Kevin – your notions of "complex systems working out how to survive" echoes
the systems thinking work of Dave Snowden
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Snowden with a long but good pdf at
http://www.systemsthinkingsummit.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Dave-Snowden
-STS2012-Complexity-Sense-making.pdf
In summary – In the arena of Simple Systems where the relationship between
cause and effect is obvious to all, the approach is to Sense - Categorize -
Respond with ”Best Practices".
In the arena of Complicated Systems where the relationship between cause
and effect requires analysis or some other form of investigation and/or the
application of expert knowledge, the approach is to Sense - Analyze -
Respond with "good Practices".
In the arena of Complex Systems where the relationship between cause and
effect can only be perceived in retrospect, but not in advance, the approach
is to Probe - Sense - Respond with "Emergent Practice" --- or run
experiments as you describe Kevin.
And then there are Chaotic Systems where there is no relationship between
cause and effect at systems level, the approach is to Act - Sense - Respond
-- discover Novel Practice
From: Kevin Cox [mailto: "> ]
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2013 4:14 PM
To: Peter Cranstone
Cc: Dan Blum; ProjectVRM list
Subject: Re: [projectvrm] Gartner Goes Scifi on Security - But what if we
also had VRM?
+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
< "> > 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
From: Dan Blum < "> >
Date: Wednesday, September 18, 2013 3:59 PM
To: "Peter J. Cranstone" < "> >
Cc: Kevin Cox < "> >, ProjectVRM list
< "> >
Subject: Re: [projectvrm] Gartner Goes Scifi on Security - But what if we
also had VRM?
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
http://security-architect.blogspot.com
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Peter Cranstone
< "> > wrote:
I believe they call that the 'nuclear option'.
Peter
From: Kevin Cox < "> >
Date: Wednesday, September 18, 2013 3:24 PM
To: "Peter J. Cranstone" < "> >
Cc: Dan Blum < "> >, ProjectVRM list
< "> >
Subject: Re: [projectvrm] Gartner Goes Scifi on Security - But what if we
also had VRM?
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
< "> > 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
From: Dan Blum < "> >
Date: Wednesday, September 18, 2013 8:18 AM
To: ProjectVRM list < "> >,
" "> " < "> >
Subject: [projectvrm] Gartner Goes Scifi on Security - But what if we also
had VRM?
(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!
Dan
http://security-architect.blogspot.com
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19.