Conference on Deception
There was a conference on deception earlier this month. Sophie Van Der Zee has a summary of the sessions.
Comments
John • July 29, 2014 7:04 AM
There was no conference. They are being deceptive
Isn’t a deception conference what we usually call “Congress”?
@Bear or “president’s lips are moving”
NobodySpecial • July 29, 2014 9:32 AM
Is this the conference on deception?
No it isn’t
Yes it is.
No it isn’t
Yes it is
Look I came here for a conference on deception
This isn’t it
Yes it is.
No it isn’t
Look this is pointless, deception isn’t just lying
Yes it is.
No it isn’t
If I deceive you I have to lie to you
But deception isn’t just the automatic denying of any question – it’s a rational argument ….
Clive Robinson • July 29, 2014 10:25 AM
@ NobbodySpecial,
You left out the “Norwegian Blue” and “Eric the half a bee”….
Clive Robinson • July 29, 2014 12:11 PM
The first question to ask is “What is deception?” until we can come to agreement on this the answers are not going to mesh.
For instance they talk about one Anthony Blair PM and his deception over the Iraq WMD. The weak argument used is he was not properly informed and thus he was not deceptive. I however would argue as a long term politico with a history of questionable judgment, and proven deceptivness in other areas, his lack of being informed was a personal choice thus deception did lie behind his behaviour over the (known to be) non existant WMD. It comes into the same class of behaviour as “lies of ommisson” which he has practiced ever since, and also the evasivness of subsiquent answers are most definatly deception. Thus if it were a criminal case I would sugest the jury would not be out long, the circumstantial evidence and behaviour would be sufficient.
Brendan Kidwell • July 29, 2014 12:12 PM
I’m sorry I can’t resist: It should be called Decepticon.
bob t • July 29, 2014 2:27 PM
“We have entered a ‘post-truth era’, in which, Daniel J. Boorstin notes, ‘believability’ has become an acceptable substitute for ‘truth’…”
I would say that it doesn’t even require believability. The “truth” is, that we’ve become so accustomed to being B.S.’ed that we don’t care anymore. There is no honor or integrity anymore. It’s all just partisanship now. Choosing sides based on ideology only gives an appearance of believability.
Praise be to Nero’s Neptune
The Titanic sails at dawn
And everybody’s shouting
“Which Side Are You On?”
Desolation Row
Otter • July 30, 2014 1:51 AM
Who cares “What is deception”? It is irrelevant whether Blair knew he was lying or not… even whether he was lying.
Those questions are red herrings, designed to distract us from the significant question : Was he a good leader or a dismal failure?
He led us into a war which quickly became, for most of us, a disaster. One in which resources needed for more urgent projects were squandered doing deeds we did not want done, and darker deeds which we think nobody should do. One whose consequences will shadow or lives for decades to come. Is this success or failure?
What he knew? Why he knew? These are of interest only to ambitious Blairs in waiting. And to those wishing to protect their good and faithful servant.
vas pup • July 30, 2014 10:58 AM
@Clive.
The is the closest definition by Vrij:
“Defining deception is not a straightforward task. Deception has been studied through the lens of varied disciplines, including psychiatry, linguistics, and philosophy; and accordingly,
diverse definitions have been offered (Granhag & Stro¨mwall,2004). In the present context, we deem Vrij’s (2008a, p. 15)definition of deception to be sufficient: ‘‘a successful or unsuccessful
attempt, without forewarning, to create in another a
belief which the communicator considers to be untrue.’’ It is important to note that lying is an intentional act and that misremembering is not the same as lying”. As you see there is psychological component on communicator side plus method is not critical: provide false information, provide half-true/one sided information (only favorable to communicator goal) or mix true and false information together.
Clive Robinson • July 30, 2014 11:29 AM
@ Vas Pup,
Unfortunatly that definition has a “weasle statment in it of “which the communicator to be untrue”.
Not only is it one of those second guessing “state of mind” issues for some one claiming another has practiced deception, it also gives the near perfect denial for one who knows they have committed deception.
In this day and age after the likes of the banking crisis we realy should not have such “get out of jail free” type exceptions.
Wael • July 30, 2014 11:46 AM
I see why we are trying to define “deception”… The dictionary definition seems to be “cyclic”, defining “deception” as the act of decieving! I would think “deception” means: Disinformaiton through acts or words to project a different picture than what the “deceptor” knows. The purpose of “deception” is to achieve something that is not easily achievable, if the real “story” is disclosed. Deception can take many forms.
I would not attend such a conference because I would suspect the conference is really about something else, like trying to sell you something. At an extreme, the conference may not exist altogether! You have been decieved, there are no conferences, see you next year 🙂
Eric • August 15, 2014 1:03 PM
“What is deception?” I read a lot of misunderstanding around the topic. Based on what I read, this conference was on a civilianized version of Military Deception. It is not about lying or using false statements. For the record, Here is the definition for Military Deception (again, the closest thing I can tell):
Military deception (MILDEC) is actions executed to deliberately mislead dversary
military, paramilitary, or violent extremist organization decision makers, thereby causing the adversary to take specific actions (or inactions) that will contribute to the accomplishment of the friendly mission.
Now in humanese:
[BOTH THE MILITARY AND CIVILIANS SHOULD EFFING CALL IT SOMETHING ELSE] are activities designed to deliberately mislead decision makers of an adversary, in order to cause adversary to take specific actions (or inactions) that will cause them to misallocate resources and ultimately fail to interphere with an organization’s mission.
Examples:
Inflatable airplanes on fake target runways (WW2)
Fake bases during the ‘Hail Mary’ push (Desert Storm)
Honeypots (IT)
Trashmail email addresses (IT)
NOT PHISHING (ironically)
More than 1/2 of anything Sun Tzu ever recommended
[BOTH THE MILITARY AND CIVILIANS SHOULD EFFING CALL IT SOMETHING ELSE] relies on assumptions people make verses trying to overtly lie (…deceive). Even in the military, even in the Information Operations field (where MILDEC resides), it is often confused with perfidy or treachery (false surrender/directly lying to the media- “spin” doesn’t count)
Part of the reason with the confusion is because the lanuage is problematic and innaccurate. The so called MILDEC community is microscopic in size but clings to this idea that holding onto the old terms and titles is part of some heritage they want to preserve. I call it History Channel Syndrome (HCS).
Subscribe to comments on this entry
Leave a comment
Sidebar photo of Bruce Schneier by Joe MacInnis.
Ampy • July 29, 2014 6:50 AM
Too many IT and Security conferences are almost Death march. It is management risk.