Skip to main content

Petraeus, Allen and the wrath of email

The Two Generals

What is so utterly unbelievable about the Generals Petraeus and Allen is their apparent naivety. 


Here they are experts at secure communications.  Here they are intelligent and capable military officers.  What could ever overcome them to believe that any communications on the open net is secure and undiscoverable?  These firms actually do a lot of data mining, well beyond most of our comprehension.  (Just use your favorite search engine on any topic.  You will get thousands of hits.  Imagine the computing power this requires.  During the nights when few are hitting on searches, these servers do not rest. )  Anything appearing interesting is flagged. Even I know this. This is why it is good advice never post anything of any salacious, sensitive, or derogatory nature through these messengers. 

But if you must... Use a messenger that supports encryption, such as PGP (Pretty Good Privacy), very difficult, no incredibly difficult, to decrypt.  Make certain your messenger does not support (unknown to you) built in key-stroke software - always kind of a mystery.   This goes well beyond virus software detection.  It does that using them implies a certain trust.  Do you have it?

At this point, I feel certain that what ever company was the email provider has the complete transcript of the communications.  So much for security.

It is simply inconceivable these guys have been doing this.  While Petraeus and Allen are great patriots, warriors, and consummate generals, actually how dumb can they get?   Can it be that the good general was used as needed, then fired and discarded?  We may never know, though Petraeus does.

I do feel bad for them and the country (mine) that may lose their services - they are phenomenal public servants.  However, we the people are the bigger losers in this game of mayhem and indiscretion. 

I am astonished.

P.S.  All this includes texting.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Accepting Fake Information

Every day, we are all bombarded with information, especially on news channels.  One group claims it's false; another calls it the truth. How can we know when to accept it or alternatively how can we know it's false? There are several factors which influence acceptance of fake or false information. Here are the big four.  Some just don’t have the knowledge to discern fact/truth from fiction/fact/false*. Some fake information is cleverly disguised and simply appears to be correct. Some fake information is accepted because the person wants to believe it. Some fake information is accepted because there is no other information to the contrary. However, the acceptance of  information  of any kind become a kind of  truth , and this is a well studied topic. In the link below is an essay on “The Truth About Truth.” This shows simply that what is your point of view, different types of information are generally accepted, fake or not.   https://www.linkedin.com/posts/g-donald-allen-420b03

Your Brain Within Your Brain

  Your Bicameral Brain by Don Allen Have you ever gone to another room to get something, but when you got there you forgot what you were after? Have you ever experienced a flash of insight, but when you went to look it up online, you couldn’t even remember the keyword? You think you forgot it completely. How can it happen so fast? You worry your memory is failing. Are you merely absent-minded? You try to be amused. But maybe you didn’t forget.   Just maybe that flash of insight, clear and present for an instant, was never given in the verbal form, but another type of intelligence you possess, that you use, and that communicates only to you. We are trained to live in a verbal world, where words matter most. Aside from emotions, we are unable to conjure up other, nonverbal, forms of intelligence we primitively, pre-verbally, possess but don’t know how to use. Alas, we live in a world of words, stewing in the alphabet, sleeping under pages of paragraphs, almost ignoring one of

Is Artificial Intelligence Conscious?

  Is Artificial Intelligence Conscious? I truly like the study of consciousness, though it is safe to say no one really knows what it is. Some philosophers has avoided the problem by claiming consciousness simply doesn’t exist. It's the ultimate escape clause. However, the "therefore, it does not exist" argument also applies to "truth", "God", and even "reality" all quite beyond a consensus description for at least three millennia. For each issue or problem defying description or understanding, simply escape the problem by claiming it doesn’t exist. Problem solved or problem avoided? Alternately, as Daniel Dennett explains consciousness as an account of the various calculations occurring in the brain at close to the same time. However, he goes on to say that consciousness is so insignificant, especially compared to our exalted notions of it, that it might as well not exist [1] . Oh, well. Getting back to consciousness, most of us have view