a projection of the future in terms of
metaphors based on past history. However, among the difficulties that it
illustrates is the force as well as the ambiguity of metaphoric understanding.
A single appropriate context within which the author of Revelation was immersed while writing the manuscript has never been
universally agreed upon. Moreover, where we have suggested that a primary
feature of religious systems is the systematic identification of its adherents,
this author of Revelation is still,
even after perhaps 2,000 years, open to conjecture. Of course, the recurrent
power of metaphorical understanding is illustrated by the fact that Revelation has been adopted as having
current day relevance by virtually every generation of Christians for the last
two millennia.
So, let’s
consider a bit the journey that comprises this book. The original impetus for
our embarkation was an observation by one of us (Bertrand) that highlighted a
connection between ancient imagery and modern technology. Rachel Levy, in Religious Conceptions of the Stone Age and Their
Influence upon European Thought, mentions the inscription of hands in the cave of Gargas, in the southwest of France. Hand inscriptions are found in caves
dating back to 30,000 years ago all around the world, some made in the
positive, with the hand dipped in pigment and pressed against the cave wall,
and some in the negative, with pigment blown against the hand to leave its
outline. In the Cueva de las Manos rock formation of the middle of Patagonia, a picture of which graces the cover of
this book, the hand inscriptions are actually outside the cave. While this
practice may also have been common, it obviously subjects the display to
deterioration from the weather and other conditions. That assessment aside,
what is particularly fascinating about Rachel Levy’s hands of Gargas is that
many hands have one or more fingers missing.
While this might
be a curious feature to many, it was virtually predestined to attract the
attention of a specialist of computer security, because the time at which he
read Levy’s book happened to coincide with new technological developments in
computing. Thanks to advances in electronics, the circuitry of some biometry
systems could be reduced to a size small enough to think of associating
biometry sensors with a secure core in a tamper-resistant electronic packaging.
One such biometry component was a fingerprint sensor presented either as a
small square where a person would place a finger, or alternatively, a small bar
on which the finger would be moved uniformly for the fingerprint to be scanned.
The question, of course, was how to protect the integrity of the secure core if
the system was attacked by, say, intercepting the connecting circuitry between
the sensor itself and the secure core. The first idea was naturally to do what
secure cores do when they are under an attack that they can’t manage, which is
to shut off the cause of the attack by blowing up the circuitry involved, in
this case the connection. For a security specialist, that act meant cutting off
the fingerprint.
A finger missing
from a body, or a fingerprint sensor missing from a computer, the similarity
was striking. As the reason for the fingerprint sensor elimination was to
answer a threat on the sensor, could it be possible that the missing fingers
would also be answering a threat? To better consider that proposition, it is
useful for us to delve a bit more deeply into the meaning and nature of
threats.
If anyone were
ever to formalize the concept of threat, it seems it would likely be the
military. In true form, the U.S. Department of Defense published the following
transcripts of a conference call dated February 12, 2002, by Donald H. Rumsfeld, then Secretary
of Defense: “Reports that say that something hasn’t happened are always
interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things
we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns;
|