📙Definitions

➠ SOTA

Diminutive for "State-Of-The-Art".

From 2022

★   ★   ★ 

➠ NAD #Key:Nuclear

Diminutive for "Natural Assured Destruction" coming from 2023 with this pre-work micro-paper. 

f MAD ensures a "Mutual Assured Destruction", NAD is the threshold from which an escalade provokes an uncontrolled sequence of natural events leading to Humankind's ending.

In the mentioned micro-paper, NAD qualifies the disastrous consequences of a nuclear escalate uncontrollably triggering a magnetic drift that would lead to a pole inversion. In such case, outcomes are unknowns for the Living, moreover if a nuclear winter and radioactives clouds are also to be managed. Speaking of definition, things don't have to go so far for a global nuclear winter holds a NAD risk too.

Another example would be a deliberate triggering of Kessler Syndrom leading unusable orbits, communications and the internet, hence provoking a civilization collapse.

★   ★   ★ 

➠ NTK attacks (2023)

Need-To-Know attacks is a way to damage masks, see here for more elements of comprehension about the quote below :

In politics, a dog whistle is the use of coded or suggestive language in political messaging to garner support from a particular group without provoking opposition. The concept is named after ultrasonic dog whistles, which are audible to dogs but not humans. Dog whistles use language that appears normal to the majority but communicates specific things to intended audiences.

In the same manner, Need-To-Know attacks are meant to pass special provoking messages from the connoisseurs of a matter to the other ones. It is rather intended to be used by the intelligence community. For all of those who could see these attacks occurring, it would be pure gibberish or a conspiracy theory — for those who are targeted and have the Need-To-Know over the matter, this would hurts sharply. It's like a kind of informational targeting including a psychological component by partly revealing adversary's secrets.

What is the difference with shaming? Shaming is based on a direct exposition with supporting evidence. Here it is not necessary to reveal the evidences.

For example, imagine that an organization would have a serious issue with several agencies about someone living in a building at the 45 address number (for example, a victim of illegal acts who discovered it all and resisted). The competing intelligence services could choose to quote messages like "45" — or "face the 45" — chronically or punctually, only to put this organization under pressure. If no information has leaked about the matter, the message is encapsulated in a format that only the sender and the receiver understand, for the others, it is gibberish.

★   ★   ★ 

➠ Below the Need-to-Know threshold 

Said of choices, actions, finance being done under the Need-to-Know threshold of the decision-taking core, hence being suspect covert actions, APTs or PMCs. For example a state agency covertly trafficking drugs without the headquarters approval or knowing (this is illegal).

In French : « Sous le seuil du besoin d'en connaître »

Late 2023

★   ★   ★ 

➠ Reciprocity principle, in asymmetric warfare 

Passing by the point for which some actor behaviors and doing cancel any kind of symmetrical protection (white-zone treaties or gray-zone connivance).

Meaning that this actor or APT is violating so many treaties and common rules that its lethal neutralization would not have any legal consequences or trigger any kind of remedy — wherever it would be hosted.

Example : In a first, Israel responds to Hamas hackers with an air strike

June 2024

★   ★   ★ 

➠ Biosecurity

Biosecurity : which concerns biological security (example: electro-acoustic, chemical or bacteriological threats and other ones).

➠ Neurosecurity (personal approach in English)

Neurosecurity (full field definition) : which concerns neurological security, hence the preservation of a safe and functioning cognition and cerebral integrity.

• We'll talk about Neurobiosecurity when addressing cerebral integrity only (preservation of neurons and synapses).

• We will speak of Neurocybersecurity risk when the threat is cyberborne (through a computer for example).

More openly, this field addresses the preservation of biological, psychological, cognitive and therefore neurological integrity from the risks of malversion. For conscious beings, it is a question of free will preservation from any risk of malversion (manipulation).

Why specify "conscious beings" ? We speak of consciousness in opposition to the animal kingdom - if not conscious - and the vegetable kingdom, because it is an anthropomorphic notion that concerns beings endowed with free will.

➠ Neurosécurité (approche personnelle en Français)

Neurosécurité (définition du domaine) : qui touche à la sécurité neurologique, donc la préservation d'une cognition saine et fonctionnelle ainsi qu'une intégrité cérébrale.

• Nous parlerons de Neurobiosécurité lorsque l'on considéra uniquement l'intégrité cérébrale (préservation des neurones et des synapses).

• On parlera de risque de Neurocybersécurité quand la menace est cyberportée (à travers un ordinateur par exemple). 

De façon plus large ce champ concerne la préservation de l'integrité biologique, psychologique, cognitive et donc neurologique des risques de malversion. Pour l'être doté de conscience, il s'agit de préserver le libre arbitre de tout risque de malversion (manipulation).

Pourquoi préciser « les êtres conscients » ? On parle de conscience en opposition avec le règne animal — si non conscients — et végétal, car c'est une notion anthropomorphique qui concerne les êtres dotés d'un libre arbitre.

★   ★   ★ 

➠ Domwhiting  (neologism)

Domwhiting : action of clearing a new domain (contraction for "domain-whiting") — at the conceptual or structural level (ideas).

Example : the definition above about Neurosecurity.

★   ★   ★ 

➠ Neurodefense

I define neurodefense as all the tactics and strategy used individually or collectively to ensure a respect of Neurorights (like shared in this section).

So, it must be acknowledged that psychological and cognitive spaces are definitely personal, intimate, private and inviolable and that all dommageable consequences for an intruder violating this space — would they be about health, analysis or interpretation, financial, materials, legals or about safety — are definitely inadmissible and unforgivable.

Thus, all prosecution attempts coming from a deliberate use of defense mechanisms by the victim (as listed inside this section) aiming at luring or make the intruders flee away from this personal and inviolable space are definitely unjustifiable and inadmissible.