Text archives Help


Re: [projectvrm] Gartner Goes Scifi on Security - But what if we also had VRM?


Chronological Thread 
  • From: Kevin Cox < >
  • To: Peter Cranstone < >
  • Cc: Dan Blum < >, ProjectVRM list < >
  • Subject: Re: [projectvrm] Gartner Goes Scifi on Security - But what if we also had VRM?
  • Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 09:13:43 +1000
+1 for "me to thee" or peer to peer - and getting it right.

This is what I mean by complex systems working out how to survive.  What happens is that the peer to peer interactions between entities follow rules.  A good way (I would say the only viable way) to control very complex systems is to adjust and tweak those peer to peer interactions and "see what happens".  That is we run a set of experiments to see what works and what doesn't work when we change the peer to peer rules and processes.

It all goes pear shape when people run their scenarios and think they have a magic bullet - or a way of getting and maintaining advantage over others.  They then try to impose their solution top down on the system.  This leads to inefficient sub-optimal systems.  

Kevin

 





On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 8:05 AM, Peter Cranstone < " target="_blank"> > wrote:
I'd sum that up as 'personalizing communications' - between 'Me' and 'whomever'. Everything becomes one to one as one for many settings are clearly not working.





Peter


I an thinking along the lines that if the "neighborhood watch" scenario also assumed individuals starting to employ tools like VRM the tools would empower them to COLLABORATE with businesses and government. In Gartner's webinar, the only empowerment tools discussed were "darknets" and "walled gardens" which ISOLATE individuals. 

Personal clouds and intent-casting tools do have an isolation function in the permissioning, like a walled garden, but they can also be seen as what Dr Ann Kavoukian calls a "positive-sum" solution that creates new ways of collaborating, communicating 

It could be gentle control shift. How much better does the neighborhood watch scenario look if we take into account the more positive ways that individuals can be empowered for good purposes as well as the ways that individuals can be empowered to isolate themselves or defend themselves?

Respect Network


On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Peter Cranstone < " target="_blank"> > wrote:
I believe they call that the 'nuclear option'.





Peter


All will be well.

Complex systems find ways of ensuring their own survival. 

Kevin




On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 12:46 AM, Peter Cranstone < " target="_blank"> > wrote:
Great blog post. 

I don't see any one solution, just a mix of solutions that work for your lifestyle and risk tolerance. It's becoming so complicated that few will understand it by 2020. A defense in depth strategy will become a must.



Peter


(I had to send this twice because I message up the links the first time - sorry :-)

In the Gartner Goes Scifi: Four Future Security Scenarios  blog post this morning I review a cool webinar from Gartner wherein they use scenario-based analysis to project what will happen in the next five years given the targeting of cyberattacks on individuals and well as enterprises and the conflicting forces for authority. 

Cliff notes: 
Two "government run amok" scenarios are: Regulated Risk, Controlling Parent
Two "chaos rules" scenarios are: Coalition Rules, Neighborhood Watch

I think folks on this list would really like Richard Hunter (who was the speaker, although I know that creating these scenarios was a group effort). He's one of the most ethical analysts I know. However, while In the post above, I pretty much just admired the webinar, I do have some reservations about what might have been missed.

Richard said that one of the cardinal errors in scenario-based planning is not pushing far enough into the corners of the scenarios. In pushing towards the corners, Gartner's work comes up with what he admits are some pretty morally or economically repugnant projections. The "neighborhood watch" scenario, for example, projects that government authority will decline, cybercrime will run amok, and individuals will form e-militias so that we kind of end up like the "Gangs of New York." In this gloomy corner case, it seems like empowering individuals, the democratization of IT, has been a bad thing. And indeed, since governments and large institutions experience individual empowerment as chaos (and Gartner's audience is those large enterprises) that's understandable.

But I thought I'd bounce this off the VRM and pcloud lists because what I love about the participants is the generally optimistic view that empowering individuals can be a good thing. What if we could re-imagine Gartner's "neighborhood watch" or any of the other quadrants in another way?

Perhaps in scenario planning it can be just as much an error to not push into the center as it is to not push into the corners. Because one needs to at least think about all the possibilities before concluding. What if empowered individuals, enterprises and authorities pushed toward the center and came up with non-repugnant fusion of the good elements of the four corners?

Please, friends, check out my Gartner Goes Scifi post and the webinar as well and let me know what you think. 

Let's imagine together!


Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19.