that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But, there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don’t know we don’t know. And if one looks throughout the history of our country and other free countries, it is the latter categories that tend to be the difficult ones.” What Rumsfeld was expressing in a way that was perhaps somewhat cryptic to the public was in fact a new military understanding of threats, presented for example by Rod Thornton in Asymmetric Warfare: Threat and Response in the 21^st Century. Known threats are readily confronted. Unknown threats of a known origin can be prepared for. But, threats that are not even known to exist present a bigger danger: Thornton presents a series of events that changed the nature of war, such as the battle of Agincourt and the attacks of September 11, 2001.

As far as the known knowns are concerned, we can follow our now customary approach and look at the computer understanding of threats. Such works as Threat Modeling, by Frank Swiderski and Window Snyder, provide a systematic approach. The authors classify known computer threats and define processes adept at addressing them. Trust levels afforded interaction agents, entry points of interaction, and possible targets of attacks are evaluated against vulnerabilities to create an overall assessment of precautions and answers. Possible scenarios are accordingly specified to elaborate corresponding approaches to threat mitigation. As with everything regarding computer security, the goal is to identify risks and rewards. Every counter-measure has a cost that needs to be compared to possible losses. The resulting threat model makes trade-offs explicit, and allows putting in place relevant developments and operational practices that are eventually validated by testing and on-going evaluations. One such trade-off is borne of the study of asymmetries.

Asymmetry in the conduct of interactions presents itself in the physical ecosystem where it forms an unstated theme of the evaluation process survival of the fittest. If there are relatively few parameters that define a particular interaction, then a parameter by parameter comparison will likely suggest the outcome if there is a significant asymmetry in the facilities of the interacting parties. If one constrains a rabbit to a cage with a hungry python, then the subsequent interaction outcome is relatively easy to project. Likewise, if one constrains an antelope in a cage with a single, hungry lion, the lion is probably going to feed on the antelope. However, if one places a single lion on the veldt with a single antelope, the outcome is far less certain. In this case, the trust equations for the various components of the interaction become much more balanced and often more complex. In many instances, an antelope will be able to outrun a lone lion. Hence, lions generally hunt in groups in order to stack the odds in their favor. This social grouping mechanism is an evolutionary trait of lions as well as other predators that has given rise to their hunting in groups or packs. Thus, at a very basic level, we view the occurrence of asymmetry in the various aspects of an interaction as indicative of a potential threat in or to the interaction.

Interaction asymmetry carries through to social ecosystems as well. Indeed, various functions of social systems serve to both offset as well as exploit asymmetries in the characteristics of individuals. On the one hand, social structures aim to protect the weak from the tyranny of the strong, but on the other they seek to garner the capabilities of the strong to augment those of the weak. A common thread for both theistic and non-theistic religions is the concept of accommodation of the weak by the strong. Among the beatitudes listed in the Book of Matthew in the Christian Bible, there is no special blessing for the strong, but rather for, among others, the meek and the merciful. Hence, the moral tenets of the religious order demand an altruistic behavior on the part of the strong in favor of those that are weaker. This is a behavior that, in general, runs counter to the individual behavior that one might otherwise expect to see rewarded by natural selection at the individual level.

Book available at Midori Press (regular)
Book available at Midori Press (signed)
Book available at Amazon (regular)