Muddy Water Crisis Essay

Politicians can learn a lot from the Information Security Research arena, if they took the time to close the loop with regards to confirmation bias, and understood data, without judgement. One of the biggest problems with information disclosure in the security realm, is the matter of trust. When information is disclosed in the information security world, researchers that I have spoken to, first look at the source of the information, followed by the content of information being disclosed: “Who is making this statement, and what is its purpose.”

Months ago we saw the disclosure of vulnerabilities surrounding St. Jude pacemakers, and Muddy Waters Capital. For those who don’t know what transpired, a security research firm discovered alleged vulnerabilities in St. Jude’s product line. The financial firm had hoped the disclosure would cause the price of the stock to fall [1], enabling them (Muddy Waters) to capitalize on a short sell. [2] Subsequently, St. Jude sued both the security firm, and Muddy Water. [3]

Let’s recap:

with regards to intelligence surrounding Russia’s involvement, needs to be approached without bias. For anyone in any party, the fact this occurred, means it can occur again to benefit the party you don’t support. “If it happened to them (Democrats), don’t think it can’t happen to you (Republicans).” When confirmation bias comes into the equation, you turn a willful, neglectful, blind eye on the ultimate goal - discovering the truth. There are groups tasked with creating tons of disinformation [11] aimed at our citizens, and our media. Do not allow these groups to influence the outcome. Only you can take off your blinders.

With regards to “circumstantial” evidence, anyone in any area of politics, intelligence, or investigations, with a modicum of common sense, needs to watch this Geico commercial [12] prior to spewing off an answer. Don’t be the replica of that