is phenomenal.  Using color, sound and movement, each species counters anouther's advantage.





Copyright (c) 2001-2007 RDFollendoreIII All Rights Reserved