A refinement to the general mechanistic account

Abstract

Phyllis Illari and Jon Williamson propose a formulation for a general mechanistic account, the purpose of which is to capture the similarities across mechanistic accounts in the sciences. Illari and Williamson extract insight from mechanisms in astrophysics-which are notably different from the typical biological mechanisms discussed in the literature on mechanisms-to show how their general mechanistic account accommodates mechanisms across various sciences. We present argumentation that demonstrates why an amendment is necessary to the ontology (entities and activities) referred to by the general mechanistic account provided by Illari and Williamson. The amendment is required due to the variability of some components in computing mechanisms: the very same component serves as either entity or activity, both between levels and within the same level of the explanatory hierarchy. We argue that the proper ontological account of these mechanistic components involves disambiguation via explicitly indexing them as entities or activities.

Refining the Blunt Instruments of Cybersecurity: A Framework to Coordinate Prevention and Preservation of Behaviours

“…There must be capacity to tailor controls to match the specificity of negative behaviour controls and features which facilitate positive behaviours. The work of Hatleback and Spring [44], and Chua et al [17], are steps toward shared terminology to navigate between prevention and preservation of behaviours.…”

“…For our purposes, this is directly addressed by adopting the mechanistic approach to cybersecurity described by Hatleback and Spring [44]. With this, a behaviour can be an indexed entity, as a file or data, but also exist as an activity in a system, producing a visible phenomenon.…”

“…Address linkages between negative and positive behaviours and/or controls. Controls are engineered mechanisms [44] -it may be assumed but is not always assured that a control precisely addresses only the entity or activity it is intended to act upon. This means there is scope to address linkages.…”

A cyber-risk framework for coordination of the prevention and preservation of behaviours1

“…To address this shortcoming, we adopt a mechanistic approach similar to that described by Hatleback and Spring [57]. With this, a behaviour can be an indexed entity, as a file or data, but also exist as an activity in a system, producing a visible phenomenon.…”

“…A foundation for precision in sociotechnical security controls extends the definition of an asset to acknowledge the activities of users that contribute to the asset. This adapts the definition of indexed entities [57] to acknowledge the connection between the entity and the activity -that the activity causes changes to the entity (the data asset) -and that these changes are the phenomena that a cyber-risk owner can see. This relates (positive and negative) real-world behaviours to the identifiable data and IT systems which are subject to the decisions of a cyber-risk owner.…”