A beginning

This attempt at "troubleshooting" regarding possible cyber threats was composed in March of 2017. It was in part inspired by another woman with whom I was staying at a domestic violence shelter and I would consider this to be a result of her intangible property in the form of her abstract capital combing with mine to create this. She told me that while she was seeking to change her employment she had formerly been a software designer. I had taken a class on mobile app development but did not have much experience with computer programming outside of that attempt. I later attempted to submit it in connection with various other reports to the staff of a Senator and also had copies of it and other reports stolen. Were they used for nefarious purposes? They well may have been...That is NOT why I post it here.

Notes on Linguistic Causes of Cyber Threats

The Java Programming Language advertises itself to be the primary programming language for mobile applications. Based on elements of prior programming language, there are a number of areas where the Java Programming Language presents substantial problems regarding systems security. The foremost problem is connected to its patriarchal, hierarchical linguistic model.

This model is problematic from its onset. The hierarchical method for assigning data distributions and connectivities creates a centralized source of origin, or ‘root.’ This puts inordinate pressure (demand) on a single source of origin to perform for myriad functions. Additionally, assignments of ‘classes’ include the abstraction from source of origin, thereby invisibilizing the source of origin, which increases the isolation of the source of origin during its performance. By performing so significant a programmatic function in isolation, the identification of a source of origin point creates a severe vulnerability for the operability of the entire program application. By targeting the source of origin one can hamper, debilitate, impact or induce a number of threats or problems to various aspects of the application.

That Java also includes ‘coded’ references to female anatomy (ie, ‘bean’ or ‘enterprise bean’) and creates linguistic command structures that consistently place ‘feminine’ insinuations into roles of data acquisition, retrieval or other sorts of ‘yin’ functions within the program without likewise balancing the more masculine linguistic insinuations with comparable functions sets the ‘yin’ aspects up for a situation of perpetual vulnerability that makes ‘penetrations’ not only possible for outside or external threats seeking to impact program functions but also to mire the ‘yang’ functions into potential susceptibility to cooperate or collaborate with the external threats.

Indeed, by not offering the vital feminine performance components autonomy, reciprocity in functionality, equitable acknowledgement in hierarchical methodologies, or independent security protocols that are not sequenced into casting feminine roles as submissive and hence in need of external securitization, program functions that entail ‘producing’ content or distribution through the application or that entail acquiring data to be processed in order to ‘produce’ content are by design coded to be vulnerable to outside threats.

Without conscious understanding of this AND a subsequent effort to re-define the linguistic modelling, not only are the ‘feminine’ programmatic functions rendered vulnerable, but the ‘masculine’ programmatic functions are likewise rendered vulnerable, as they are coded to perform functions similar to the potential threats that target the aforementioned areas related to ‘downloading’ and ‘data processing.’ Because they employ methods, follow procedures and implement logic that is based on these linguistic implications, they are limited in their capacity to distinguish invasive security threats from ‘normal’ program functions and hence handicapped in detection and elimination of security threats.

Additionally, attempts to identify, locate, and impact security threats at their source of origins employ the same linguistic methods and in effect serve to reify a ‘culture’ of continuously casting ‘yin’ or ‘feminine’ program functions into both (a) positions of vulnerability and (b) targets of ‘penetration’ in order to identify threats. One need only examine the principles behind the ‘honey trap’ method of detecting cyber threats to see the full implications of this assessment.

This ‘culture’ provides little, if any, option for ‘yin’ functions to support each other outside of ‘submission’ to often abstracted centralized sources of origin. This also entails that the ‘yang’ functions are continuously looking to the centralized source of origin for ‘commands’ and hence lack capacity for non-linear identification of potential problems and abilities to support ‘yin’ functions. Finally, by being coded for centralization to an abstracted, centralized source of origin, ‘yin’ functions are hindered from supporting each other to fend off or otherwise prevent attack.

Thanks to this hierarchical model, a variety of applications are also inherently coded with supremacist and racist implications as well. While many marketing and branding techniques involve the use of symbols, terms, names or other designations that originate from a variety of cultures, the use of those symbols terms, names and/or designations are deployed via language that has been ‘copyrighted’ or ‘developed’ by individuals who by and large themselves came from a homogenous group that ascribed to particular values that included acquiring the ‘technologies’ in the symbols, terms, names and/or designations employed via branding and marketing techniques.

These acquisitions often occurred through means that were violent in nature and that targeted cultures that did not proscribe to the same paradigm around data procurement, assignment, or classification that the acquiring culture employed. However, the linguistic model provided now assigns the technologies coded into the branding and marketing symbology to individuals who do not share the historical legacies or ethics as those who were behind the technologies. Instead, the language itself intentionally abstracted the ‘legacies’ to be appropriated by pre-determined subclasses without acknowledging the progenitors or ‘originators’ of various sequences specifically.

The language itself protects and rewards those who have co-opted technologies through coercive means. That there should be a ‘public’ or ‘private’ license has little bearing on the ultimate accumulation of value and power ascribed to the language authors or assignees based on the intention and structure of their programming language itself. Just look at how ‘inheritance’ is assigned within a program application to see the impact of ‘instantiation’ or lack thereof in accordance with this linguistic model. Ultimately, unless we employ a different linguistic model for program applications, the best cyber-defense is to employ its greatest threat against the application itself, much like a virus is treated with a neutralized form of the virus itself.

---

To be continued...

Crouse for President