jump to navigation

Snipers, Gun Control and Causality…oh my! June 11, 2014

Posted by Chris Mark in Uncategorized.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

causeWith yet another shooting in the news, the debate is again raging about gun control. I personally believe these are healthy debates but I am often frustrated by the seemingly illogical positions taken on both sides of the debate.  Last year I wrote a post titled “A Perspective on Killing from a Marine and His Rifle” in which I provide personal as well as third party information on what is required to create a ‘killer’.   Adding to this I am including information that should help people better understand causality and point to the ‘actual’ cause of an event in which a firearm is used.  This is taken from the research brief titled: “Failed State of Security II; Victim Blaming in CyberCrime

Understanding Causality

The simple term “cause” can be deceptively complex to understand and apply.  The application becomes much more difficult when applied to social issues and events where ambiguity, subjectivity, and moral and ethical aspects must be considered.  While the concept of cause and causality has been studied and debated by philosophers for millennia a commonly accepted definition is still not found.   It was Virgil who, in Georgics 2 in 490 said: “Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas” or “blessed accomplishment theirs, who can track the causes of things”.[i]   The difficulty of defining the concept of “cause” is familiar to those with an interest in philosophy or science.  Without becoming a primer on the intricacies of the debate, suffice it to say that cause, like security, is necessarily contextual in nature.   Within the context of Victimology, it is important to understand the distinction between identifying what a person emotionally or philosophically believes is a ‘cause’ of an event that impacts a victim and the philosophical and legal concepts of ‘cause’ as they applies to a crime.

The Philosophical View of Causality

As discussed in the introduction to this paper, people often ascribe blame based upon their internal logical calculus or emotional belief as to what a ‘cause’ of an event is.  Within the context of firearm violence, this is particularly true.  Firearm control advocates state that “firearms cause” violence etc.  For this reason, it is important to understand the philosophical underpinnings of reasoning and how they apply to determining ‘cause’.  As important is the understanding of errors in logics. Within logic, errors in either reasoning or structure are known as fallacies.  With an understanding of the common fallacies that pertain to identification of cause, it is easier to understand and identify the true, or actual cause of an event. (more…)

“Failed State of Security” Part II; Cybercrime Victim Blaming May 18, 2014

Posted by Chris Mark in Uncategorized.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

PartIIfailedStaetI am proud to release another research brief that is Part II of my “Failed State of Security” series in which I discuss and analyze victim blaming in the context of data security.  In 2012 I published a research brief titled “A Failed State of Security: A Rational Analysis of Deterrence Theory and The Effect on CyberCrime.” in which I discussed the failing of law enforcement, and cybersecurity to deter cyber events and discussed the theory of deterrence and the need for deterrence within cybersecurity.  You can download the article on IDGA’s website or on my own website here.  This paper is part II of the “Failed State of Security” series.  Started after the Target data breach, this topic is one that has always been close to me.  In April 2009 I wrote an article titled “Lessons from the Heartland Breach” which was published as the cover story by TransactionWorld magazine.

Victim blaming is common in sexual assault, as well as other types of crimes.  A quick Internet search will demonstrate scores of instances in which the victim of a violent is blamed for being victimized.   When we include a large, corporate entity it becomes easier to point the accusatory finger at the organization.  Whether due to Schadenfreude or some other reason, people want to blame companies that are victimized by hackers.  Did the company “cause” the breach?  Were they somehow complicit in the attack?  What do we mean when we say “cause”?  What is a causal fallacy?  These, and many more topics, are discussed in Part II of the “Failed State of Security” series.  I invite you to download “Failed State of Security Part II”; Victim Blaming in Cybercrime.  As always, I welcome any comments or debate on the topic…

%d bloggers like this: