Subject:
|
Re: Social Engineering (was: Re: The Friendliest Site On The Internet. (Was Re: A little self examination?))
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 23 Oct 2000 21:33:50 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
474 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Todd Lehman writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Kevin Wilson writes:
> > I must say I can't think of a place, either on or off line, where that
> > kind of "social engineering" WOULD sit well. He must be quite used to
> > being run out of groups on a rail...
>
> I have a question (for anyone) about the phrase "Social Engineering." In
> your experience, does the phrase automaticaly imply causing disruptions,
> flamewars, etc. or can SE be done in quiet, civil ways? If the ToS for the
> discussion groups were changed so that SE was explicitly disallowed, would
> it be clear what that meant. (OK, it would probably need a couple examples,
> but would it be ambiguous or unambiguous?)
<OBDisclaimer: I am not a professional sociologist, nor do I make any
pretensions of actual knowledge in the field.>
Social Engineering can be applied to a much broader spectrum of science and
psuedo-science than MM is using it for. Not all SE is bad, not all of it is
good. It's a tool, much like any other. However nearly all forms of SE I'm
familiar with are built on the premise that subvert manipulation is more
effective that overt manipulation, and (in my books anyway) of dubious ethics
at best.
Most advocates of SE that I know (or know of) tend to operate from the basis
that people as individuals are only predictable when taken in groups. That
is - you can't predict that person A will react "thusly" to input X, but in
any group of N (n typically being 5 or more) people, someone will react
thusly, and the whole group will be affected by the reaction.
SE tends to also operate on the assumption that groups have inertia, and to
acheive any goal, that inertia must be overcome before any change will happen.
There's lots more, but I should be getting some real work done this afternoon.
A good place to look for various examples & hypothesis regarding social
engineering is science & speculative fiction(s) - It's a common theme,
although rarely refered to as such. The example that springs immediately to
mind is Isaac Asimov's Foundation series - For all intents and purposes,
that's the subject.
> And is someone who practicies "Social Engineering" typically referred to as
> an "SE hacker"?
This sort of Social Engineering? That may be their prefered term, but I
suspect other less kind referals are normally used. Something like Trekkies
refering to themselves as Trekkers - or Lugnuts as Lugnetters <GD&R>
James
(jack-of-all-philosophies, proponent of none)
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
67 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
