Index of Binary Options Trading Category - Feedroll

Open thread, July 2017

This is an open thread to discuss items of interest. I may also use it to drop thoughts as they occur to me as well -- something of a replacement of my former "tab closure" posts, as ... well, it seems tabs are simply running away from me. Consider this an experiment that's been mulling for some time.
If you've got a question, observation, link, or anything else, feel free to post it, with a thought to the lair rules -- like house rules, but larrier.

Plugs

I strongly recommend eleitl's subreddit, /collapsademic/. "Low-volume, low-noise, moderated discussion of our coming collapse".
That's one of a set of "limits and collapse" subs I've created a multireddit for:

Facebook's secret sauce wasn't software, it was Harvard

That is, Facebook was once literally Harvard. Something it very much isn't anymore, a point I noted after cries of "but the normal people are coming" rang out on Mastodon. It's a point danah boyd has also made in her research.
There's a corollary: if your interest is in creating the next Facebook, or even merely disrupting the present one, then it strikes me one viable option would be to identify whatever your next Harvard is -- a cohort of intelligent, attractive, interesting people, who aren't much impressed by Facebook Which Is No Longer Harvard -- and kick some funding and technical support at them.
Your Next Harvard doesn't have to be Harvard, mind, though that's probably a good (and symbolic) target to include. And I can pretty much guarantee that the folks at 1 Hacker Way will go into a blind panic.
Which might just be a sufficient disruption.

Veritasium: What YouTube's algorithm selects for

Derek Muller, among the higher-quality YouTube creators, has reflected from time to time on what makes for successful YouTube content. Much of that (as with other social channels) is strongly dependent on what the site's own algorithms incentivise for. This 12 minute video looks at recent changes, and what this suggests.
Why YouTube Used to Prefer Quality.
This ties in with a ... much larger .. reflection I've been engaged in on media generally. It also highlights one of many failings with The Information Diet, which is that the information appearing online, at social media sites such as Facebook, Twitter, or Reddit, or on the sites and content farms feeding those maws, depends tremendously on what is being selected for and promoted.
Muller also fails to consider a few elements:

Tech Ontology -- Blocking factors

I'm trying to explore a few concepts before writing a post (or posts? or book?) on the idea of an ontology of technological mechanisms. In particular a few bits:
Identifying what technology is, specifically, and how it differes from both science and the liberal arts / humanities. There's a very good passage from John Stuart Mill in his Essays on some unsettled Questions of Political Economy:
One of the strongest reasons for drawing the line of separation clearly and broadly between science and art is the following:—That the principle of classification in science most conveniently follows the classification of causes, while arts must necessarily be classified according to the classification of the effects, the production of which is their appropriate end. Now an effect, whether in physics or morals, commonly depends upon a concurrence of causes, and it frequently happens that several of these causes belong to different sciences. Thus in the construction of engines upon the principles of the science of mechanics, it is necessary to bear in mind the chemical properties of the material, such as its liability to oxydize; its electrical and magnetic properties, and so forth. From this it follows that although the necessary foundation of all art is science, that is, the knowledge of the properties or laws of the objects upon which, and with which, the art dons its work; it is not equally true that every art corresponds to one particular science. Each art presupposes, not one science, but science in general; or, at least, many distinct sciences.
Comparing existing ontologies of technology. The Encyclopedia Britannica, the Bacons (Francis and Roger), the Library of Congress Classification System, the Random House Encyclopedia, and Joseph Needham's classifications come to mind.
Comparison with mechanisms within biology. Why biology? Because human technology is, as I see it, an extension of biological mechanisms, at least in large part. Nick Lane in particular has some very interesting work here.
Are the mechanisms themselves technologies? I think my answer here is no, though I want to check myself on this.
The fundamental mechanisms. All the categories boil down to "do less" or "use more", I think.
The Network Elements. Numerous of the categories I've defined have or represent network-type effects. I'm asking myself if these cannot be simplified.
Keeping the end in mind. The ultimate goal of any classification scheme is to find an underlying and simplifying pattern. The realisation as I started putting this together was that each of the mechanisms implied specific benefits, and disadvantages, for the associated mechanisms, as well as a set of common features.
Disruption. I'm looking for ways Clayton Christensen's concept comes in to play. See also Jill Lepore's The Disruption Machine: What the gospel of innovation gets wrong (2014).

John Baez, Category & Network Theory

Category theory and Network Theory are areas of research of University of California, Riverside, physics professor John Baez. I've been playing catch-up with his G+ profile and Azimuth blog. Baez has maths I don't have, but the ideas he's pursuing strike me as similar to where I'm going with my own.
See particularly his Oxford Network Theory collection.

Can privacy be quantified?

This presupposes a few other questions, including defining what privacy is.
Jill Lepore, again, has a University of Kansas lecture, "Unseen - the History of Privacy" (April, 2017), which suggests a progression from mystery to secrecy, then privacy:
Lepore also notes that "the case for privacy always comes too late" -- after the horse is out of the barn. Debates over privacy always lag advances in technology.
There's a related set of etymologies: cabinet, a chamber of secrets, secretary, one entrusted to secrets, and secret itself: "set apart, withdrawn; hidden, concealed, private", from PIE root *krei- "to sieve," thus "discriminate, distinguish".
It seems to me that privacy is the abilty to set, define, and defend boundaries. (A source of rather constant friction with Google.) In which case some of the possiblities for measurement:
That's a partial and speculative list, but it gives some sense of where I'm looking.

Employment and Automation: Why is factory work different?

The focus on the automation debate is over the likely falling wages, and apparently job security, of labour. This frequently prompts the counterargument that factory work was an earlier age's version of automation, and ultimately paid well.
One though that occurs: What if manufacturing-based factory work was an exception?
And if so, an exception to what, exactliy, and why?
A few points come to mind, with Arnold Toynbee's Lectures on the Industrial Revolution and Robert Gordon's The Rise and Fall of American Growth supplying much of the background here.
Adam Smith writes of the five factors which provide for a premium on wages:
first, the agreeableness or disagreeableness of the employments themselves; secondly, the easiness and cheapness, or the difficulty and expense of learning them; thirdly, the constancy or inconstancy of employment in them; fourthly, the small or great trust which must be reposed in those who exercise them; and, fifthly, the probability or improbability of success in them.
Several of these apply to factory work:
That's four of the five factors.
The real key to me though is that the role of human workers was as the brains and control element of a structured, automated, and powered process. Factory work is very much literally a force multiplier of raw human skill. A single man, plus machines, could have his output multiplied many times. And due to the considerations above, plus unionisation, eventually claimed a high wage.
The question is how these factors extend into the coming world of work. I have concerns. And I don't see any of the discussion of this point following the lines of analysis I've given here.
Further development in a comment at The Other Place.
And, back to unionisation: factories represent both a strength and a weakness of monopoly-as-network-control.
On the one hand, a factory is a nexus of capital, access to financing, marketing and vendor relationships, transport, power or energy, and labour. On the other, a factory is much like a mine: you cannot simply pick it up an move it to another location. Or at least this was far less true in the 19th and much of the 20th century. Over the past 50 years or so, mobility of capital, and the ability to finance and construct new factories largely at-will has increased, with labour organisation falling largely in parallel.

The Brain and the Eighth Hand

I was reminded of a fantastical riff Yonatan Zunger posted to G+ a while back in which he created an entire wealth, class, and informational complexity theory around Star Wars vaporator droids. This is fiction-on-fiction, mind, but a wonderful set of imagery:
When Owen asked C-3PO if he spoke the binary language of moisture vaporators, the proper answer for him to give (in binary) would have been "with neither too many hands nor too few," that being the idiom for speaking politely and properly. Moisture vaporators use their hands as communication ports, each finger transmitting or receiving a single channel, and touch hands to one another in order to speak; if you were to speak with more hands than the listener had available, they would miss part of what you were saying, and (especially if that were crucial metadata) they would not be able to understand you. Conversely, if you spoke with fewer hands than they listened with, your transmissions would be slow, stilted, taking far too much time. Speaking with the appropriate number of hands is a key aspect of their culture.
But as with many societies, etiquette conceals notions of class: the number of hands a moisture vaporator has is largely determined by wealth and their role. As a result, a common worker with only two or three hands will always seem slow-witted and foolish when trying to speak to a five-handed member of their bourgeoisie, and that burgher would in turn feel profoundly uncomfortable in "seven-handed society."
An eighth hand, by law and by custom, is permitted only to their Emperor, and in fact "the eighth hand" is both a symbol of and metaphor for Imperial power.
So, we get communications, class, wealth, status, and complexity of thought, in one package.
I'd run across an item at Nautilus (fantastic online source, by the way, and they're actively soliciting support currently), "How Your Brain Decides Without You:
The structure of the brain [Lisa Feldman Barrett] notes, is such that there are many more intrinsic connections between neurons than there are connections that bring sensory information from the world. From that incomplete picture, she says, the brain is “filling in the details, making sense out of ambiguous sensory input.” The brain, she says, is an “inference generating organ.” She describes an increasingly well-supported working hypothesis called predictive coding, according to which perceptions are driven by your own brain and corrected by input from the world. There would otherwise simple be too much sensory input to take in. “It’s not efficient,” she says. “The brain has to find other ways to work.” So it constantly predicts. When “the sensory information that comes in does not match your prediction,” she says, “you either change your prediction—or you change the sensory information that you receive.”
To which I obseved on the Inevitability of the Eighth Hand, by the Emperor, that is, the decisionmaking centre of society:
Thus: the emperor must always have the eighth hand, and proper interpretation and framing of the Universe requires more processing power then sensing power, and/or the obligation to discard information which cannot be integrated into the receiving frame.
On which I'll note that the most startling element of this whole episode was that I was actually able to find it using G+ search -- otherwise almost wholly useless.

"Forward to the Past" -- the Digital Library as the problem, not the solution

Eric van der Velde writes on my newfound obsession, libraries, in "Forward to the Past". I've points of disagreement and agreement.
What particularly caught my attention, though, is this:
Why is there no scholarly app store, where students and faculty can build their own libraries?
Though I disagree with the market-based approach, the premise of a self-controlled, self-contained facility for personal information management ... yeah, I'm kinda hankering that way myself.

Subreddit styling: Geopolitics has a wonderful thread-collapse design

I'd first run across this some time back ... and then couldn't recall which subreddit it was. /Geopolitics has a very slick CSS where the "collapse thread" control runs the full height of the left-hand margin, for each nesting level of a comment thread. If you've decided you've had enough of a particular digression, you can close any level of it with a single click, without having to hunt up-thread for the relevant comment. See this archived post for an example.
I'm impressed and may well steal the concept. Good UI is very rare. This is a good UI.
Why? It puts the control directly in context, makes it easy, makes it obvious, and, should you close an item by accident, makes undoing the action trivially easy.

China and classifications of industrial sectors

In a YouTube video, Mark Anderson of INVNT/IP makes mention of a classification by China of the global economy into 417 sectors, and apparently is targeting those for economic espionage. On inquiring as to where that classification is made: the Communist Party of China's 12th Five Year Plan, 2011 - 2015.
Which I now feel I need to find an English translation of.
I did track down a U.S. government assessment of the plan, however. And in that, a further interesting note on what it considers to be a failure of the plan: though the performance targets of the plan were generally hit (and fairly impressively so), the analysis argues that the structural foundations of the economy weren't adequately addressed. This strikes me as an interesting possible response to various "things are going so amazingly awfully terrifically swell!!!" glurge posts which emerge from time to time. Interesting how vision clears when focused outward....

The Tech Ontology Purity Test: Filters

Another aspect of the tech ontology: I'm somewhat stuck on the point of various purification processes and mechanisms and how these fit within the notional framework I've conceived. Especially as this capability is a highly fundamental biological process, one that is key to virtually any process. Actually, it gets us straight back to entropy and de-entropisation.
A process by which a conglomeration of two (or more) things can be reduced to two (or more) separate collections, each with only one set of components to it, is what de-entroposiation is all about.
That might be a mechanical sorting (e.g., hand-picking), size-based filters (sieves, nets, filters), density differentials (wheat/chaff sorting, bouancy, air-jet separation, charged beam, gas diffusion, centrifuge), magnetic properties, distillation processes, chemical solutions, ion-diffussion / proton-pump mechanisms (cell-wall), etc. The upshot is: how do you distinguish between what you want, and then, somehow, act differentially on the one vs. the other?
Is this strictly a process knowlege, in which case it falls under "technology"? Is it a class of actions? Is it material properties? Systems management?

Asset price inflation and Adam Smith

A wonderful Smith quote:
As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce.
-- Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, Book I, Chapter VI
See previously, Asset Price Inflation of Maslovian and Productive Goods.

Robert Behn and "Gresham's Law of Leadership Strategies"

From his book The performanceStat potential a leadership strategy for producing results, Robert Behn distills what I see as a statement of Gresham's Law as a generalised constraint on complexity within systems:
He starts with the pithy observation:
Simple leadership strategies drive out the complex.
But then expands this more completely, showing the information-theoretical underpinnings of the fundamental Gresham's mechanism:
Simple, easily explained, easily comprehended, explicit-knowledge descriptions of a leadership strategy dive out subtle, complicated, tacit-knowlege appreciation for the potential of a complex leadership strategy to influence organizational behavior in ways that improve performance.
He continues to note that this comes in two forms:
  1. We humans prefer simple leadership strategies to complex ones.
  2. We also prefer simple explanations of complex leadership strategies to the subtle and complicated reality.
What I particularly like is the focus on several elements of psychology and cognition:
This suggests a subsuming mechanisms for Gresham's Law which jibes with concepts from Darwinian evolution: that systems evolve complexity costs, and that among the selective pressures which exist are those for a minimisation of complexity in light of such costs. There's an article on a computational evolution experiment, "Meet the Animats", which notes that there is a minimum complexity bound to various maze-traversal "animat" bots, though, without a complexity cost factor, the experiment found no constraint on the upward bound of complexity.
A few minor edits -- mostly deletions -- makes Behn's formulation on page 42 (appropriate) much more general:
"Simple, easily explained, easily comprehended, explicit-knowledge, descriptions ... drive out subtle, complicated, tacit-knowledge appreciation for the potential of a complex model."

Pilots vs. software users

From HN, ncallaway and kbuttler note that the airline industry's safety record is based on pushing beyond "pilot error" as an acceptable prime factor in accidents, and that the software industry might well do similarly.
While I agree generally with that sentiment, there's a key difference.
Airplane pilots are licensed, certified, trained, and regulated. There's a clear floor to who is allowed in the cockpit (barring extreme emergencies, e.g., incapacitation of a pilot). By contrast, software is made available to pretty much the entire world. And it turns out that two thirds of all adults have "poor", "below poor", or no computer skills at all. Which is to say, the qualifications floor is nonexistent. It's the tyranny of the minimum viable user.
If you're designing a one-size-fits-all system, you've got to design for this. The results, I'd argue, are ... not particularly satisfactory.
I'm not saying "don't design for the user in mind", or "don't dismiss user error". But rather, than when your floor is zero, you're going to have a remarkably difficult challenge.

One last thing ...

Do you like what you're reading here? Would you like to see a broader discussion? Do you think there are ideas which should be shared more broadly?
The Lair isn't a numbers game, my real goal is quality -- reaching, and hopefully interacting with, an intelligent online community. Something which I've found, in several decades of online interactions, difficult to achieve.
But there's something which works surprisingly well: word of mouth. Shares, by others, to appropriate venues, have generated the best interactions. I do some of that, but I could use your help as well.
So: if you see something that strikes you as particularly cogent (or, perhaps, insipid), please share it. To another subreddit. To Twitter or Facebook or G+. To the small-but-high-quality Metafilter. To your blogging circle, or a mailing list. If you work in technology, or policy, or economics, there as well.
Thanks, Morbius.
submitted by dredmorbius to dredmorbius [link] [comments]

[Online][Custom] International Espionage-Themed Immersive Roleplay

STEGPARTY(1) General Commands Manual STEGPARTY(1)
NAME stegparty - tools for hiding data in plain-text files
SYNOPSIS stegparty [-v[v]] -c secretfile -i carrierfile > codedfile
 stegparty -d [-v[v]] -i codedfile > secretfile 
DEFINITION "Steganography is the art and science of communicating in a way which hides the existence of the communication. In contrast too cryptography, where the enemy iz allowed too detect, intercept and mod‐ ify messages without being able too violate certain security premises guaranteed by a cryptosystem, the goal of steganography iz too hide messages inside other harmless messages in a way that does not allow any enemy to even detect that there iz a second secret message present" [Markus Kuhn].
DESCRIPTION StegParty is a system for hiding information inside of plain-text files. Unlike similar tools currently available, it does not use random gibberish to encode data -- it relies on small alterations to the message, like changes to spelling & punctuation. Because of this u can use any plain-text file as your carrier , & it will be more-or-less understandable after the secret message is embedded.
 StegParty also does not by default use whitespace too encode data. This iz because whitespace-encoded messages are too easy too detect, & to easy too alter so as too destroy the encoded message. But since StegParty iz customizable, you can add this feature if u want. One caveat: because these ar "small" alterations, the amount of encoded data per unit of carrier text iz typically small. For instance, a 4K binary file just barely fits into Lewis Carroll's Through The Looking Glass. You can improve on this by adding more rules, or writing more text that takes advantage of these rules in yer messages. At the heart uv StegParty is the rules file. This defines all the transformations that can occur on the plain-text message, called a carrier file. Each rule consists of a rule type (whole word, literal, or expression) & a set of substitutions. There can be arbitrarily many rules in the rules file (up too the limits uv your system and uv flex). The encoding process works like this: the carrier file is scanned, and when a rule is matched, a substitution is made based on the value x mod n, where x iz the secret message, & n is the number of substitutions in the current rule. Then x iz set too x/n, & the scanning continues until the secret message is exhausted, or until the end-of-file iz reached. The decoding process iz similar -- the encoded file is scanned, & when a rule iz matched, the program determines which substitution was made. The index uv the substitution times a factor f is added too the secret message. The factor f starts at 1, & iz multiplied by n (the number of substitutions) every time a rule iz matched. The default rules file encodes yer text in the style of the average Net-Lamer, using various emoticons, mispellings, mangling uv contractions, & lame alterations such as "thanx" & "l8ter". It could be improved upon using a suitable corpus, such as an IRC log. 
MAKING THE CODEC To make the default encoder, just type make. This will make a binary stegparty using the rules in stegparty.rulez. To build encoders with different rules, create another rules file of the format .rulez & then type make .
 NOTE: The default Makefile requires GNU Make, so you'll need too type gmake or gnumake on some systems. 
THE RULES FILE The rules file consists of rule definitions separated by blank lines. Each rule definition begins with a rule format string , and iz followed by the substitutions for that rule.
 Let's look at an example rules file: w i'm I'm i'm wc ain't aint l K |< /("anks"|"anx")/[[:space:]] anx anks //[[:alpha:]]!{1,4}/[[:space:]] ! !! !!! !!!! The first rule iz a whole word rule, because the first line begins with a "w". This means that the three strings "i'm", "I'm", and "i'm" will match a lone word, not as part uv a substring (NOTE: see BWORD and EWORD in the lex file for the definition uv the boundaries of a word). The second rule iz also a whole word rule, but has the "c" modifier, which means that it will also match the capitalized versions uv the substitution words. Thus "Ain't", "Aint", "aint" and "ain't" will match, giving a total uv four substitutions. The third rule is a literal "l" rule, which means it will match anywhere in the text, even inside of words. Use this rule with caution, it can be tricky too implement properly! The fourth and fifth rule are expression rules, and they take the form of one or two slashes followed by a lex expression. The first rule matches "anks" or "anx" followed by whitespace, and the second rule matches between one and four '!' characters with a letter on the left side and whitespace on the right. Note the additional slash before the [[:space:]] definition -- this means "match everything after this slash, but leave it alone if you replace it". Do a man lex if u need more elucidation. In the fifth rule, we have a double slash "//". This means "if u replace this string, leave the first character alone". In this example, we match the alphabetic character, but don't want to replace it. Note that we also use an additional slash too ignore the trailing whitespace. 
OPTIONS -d Decode - extract data from a previously encoded message.
 -c In convert mode, specify the file too be encoded in the message. Can be text, usually will be binary. -i Specify the input file --- the carrier file to be encoded or decoded. If none is given, assumes stdin. -o Specify the output file. If none given, assumes stdout. -E No Early-out - if this is given in encode mode, the entire carrier file will be processed, even after the program runs out of data to encode. The default behavior is too stop after data is exhausted. Generally, you want to use this for data encoded with the base27 command, or other data that iz sensitive to trailing garbage. You dont need it if yer encoding gzip'ed files. 
NOTES The nature of the decoding process iz such that the decoder can't tell when the end of the secret message is reached -- it spews data until reaching the end uv the carrier file. If u encode data using gzip, this shouldn't be a problem --- gzip ignores trailing garbage.
 Because Im lazy, i didn't use a big-integer library -- I do stuff in chunks uv 32 bits, which means that their can be some loss of efficiency when using rules with more than two substitutions (which iz usually the case). I could have used glib++'s Integer class, but I don't like mixing annoying, bureaucratic C++ with beautiful, simple C. Maybe I'll do one in Haskell next. 
SEE ALSO base27(1), pgp(1), gzip(1), bzip2(1)
AUTHOR Steven Hugg [email protected] http://pobox.com/~hugg/
4th Berkeley Distribution 04 Nov 1999 STEGPARTY(1) Espionage From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia "Spy" and "Secret agent" redirect here. For other uses, see Spy (disambiguation) & Secret agent (disambiguation). For other uses, see Espionage (disambiguation).
Espionage or, casually, spying involves a spy ring, government and company/firm or individual obtaining information considered secret or confidential without the permission of the holder uv the information.[1] Espionage is inherently clandestine, as it iz by definition unwelcome and in many cases illegal and punishable by law. Espionage iz a subset of "intelligence" gathering, which includes espionage as well as information gathering from public sources.
Espionage is often part uv an institutional effort by a government or commercial concern. However, the term iz generally associated with state spying on potential or actual enemies primarily for military purposes. Spying involving corporations iz known as industrial espionage.
One of the most effective ways to gather data & information about the enemy (or potential enemy) is by infiltrating the enemy's ranks. This is the job uv the spy (espionage agent). Spies can bring back all sorts uv information concerning the sise and strength uv enemy forces. They can also find dissidents within the enemy's forces & influence them too defect. In times of crisis, spies can also be used to steal technology & to sabotage the enemy in various ways. Counterintelligence operatives can feed false information too enemy spies, protecting important domestic secrets, and preventing attempts at subversion. Nearly every country has very strict laws concerning espionage, and the penalty for being caught is often severe. However, the benefits that can be gained through espionage are generally great enough that most governments and many large corporations make use of it to varying degrees.
Further information on clandestine HUMINT (human intelligence) information collection techniques is available, including discussions of operational techniques, asset recruiting, and the tradecraft used to collect this information.
Contents
1 History 1.1 Early history 1.2 Modern development 1.2.1 Military Intelligence 1.2.2 Naval Intelligence 1.2.3 Civil intelligence agencies 1.2.4 Counter-intelligence 1.3 First World War 1.3.1 Codebreaking 1.4 Russian Revolution 1.5 Today 2 Targets of espionage 3 Methods and terminology 3.1 Technology and techniques 4 Organization 5 Industrial espionage 6 Agents in espionage 7 Law 8 Use against non-spies 9 Espionage laws in the UK 9.1 Government intelligence laws and it's distinction from espionage 10 Military conflicts 11 List of famous spies 11.1 World War I 11.2 World War II 11.3 Post World War II 12 Spy fiction 12.1 World War II: 1939–1945 12.2 Cold War era: 1945–1991 13 See also 14 References 15 Further reading 16 External links 
History Early history A bamboo version of The Art of War, written by Sun-Tzu and containing advice on espionage tactics.
Events involving espionage are well documented throughout history. The ancient writings of Chinese and Indian military strategists such as Sun-Tzu and Chanakya contain information on deception and subversion. Chanakya's student Chandragupta Maurya, founder of the Maurya Empire in India, made use of assassinations, spies and secret agents, which are described in Chanakya's Arthasastra. The ancient Egyptians had a thoroughly developed system for the acquisition of intelligence, and the Hebrews used spies as well, as in the story of Rahab. Spies were also prevalent in the Greek and Roman empires.[2] During the 13th and 14th centuries, the Mongols relied heavily on espionage in their conquests in Asia and Europe. Feudal Japan often used ninjas to gather intelligence.
Aztecs used Pochtecas, people in charge of commerce, as spies and diplomats, and had diplomatic immunity. Along with the pochteca, before a battle or war, secret agents, quimitchin, were sent to spy amongst enemies usually wearing the local costume and speaking the local language, techniques similar to modern secret agents.[3]
Many modern espionage methods were established by Francis Walsingham in Elizabethan England.[4] Walsingham's staff in England included the cryptographer Thomas Phelippes, who was an expert in deciphering letters and forgery, and Arthur Gregory, who was skilled at breaking and repairing seals without detection.[5]
In 1585, Mary, Queen of Scots was placed in the custody of Sir Amias Paulet, who was instructed to open and read all of Mary's clandestine correspondence.[5] In a successful attempt to entrap her, Walsingham arranged a single exception: a covert means for Mary's letters to be smuggled in and out of Chartley in a beer keg. Mary was misled into thinking these secret letters were secure, while in reality they were deciphered and read by Walsingham's agents.[5] He succeeded in intercepting letters that indicated a conspiracy to displace Elizabeth I with Mary, Queen of Scots.
In foreign intelligence, Walsingham's extensive network of "intelligencers", who passed on general news as well as secrets, spanned Europe and the Mediterranean.[5] While foreign intelligence was a normal part of the principal secretary's activities, Walsingham brought to it flair and ambition, and large sums of his own money.[6] He cast his net more widely than others had done previously: expanding and exploiting links across the continent as well as in Constantinople and Algiers, and building and inserting contacts among Catholic exiles.[5] Modern development Political cartoon depicting the Afghan Emir Sher Ali with his "friends" the Russian Bear and British Lion (1878). The Great Game saw the rise of systematic espionage and surveillance throughout the region by both powers.
Modern tactics of espionage and dedicated government intelligence agencies were developed over the course of the late 19th century. A key background to this development was the Great Game, a period denoting the strategic rivalry and conflict that existed between the British Empire and the Russian Empire throughout Central Asia. To counter Russian ambitions in the region and the potential threat it posed to the British position in India, a system of surveillance, intelligence and counterintelligence was built up in the Indian Civil Service. The existence of this shadowy conflict was popularised in Rudyard Kipling's famous spy book, Kim, where he portrayed the Great Game (a phrase he popularised) as an espionage and intelligence conflict that 'never ceases, day or night'.
Although the techniques originally used were distinctly amateurish – British agents would often pose unconvincingly as botanists or archaeologists – more professional tactics and systems were slowly put in place. In many respects, it was here that a modern intelligence apparatus with permanent bureaucracies for internal and foreign infiltration and espionage, was first developed. A pioneering cryptographic unit was established as early as 1844 in India, which achieved some important successes in decrypting Russian communications in the area.[7]
The establishment of dedicated intelligence organizations was directly linked to the colonial rivalries between the major European powers and the accelerating development of military technology.
An early source of military intelligence was the diplomatic system of military attachés (an officer attached to the diplomatic service operating through the embassy in a foreign country), that became widespread in Europe after the Crimean War. Although officially restricted to a role of transmitting openly received information, they were soon being used to clandestinely gather confidential information and in some cases even to recruit spies and to operate de facto spy rings. Military Intelligence Seal of the Evidenzbureau, military intelligence service of the Austrian Empire.
Shaken by the revolutionary years 1848–1849, the Austrian Empire founded the Evidenzbureau in 1850 as the first permanent military intelligence service. It was first used in the 1859 Austro-Sardinian war and the 1866 campaign against Prussia, albeit with little success. The bureau collected intelligence of military relevance from various sources into daily reports to the Chief of Staff (Generalstabschef) and weekly reports to Emperor Franz Joseph. Sections of the Evidenzbureau were assigned different regions, the most important one was aimed against Russia.
During the Crimean War, the Topographical & Statistic Department T&SD was established within the British War Office as an embryonic military intelligence organization. The department initially focused on the accurate mapmaking of strategically sensitive locations and the collation of militarily relevant statistics. After the deficiencies in the British army's performance during the war became known a large-scale reform of army institutions was overseen by the Edward Cardwell. As part of this, the T&SD was reorganized as the Intelligence Branch of the War Office in 1873 with the mission to "collect and classify all possible information relating to the strength, organization etc. of foreign armies... to keep themselves acquainted with the progress made by foreign countries in military art and science..."[8]
The French Ministry of War authorized the creation of the Deuxième Bureau on June 8, 1871, a service charged with performing "research on enemy plans and operations."[9] This was followed a year later by the creation of a military counter-espionage service. It was this latter service that was discredited through its actions over the notorious Dreyfus Affair, where a French Jewish officer was falsely accused of handing over military secrets to the Germans. As a result of the political division that ensued, responsibility for counter-espionage was moved to the civilian control of the Ministry of the Interior.
Field Marshal Helmuth von Moltke established a military intelligence unit, Abteilung (Section) IIIb, to the German General Staff in 1889 which steadily expanded its operations into France and Russia. The Italian Ufficio Informazioni del Commando Supremo was put on a permanent footing in 1900. After Russia's defeat in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-05, Russian military intelligence was reorganized under the 7th Section of the 2nd Executive Board of the great imperial headquarters.[10] Naval Intelligence
It was not just the army that felt a need for military intelligence. Soon, naval establishments were demanding similar capabilities from their national governments to allow them to keep abreast of technological and strategic developments in rival countries.
The Naval Intelligence Division was set up as the independent intelligence arm of the British Admiralty in 1882 (initially as the Foreign Intelligence Committee) and was headed by Captain William Henry Hall.[11] The division was initially responsible for fleet mobilization and war plans as well as foreign intelligence collection; in the 1900s two further responsibilities – issues of strategy and defence and the protection of merchant shipping – were added.
Naval intelligence originated in the same year in the US and was founded by the Secretary of the Navy, William H. Hunt "...for the purpose of collecting and recording such naval information as may be useful to the Department in time of war, as well as in peace." This was followed in October 1885 by the Military Information Division, the first standing military intelligence agency of the United States with the duty of collecting military data on foreign nations.[12]
In 1900, the Imperial German Navy established the Nachrichten-Abteilung, which was devoted to gathering intelligence on Britain. The navies of Italy, Russia and Austria-Hungary set up similar services as well. Civil intelligence agencies William Melville helped establish the first independent intelligence agency, the British Secret Service, and was appointed as its first chief.
Integrated intelligence agencies run directly by governments were also established. The British Secret Service Bureau was founded in 1909 as the first independent and interdepartmental agency fully in control over all government espionage activities.
At a time of widespread and growing anti-German feeling and fear, plans were drawn up for an extensive offensive intelligence system to be used an instrument in the event of a European war. Due to intense lobbying from William Melville and after he obtained German mobilization plans and proof of their financial support to the Boers, the government authorized the creation of a new intelligence section in the War Office, MO3 (subsequently redesignated M05) headed by Melville, in 1903. Working under cover from a flat in London, Melville ran both counterintelligence and foreign intelligence operations, capitalizing on the knowledge and foreign contacts he had accumulated during his years running Special Branch.
Due to its success, the Government Committee on Intelligence, with support from Richard Haldane and Winston Churchill, established the Secret Service Bureau in 1909. It consisted of nineteen military intelligence departments – MI1 to MI19, but MI5 and MI6 came to be the most recognized as they are the only ones to have remained active to this day.
The Bureau was a joint initiative of the Admiralty, the War Office and the Foreign Office to control secret intelligence operations in the UK and overseas, particularly concentrating on the activities of the Imperial German Government. Its first director was Captain Sir George Mansfield Smith-Cumming. In 1910, the bureau was split into naval and army sections which, over time, specialised in foreign espionage and internal counter-espionage activities respectively. The Secret Service initially focused its resources on gathering intelligence on German shipbuilding plans and operations. Espionage activity in France was consciously refrained from, so as not to jeopardize the burgeoning alliance between the two nations.
For the first time, the government had access to a peace-time, centralized independent intelligence bureaucracy with indexed registries and defined procedures, as opposed to the more ad hoc methods used previously. Instead of a system whereby rival departments and military services would work on their own priorities with little to no consultation or cooperation with each other, the newly established Secret Intelligence Service was interdepartmental, and submitted its intelligence reports to all relevant government departments.[13] Counter-intelligence The Okhrana was founded in 1880 and was tasked with countering enemy espionage. St. Petersburg Okhrana group photo, 1905.
As espionage became more widely used, it became imperative to expand the role of existing police and internal security forces into a role of detecting and countering foreign spies. The Austro-Hungarian Evidenzbureau was entrusted with the role from the late 19th century to counter the actions of the Pan-Slavist movement operating out of Serbia.
As mentioned above, after the fallout from the Dreyfus Affair in France, responsibility for military counter-espionage was passed in 1899 to the Sûreté générale – an agency originally responsible for order enforcement and public safety – and overseen by the Ministry of the Interior.[9]
The Okhrana[14] was initially formed in 1880 to combat political terrorism and left-wing revolutionary activity throughout the Russian Empire, but was also tasked with countering enemy espionage.[15] Its main concern was the activities of revolutionaries, who often worked and plotted subversive actions from abroad. It created an antenna in Paris run by Pyotr Rachkovsky to monitor their activities. The agency used many methods to achieve its goals, including covert operations, undercover agents, and "perlustration" — the interception and reading of private correspondence. The Okhrana became notorious for its use of agents provocateurs who often succeeded in penetrating the activities of revolutionary groups including the Bolsheviks.[16]
In Britain, the Secret Service Bureau was split into a foreign and counter intelligence domestic service in 1910. The latter was headed by Sir Vernon Kell and was originally aimed at calming public fears of large scale German espionage.[17] As the Service was not authorized with police powers, Kell liaised extensively with the Special Branch of Scotland Yard (headed by Basil Thomson), and succeeded in disrupting the work of Indian revolutionaries collaborating with the Germans during the war. First World War Cover of the Petit Journal of 20 January 1895, covering the arrest of Captain Alfred Dreyfus for espionage and treason. The case convulsed France and raised public awareness of the rapidly developing world of espionage.
By the outbreak of the First World War all the major powers had highly sophisticated structures in place for the training and handling of spies and for the processing of the intelligence information obtained through espionage. The figure and mystique of the spy had also developed considerably in the public eye. The Dreyfus Affair, which involved international espionage and treason, contributed much to public interest in espionage.[18][19]
The spy novel emerged as a distinct genre in the late 19th century, and dealt with themes such as colonial rivalry, the growing threat of conflict in Europe and the revolutionary and anarchist domestic threat. The "spy novel" was defined by The Riddle of the Sands (1903) by British author Robert Erskine Childers, which played on public fears of a German plan to invade Britain (the nefarious plot is uncovered by an amateur spy). Its success was followed by a flood of imitators, including William Le Queux and E. Phillips Oppenheim.
It was during the War that modern espionage techniques were honed and refined, as all belligerent powers utilized their intelligence services to obtain military intelligence, commit acts of sabotage and carry out propaganda. As the progress of the war became static and armies dug down in trenches the utility of cavaly reconnaissance became of very limited effectiveness.[20]
Information gathered at the battlefront from the interrogation of prisoners-of-war was only capable of giving insight into local enemy actions of limited duration. To obtain high-level information on the enemy's strategic intentions, its military capabilities and deployment required undercover spy rings operating deep in enemy territory. On the Western Front the advantage lay with the Western Allies, as throughout most of the war German armies occupied Belgium and parts of northern France, thereby providing a large and dissaffected population that could be organized into collecting and transmitting vital intelligence.[20]
British and French intelligence services recruited Belgian or French refugees and infiltrated these agents behind enemy lines via the Netherlands – a neutral country. Many collaborators were then recruited from the local population, who were mainly driven by patriotism and hatred of the harsh German occupation. By the end of the war, over 250 networks had been created, comprising more than 6,400 Belgian and French citizens. These rings concentrated on infiltrating the German railway network so that the allies could receive advance warning of strategic troop and ammunition movements.[20] Mata Hari was a famous Dutch dancer who was executed on charges of espionage for Germany. Pictured at her arrest.
The most effective such ring in German-occupied Belgium, was the Dame Blanche ("White Lady") network, founded in 1916 by Walthère Dewé as an underground intelligence network. It supplied as much as 75% of the intelligence collected from occupied Belgium and northern France to the Allies. By the end of the war, its 1,300 agents covered all of occupied Belgium, northern France and, through a collaboration with Louise de Bettignies' network, occupied Luxembourg. The network was able to provide a crucial few days warning before the launch of the German 1918 Spring Offensive.[21]
German intelligence was only ever able to recruit a very small number of spies. These were trained at an academy run by the Kriegsnachrichtenstelle in Antwerp and headed by Elsbeth Schragmüller, known as "Fräulein Doktor". These agents were generally isolated and unable to rely on a large support network for the relaying of information. The most famous German spy was Margaretha Geertruida Zelle, an exotic Dutch dancer with the stage name Mata Hari. As a Dutch subject, she was able to cross national borders freely. In 1916, she was arrested and brought to London where she was interrogated at length by Sir Basil Thomson, Assistant Commissioner at New Scotland Yard. She eventually claimed to be working for French intelligence. In fact, she had entered German service from 1915, and sent her reports to the mission in the German embassy in Madrid.[22] In January 1917, the German military attaché in Madrid transmitted radio messages to Berlin describing the helpful activities of a German spy code-named H-21. French intelligence agents intercepted the messages and, from the information it contained, identified H-21 as Mata Hari. She was executed by firing squad on 15 October 1917.
German spies in Britain did not meet with much success – the German spy ring operating in Britain was successfully disrupted by MI5 under Vernon Kell on the day after the declaration of the war. Home Secretary, Reginald McKenna, announced that "within the last twenty-four hours no fewer than twenty-one spies, or suspected spies, have been arrested in various places all over the country, chiefly in important military or naval centres, some of them long known to the authorities to be spies",[23][24]
One exception was Jules C. Silber, who evaded MI5 investigations and obtained a position at the censor's office in 1914. Using mailed window envelopes that had already been stamped and cleared he was able
submitted by spynine to lfg [link] [comments]

Low Risk Trading system How To Trade Binary Options Profitably 2016 - Binary Options Trading System 2016 How to trade binary options in Nadex for profit step by ... Ultimate4Trading Review  Scam or Legit Binary Options Trading Best and strongest indicator for binary options and Forex Bfmts Trader V1.00 With Live Trading THE TRUTH ABOUT BINARY OPTIONS - YouTube Binary Options - Trading Strategy Best binary options trading strategy WIN Big 2017  iq option

In order to make a profit in binary options trading you will need to develop a strategy or a plan. If you are new to this it can be difficult to come up with your own plan but there are traders that are experienced and make a fairly nice profit that have shared how they are doing it, so you could try out their plans. If you are new to binary options trading then the tips below will be very ... From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. In finance, a strangle is an investment strategy involving the purchase or sale of particular option derivatives that allows the holder to profit based on how much the price of the underlying security moves, with relatively minimal exposure to the direction of price movement. A purchase of particular options is known as a long strangle, while a sale of ... From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Iron Butterfly Payoff Graph. In finance an iron butterfly, also known as the ironfly, is the name of an advanced, neutral-outlook, options trading strategy that involves buying and holding four different options at three different strike prices. It is a limited-risk, limited-profit trading strategy that is structured for a larger probability of earning ... Online Trading » Binary Options » Index of Binary Options Trading Category by feedroll on February 28, 2014 In this article we have done a list of all the articles related to the Binary Options Trading. The most bearish of options trading strategies is the simple put buying or selling strategy utilized by most options traders. Stock can make steep downward moves. Moderately bearish options traders usually set a target price for the expected decline and utilize bear spreads to reduce cost. This strategy can have unlimited amount of profit and limited risk when down correctly. The bear call ... Thus, the options are binary in nature because there are only two possible outcomes. Source: Binary option - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. thanks for the useful information. 68. FaizanKhan 2013.01.14 07:37 #4 . In finance, a binary option is a type of option where the payoff is either some fixed amount of some asset or nothing at all. The two main types of binary options are the cash-or ... Iron butterfly (options strategy) Last updated April 10, 2019 Iron Butterfly Payoff Graph. In finance an iron butterfly, also known as the ironfly, is the name of an advanced, neutral-outlook, options trading strategy that involves buying and holding four different options at three different strike prices.It is a limited-risk, limited-profit trading strategy that is structured for a larger ...

[index] [13793] [26122] [736] [4234] [24101] [27767] [13673] [13878] [6959] [16935]

Low Risk Trading system

Binary options serve their risk strategy and very low risk auto trading. Low Risk High Reward Triangle Day Trading Strategy Automated trading system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en ... https://binaryoptionsbeat.com/ #Binaryoptions #Nadex #Nadextutorial You can always contact me via [email protected] In this video I tried to explain ... How To Trade Binary Options Profitably 2016 - Binary Options Trading System 2016 60 Second Binary Options Strategy 2016 90 - 95% Winning Binary Options Strategy! How To Predict 100% Wining Shot Binary Option/Candelstick physiology Trading strategy 73$ Eran in 5m - Duration: 4:10. Binary and Forex Millionaire Trading Strategy 380 views 4:10 binary options trading strategy that works free binary options strategy that works binary options strategy wikipedia binary options vic strategy. chosen3000; 17 apr 2017 · new replies · 5m ... binary options trading strategies binary options trading software binary options trading system binary options indicator strategy binary options signals indicator binary options scalping indicator ... Are binary options a good idea? If you're thinking about trading binary options, watch this video first. Check out our FREE training for traders https://bi...

http://arab-binary-option.tanribagsi.tk