For our purposes, we can consider all the computers on a network to be like houses on astreet. (Network engineers, please bear with me.) Each house has several doors into it,which correspond to what are called ports on a networked computer. A computer actuallyhas thousands of ports, but the principle is illustrated by considering a house with severaldoors. All the houses have inhabitants in them, who send out messengers to the otherhouses: But some houses send out the equivalent of burglars also. When the inhabitants of one house want to communicate with the inhabitants of another, they send a messenger toa particular door of the house they want to communicate with. The messenger knocks onthe door.Now, the inhabitants of the house can either open the door and let the messenger in orignore the knock. If they let the messenger in, they can restrict what he is allowed to dowhile in the house. The messenger may, for example, pick up a piece of paper and carry itback to his house. This would correspond to a file transfer over a network. If the inhabitantsof the house accidentally leave a door open, though, a messenger may be able to come inthe house without permission and do whatever they like, again without permission. (Thereare many doors because a messenger occupies a particular door the whole time he is "in thehouse.") A firewall, in this analogy, would correspond to a complete facade built around a house (orgroup of houses, to be picky). The actual house is not even visible from the street. Thedoors of the original house are only visible to messengers
the inhabitants of the housebuild corresponding doors in the facade. To enter the house in this scenario, a messengerwould have to first knock at some visible door of the facade, be allowed in, and then knockat and be allowed into the actual door of the house. In this way the security of the house isgreatly increased from unwanted intrusions. (And you can have a collection of trustedhouses "inside the fort" which are less protected from each other.) The title of this essay, "Mental Firewalls," comes from an article by Timothy L. Thomaswhich appeared in the Army War College journal
in Spring 1998. It was titled"The Mind Has No Firewalls." The Army has an often honorable tradition going back to theRevolutionary War, the minutemen, and so forth. But it also has had and still has sometreason in its ranks. This is just the "ground truth," the "facts on the ground." An army thattortures the domestic population is an occupation army. Treasonous Nazi pigs, in this realsense rather than some spin machine crap or some pathological liar's bullshit, must be dealtwith accordingly. This holds for all branches of the military. This holds for law enforcementas well. It holds for all intelligence agencies also. It holds even when they pretend thetorture devices "don't exist." Even if the victim does not realize what is happening to him orher, it is still torture. Informed consent must be truly informed. Torturing an Americancitizen is
as treasonous as selling the nation's top secrets to a foreign power. Thomas' article was in fact entered into evidence as part of a lawsuit by Harlan Girard of theInternational Committee for the Convention Against Offensive Microwave Weapons. Thearticle's central metaphor is that human beings are like the computers on a network, exceptthat they do not have the ability to control the information traffic entering and leavingthem. Their ports, or doors, are wide open. This sort of analogy was prevalent during themilitary "information warfare" buzzword phase, and illustrates the sort of thinking that wasgoing on at the time. [On a note of caution, not all of Thomas' article should be takenliterally; whether purposefully or not there is some likely disinfo there.]
Deception Operations Against the Human "Biocomputer"
What is it that corresponds to your reality? What do you perceive, and how do you makeyour decisions? You receive information through your eyes, ears, and other senses. You