How to Win the Deception / Counter-deception Arms Race? - Simon Henderson April 2021 Version 1.0 2021 Simon Henderson
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
How to Win the Deception / Counter- deception Arms Race? Simon Henderson April 2021 Version 1.0 © 2021 Simon Henderson Deception By Design
How to Win the Deception/Counter-deception Arms Race?
How to Win the Deception/ 2003). And while law enforcement did eventually
catch up with Marcus, he was never convicted.
Counter-deception Arms
Race? The Savannah Move involves placing a $5000
chip under a small stack of $5 chips on one of
the 2:1 column bets. The stack slants slightly
Simon Henderson
towards the dealer so that they cannot see the
April 2021
$5000 chip located on the bottom of the pile. If the
ball lands on a winning number, then the player
Acknowledgements enthusiastically claims the win. Replaying the
moments leading up to the win on CCTV reveals no
Cover photo of adult reed warbler feeding cuckoo
cheating, as the play is entirely legitimate and no
chick, by Per Harald Olsen (edited). CC BY-SA 3.0
cheating has occurred.
Introduction However, if the ball lands on a losing number,
the player will act as if intoxicated and clumsily
“Creativity may well be the last legal unfair
make a show of removing their losing chips from
competitive advantage we can take to run
the table (an illegal action known as pinching or
over the competition.”
dragging). When the dealer demands that the player
returns their chips to the table, the player covertly
Dave Trott, Advertiser, and author of
exchanges the $5000 chip for a $5 chip before
Predatory Thinking: A Masterclass in
replacing the stack on the table. The exchange
Out-Thinking the Competition (Trott,
tends to pass undetected by the dealer as their
2013)
attention is naturally directed towards the winning
areas of the table (that need to be monitored for
Usually, people cheat in casinos to win. In the early
pastposting). So far as the dealer is concerned, the
1990s, Richard Marcus literally turned the tables on
replaced stack appears to correspond exactly with
Roulette by only cheating when he had already lost.
the original stack, even when reviewed on CCTV.
By only cheating when he lost, Marcus turned the
One of Roulette’s cardinal rules is that players are
casino’s process for detecting deception against
forbidden from placing chips onto the table after
them. The very surveillance system designed
the dealer has called “no more bets” ahead of the
to protect the casino from cheating was now
ball dropping from the wheel rim into the rotor.
protecting the cheats.
Late bets, known as pastposting, involve sneaking
additional chips onto a known winning number and
The revelation of the Savannah Move, designed to
are illegal.
defeat technology, spurred the development of a
vast array of new technologies that now invisibly
In the 1980s, casinos replaced aerial walkways and
monitor, track, record, profile, and anticipate
one-way mirrored roofs with eye-in-the-sky security
players’ behaviours, and flag automatically any
cameras installed in the ceiling above each table.
suspected cheating. As a consequence, the
The ability to record games and replay the moments
Savannah Move no longer works. Radio Frequency
leading up to a big win revolutionised casino
Identification (RFID) chips inside the gaming chips
security and put an end to many forms of cheating,
now enable casinos to know:
including pastposting. However, the introduction
of anti-cheating technologies inadvertently pushed • The amount of money in play on a table.
cheating in a new direction. A direction that
• How and when chips flow between the
targeted the primary remaining vulnerability in
table, the cage, and the casino’s safe.
casino security — human sensemaking.
• How and when chips are cashed-out by
In the early 1990s, Richard Marcus, a prolific casino players.
cheat (who later became a gaming protection
• Where and when players leave the casino
consultant) developed a deceptive play known as
with uncashed chips.
The Savannah Move. From 1995-2000, Marcus and
his team used the move on Roulette tables across Of course, this battle between cheaters and casinos
the United States, stealing more than $5M. Casinos only continues to escalate, and cheaters are now
only became aware of the move when Marcus developing approaches to decode, clone, and
exposed it in his book American Roulette (Marcus, exploit casinos’ RFID systems.
deceptionbydesign.com 1 © 2021 Simon HendersonHow to Win the Deception/Counter-deception Arms Race?
This adversarial competition embodies a range • Developers of malware versus developers
of interesting processes that we will now explore of anti-malware systems.
further.
• Viruses versus vaccine developers.
Competing Innovation Cycles • Deep-fake generators versus deep-fake
detection systems.
Nature evolves through competition, and survival
• Bank robbers versus bank security system
of the fittest often equates to survival of the most
designers.
deceptive. In any competition, the ability to fool
your adversaries creates competitive advantage • Moths (that have evolved to generate
that increases dramatically your chances of disruptive ultrasonic clicks) versus bats
survival. And for the targets of deception, survival (that use ultrasonic echolocation to detect
depends upon the evolution of reciprocal counter- and hunt their prey).
deception capabilities.
• Traders versus financial regulators.
In many arenas where actors seek to establish • Bot developers versus identity
superiority over their adversaries, similar authentication designers.
cyclical behaviours play out repeatedly. The first
• Advertisers versus trading standards
competitor develops or discovers the means
regulators.
to gain an advantage over their rivals. When a
second competitor becomes aware of this, they will • Art forgers versus art authenticators.
respond by:
• Magicians versus exposers on YouTube.
• Copying or matching the first competitor’s
• Parasites (Serratia Marcescens) versus
source of advantage.
fruit flies (Drosophila) that, when infected,
• Developing a countermeasure that negates recombine their DNA during mating to
the first competitor’s advantage. prevent future parasites from targeting their
offspring.
• Changing the conditions upon which the
first competitor’s advantage depends — • Aircraft stealth designers versus radar
for example, by successfully appealing designers.
to a higher authority to have the first
• Smugglers versus customs officers.
competitor’s new advantage ruled illegal.
• Etc.
• Buying-out and acquiring the first
competitor’s advantage. Deceptive arms races can be found in a wide
variety of different competitive environments.
• Developing their own competitive
Note that these races are all asymmetric — one
advantage that outweighs the first
side tries to deceive the other, while the other side
competitor’s advantage.
tries to avoid being deceived. As Richard Dawkins
The first competitor will respond by developing (Dawkins, 1996) has noted, asymmetric arms races
a counter to the countermeasure, or by creating tend to create more complex adversarial systems:
an alternative means to gain further advantage.
Often, these arms races have no finish line, “Cheetahs are trying to eat gazelles.
and the escalatory cycle only stops when one Gazelles are not trying to eat cheetahs, they
competitor exhausts their money, resources, time, are trying to avoid being eaten by cheetahs.
or motivation, and no longer has the capacity to From an evolutionary point of view
compete. asymmetric arms races are more interesting,
since they are more likely to generate highly
Survival therefore depends upon who can adapt complex weapons systems.”
most rapidly, innovate most effectively, and make
the greatest leaps ahead of the competition. Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker:
Successful deception creates a step change Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals
in competitive advantage, so it is perhaps not a Universe Without Design. (Dawkins,
surprising that a deception/counter-deception arms 1996, p.185).
race arises naturally in many adversarial settings.
For example, consider: In this article, I will detail examples of the
deception/counter-deception arms in sport, the
military, and nature. I will then draw together
deceptionbydesign.com 2 © 2021 Simon HendersonHow to Win the Deception/Counter-deception Arms Race?
emergent lessons about how deception can be jersey. Other players would run at the opposition
used to gain and sustain competitive advantage in while miming carrying the ball, enabling the real
other settings. ball carrier (who appeared to be empty-handed)
to run down the field unopposed. At the time, the
Deception in Sport rulebook did not explicitly identify this tactic as
illegal. However, officials soon ruled that the play
Sport is a rich source for studying the deception/ was unsportsmanlike and made it illegal.
counter-deception arms race, as individuals, teams,
and organisations seek continuously to develop For a game against Harvard University, Warner
techniques, tactics, and technologies to beat the ‘inverted’ the hidden-ball strategy by sewing leather
competition and win. Sport is heavily characterised football-shaped patches onto the front of his
by mimesis (social copying and emulation) and any players’ jerseys. Every team member who held their
innovation is soon recognised and replicated by hands in front of their torso appeared to be carrying
the competition. This soon erodes the advantage the ball, making it impossible for the opposition to
and, ultimately, levels the playing field. Often, the identify the real ball carrier. Once again, officials
bodies governing a sport may update the sport’s soon ruled this strategy illegal. However, Harvard
rules to recognise and standardise the innovation retaliated in their next game against Carlisle by
as a formal part of the sport. Or they may declare painting their football the maroon colour of their
that the advantage is illegal, and ban its use. These jerseys, thereby achieving the same advantage in
kinds of development occur regularly in American an entirely different way (a fundamental concept
Football. in deception theory). Both plays ultimately forced
further updates to the rules.
In the game of American Football, before each
phase of play, each team will routinely gather Another of Warner’s plays occurred just before
into a tight circle known as a huddle to plan their the snap (the moment when the Center at the line
strategy and motivate each other. The huddle of scrimmage passes the ball backwards to the
originated in 1894 at Gallaudet University in Quarterback). Before the ball had been passed,
Washington DC, among deaf and hard-of-hearing the Wide Receiver (whose job is to catch the ball
students. Gallaudet quarterback Paul Hubbard thrown by the Quarterback) would casually walk
became concerned that the opposition could to the sideline as if injured or seeking clarification
anticipate his plays by observing him using sign from his team. Once off the field of play, he
language to communicate his instructions to his would start running down the sideline towards
team. To counter this, Hubbard began forming a the opposition’s end zone. On receiving the ball
huddle to block the opposition from seeing his from the Center, the Quarterback would throw
communications. The huddle turned out to provide it towards the opposition’s end zone, where the
the same advantage to hearing teams seeking Wide Receiver would run back onto the pitch and
discretion in their spoken instructions, and the catch it unopposed for a touchdown. Once again,
huddle soon became adopted and standardised authorities soon rules this strategy illegal.
across all teams.
A wide variety of other forms of deception occur
In the early 1900s, Glenn ‘Pop’ Warner, was the within American Football. Deception is now an
coach for the Carlisle Indians, the football team of inherent and legal part of the game, with special
the Carlisle Indian Industrial School (for more on teams, special plays, and an ever-evolving set of
this controversial school, see Fear-Segal & Rose, innovative and highly deceptive tactics used to gain
2016; and Satterlee, 2002). Warner is today famous advantage. Plays such as the Statue of Liberty,
for developing a series of innovative trick plays that the Fumblerooski, the Bouncerooski, and the Flea
generated significant competitive advantage for his Flicker, together with a variety of false punts and
team. His tactics led Carlisle to become a national spikes, are now intrinsic to every team’s playbook.
football powerhouse, and they regularly competed
against and beat other major programs, including Some cases of deception clearly run counter to
the Ivy League schools (Jenkins, 2008). the game’s defined rules and constitute cheating.
Examples include Deflategate (Seifert, 2020)
Warner’s plays tested the boundaries of the that involved covertly under-inflating footballs
sport’s rules and exploited gaps, loopholes, and to make them easier to grip and throw, and
ambiguities. In 1903, he developed a hidden ball Spygate (Dockterman, 2020) that involved secretly
trick play where the Quarterback, under cover of videotaping opposing teams’ coaching signals and
misdirection, would tuck the ball into a hidden surreptitiously stealing their play sheets from the
pocket sewn under his own or another player’s locker room.
deceptionbydesign.com 3 © 2021 Simon HendersonHow to Win the Deception/Counter-deception Arms Race?
Another class of deception sits in the fuzzy grey The introduction of military aircraft and the advent
zone between legality and illegality, such as a of aerial surveillance soon foiled these early
recent play that used an optical illusion of yellow inflatables. Their key vulnerability was their lack of
vertical lines displayed on a scoreboard located tread mark impressions, indicating that a vehicle
behind the home team’s posts (Fox Sports, 2020). had not been driven to its current location. In
The illusion made it difficult for the opposition’s response, forces began to use real tracked vehicles
kicker to pick out and aim for the actual post from (such as bulldozers) to create track impressions,
among the illusory posts. Sports teams now invest and would place inflatables at the ends of a track.
effort studying this fuzzy boundary. For example, Wheeled dummy tanks also began to tow devices
international Rugby Union teams have recently that could leave simulated tracks. And some
begun hiring referees to interpret the sport’s rules vehicles were ‘half-tracks’ with wheels at the front
to identify new threats and opportunities (Rugby and a track at the rear. Often, additional visual
Onslaught, 2021). indicators would suggest that the formation was
fully functional, such as scattering real artillery
Most of the forms of deception discussed here, plus shells around the encampment. Simulated radio
a wide variety of others, occur to a greater or lesser traffic and the sound of manoeuvring vehicles
extent in almost every sport. And every sport’s added further fidelity.
governing rulebook therefore requires continuous
updates in the face of teams’ crafty innovations. As sensing capabilities became more sophisticated,
dummy tanks had to increase their fidelity
Let us now turn our attention to a different form of commensurately. New thermal imaging capabilities
adversarial deception/counter-deception cycle that could easily discriminate dummies from real tanks
plays out in military warfare. due to the lack of heat signatures from engines and
mufflers, exhaust systems, and human operators.
Deception in Warfare In response, dummies began to incorporate heat
sources to simulate the thermal properties of real
The military has used dummy tanks for over vehicles.
one hundred years. Dummies enable a force to
portray presence in a location where real forces Modern dummy tanks now have sophisticated
do not exist. A real unit might deploy dummies to signatures for acoustics, radar, weapon systems,
bolster its perceived size. Dummies can misdirect and communications (including frequency hopping
an opposing force, seducing their attention and and encryption), etc. Social media and other
occupying valuable thinking time. They can also act online platforms and capabilities can fabricate
as decoys or bait, increasing survival by drawing evidence supporting a unit’s deployment. And
fire and luring enemy artillery into exposing their some platforms even use real armour and can
location. take fire from the enemy while appearing to remain
operational. As Inflatech CEO Vojtech Fresser
Real and dummy military tanks debuted notes:
simultaneously around 1916 on the Western
Front in World War I. Both British and German “If the enemy fires a $70,000 Javelin
forces used wooden frameworks covered with [antitank missile] at a $30,000 dummy tank,
hessian to simulate real tanks. These simulations then we are the winners.”
were crude, cumbersome, and extremely heavy,
requiring horses to tow them into position. Lack of Inflatech CEO, Vojtech Fresser (Chapple,
manoeuvrability reduced significantly their agility 2019)
and responsiveness and constrained their illusory
potential. To defend against these capabilities, adversaries
can now deploy hyperspectral radar to not only
By 1939 and the start of World War II, military detect present features, but also their materials,
technology had advanced considerably. Allied and gases, and other spectral signatures. Satellite
Axis forces made extensive use of inflatable rubber differential interferometry can compare before
tanks that were easy to transport (they could, for and after analyses of terrain to enable post-hoc
example, be transported on the back of a real detection and analysis of vehicle movements.
tank). Engineers created and wrapped modular Artificial Intelligence (AI) can assist with data
shell frameworks around non-armoured vehicles analysis, using sophisticated pattern matching to
to simulate the appearance of real tanks. Similar better discriminate real vehicles from dummies
systems could also wrap a tank to make it resemble (deceivers consequently also use AI to assess
a truck. the credibility of their dummies). And future
deceptionbydesign.com 4 © 2021 Simon HendersonHow to Win the Deception/Counter-deception Arms Race?
developments point to robotic, remotely controlled, incubates the egg and then raises the cuckoo’s
and autonomous dummies that can credibly move chick. A critical challenge for the cuckoo, however,
in formation and coordinate their activities. is that the warbler will reject and destroy any egg
that it does not recognise as its own, either by
Despite this arms race being driven by the smashing it or tipping it out of the nest.
escalation of technological sophistication, it is
worth noting that even primitive dummies can still To reduce the probability of rejection, different
prove highly effective. In 1999, during Operation species of cuckoos have developed an ability to lay
Allied Force, the Serbian military employed various eggs with three different forms of deceptive design.
cheap yet highly effective tactical deception The first egg design is generic and can therefore be
techniques to disrupt NATO’s bombing campaign. interpreted as belonging to a wide range of other
The Serbs fooled Coalition aircraft into attacking potential species. The second egg design is cryptic
plywood and canvas targets, using fires to simulate and coloured to match a nest’s visual appearance,
thermal signatures and trays of water that would thereby making it difficult for the host to perceive
heat up in the sun like metal (Schmitt, 1999). False the egg when it is present in the nest. The third
bridges constructed from scrap metal provided type of egg design mimics accurately the look of
protection for real bridges. Telephone poles and the host’s eggs. Eggs that most closely resemble
old truck wheels became fake artillery pieces. Milk the visual appearance of the host’s eggs tend to
crates simulated anti-aircraft missile launchers. And integrate most successfully. In addition to visual
wooden MiG-29 aircraft decoys sat alongside real appearance, several species of cuckoo have also
fighter aircraft to frustrate accurate aerial targeting evolved eggs that have thicker shells, making them
(RTO Task Group SCI-131/RTG-028, 2008). Official more difficult for a host to destroy (Davies, 2011).
figures vary, but estimates suggest that NATO
bombing destroyed just ninety-three Serb tanks out Responding to the cuckoo’s ability to mimic
of around six hundred and destroyed one hundred their egg design, warblers have had to evolve
and fifty-three armoured personnel carriers out of increasingly complex and distinct egg designs that
an estimated six hundred (Norton-Taylor, 2000). make them harder to ‘copy’ via natural selection
(see Stoddard et al., 2014; Stoddard & Stevens,
As we shall see next, similar cyclic and escalatory 2010). Responding to these enhanced signatures
deception/counter-deception arms races also play- (that are themselves countermeasures), if a cuckoo
out in non-technological, non-human settings. identifies that a host has detected and destroyed
its egg, it will attack and destroy the host nest
Deception in Nature in revenge (Chakra et al., 2014). This action
discourages future egg rejection by the host.
The deception/counter-deception arms race plays
out across many parts of the animal kingdom. As a recognised invasive egg is likely to be rejected
Many studies have documented the ever-escalating by a host, any lone egg will stand out clearly. The
battleground between brood parasites (animals cuckoo therefore needs to lay its egg among a
that trick other species into raising their young) and clutch of newly laid host eggs. If, however, the
their target hosts. These battles involve two or more cuckoo’s laying cycle is out of phase with that of
non-interbreeding populations that act as agents of the host (i.e., the nest already contains eggs that
natural selection for each other — a process known are close to hatching), then the cuckoo will eat the
as coevolution. host’s eggs, forcing it to modify its cycle and start
another round of laying. Warblers can also identify
The study of deception-driven coevolution in birds when one egg has been added to its clutch, so the
has revealed many insights about: cuckoo will usually eject one of the host’s eggs
before laying its own.
• How instructions for adaptation become
encoded into DNA (genomics).
Responding to the threat posed by cuckoos, many
• How animals collect information about each warblers have developed strategies that make
other (sensory ecology). it harder for the cuckoo to locate and exploit a
possible target nest (see Yang, Wang, Liang &
• How animals make sense of each other and
Møller, 2017). For example, the host may build
generate action (cognition).
nests further from branches where cuckoos can
The battle between cuckoos and reed warblers perch to observe nest locations. They may also
involves a vast range of deception and counter- build cryptic nests that blend more effectively into
deception behaviours. The cuckoo tries covertly to surrounding branches and foliage, making it harder
lay its egg in a warbler’s nest, so that the warbler to locate. Some hosts build decoy nests, that cause
deceptionbydesign.com 5 © 2021 Simon HendersonHow to Win the Deception/Counter-deception Arms Race?
the cuckoo to lay its egg in an unattended, non- beaks. This display causes the parent host to bring
functional nest. Some hosts have even evolved the chick three times the quantity of food (Tanaka &
non-cyclic and unpredictable egg-laying patterns Ueda, 2005).
to generate additional disruption to the cuckoo’s
cycles. Responding to these strategies, cuckoos The deception/counter-deception arms race that
have become significantly more adept at locating, occurs in cuckoos’ coevolution with their hosts is
discriminating, monitoring and timing their invasion highly adversarial and, in evolutionary terms, very
of a host nest (Davies, 2011). rapid. Competitive and environmental pressures
have brought about changes in avian morphology,
Another practical challenge for the female cuckoo colouration, and behaviour over the course of mere
is how to get her egg into a host’s nest in the face decades (Bosse et al., 2017; Cattau et al., 2018;
of a forceful defence. Defences can be further Chung, 2017; Giraudeau et al., 2014; Grant, 2003).
amplified by hosts building their nests close to Entirely new bird species have even evolved over
each other so that adult birds can team up from these short timescales (Lamichhaney et al., 2018).
across multiple nests to mob an invading female
cuckoo. A further defensive strategy is to build fully It is essential to recognise that the offensive and
enclosed nests with narrow entryways that prevent defensive innovations in the deception used by
the cuckoo (which is significantly larger than the cuckoos and their competitors are not intentional
warbler) from entering the nest. In response, several and have not been ‘designed’. Rather, the sneakiest
cuckoo species have evolved to become physically forms of deception have conferred the strongest
smaller so that they can fit through the narrow evolutionary fitness. Those birds that can deceive
passageways (Davies, 2011). effectively tend to survive long enough to reproduce
and pass on their observable characteristics and
To counter these defensive measures, male behaviours to their offspring.
cuckoos will simulate a nearby nest invasion
to lure defenders away from their nests while The three domains described in this article all
the female invades unopposed. Many cuckoo exhibit highly similar deception/counter-deception
species have also evolved markings that imitate adversarial and escalatory cycles. Given the close
a hawk’s appearance (for example, having barred coupling between competitors and the rapidity with
underparts), and they can also mimic a hawk’s calls which advantage can be gained and then lost, how
to scare-away defenders. As a further measure, might a competitor create a more significant and
some cuckoos can imitate the calls of other birds’ sustained advantage over their adversaries?
to misdirect host defenders towards defending
against an incorrectly perceived enemy. In this way,
the host becomes tied-up defending against birds
Protecting and Sustaining
from a different species that are not even invading Competitive Advantage
(York & Davies, 2017).
Deception is a potent means to gain advantage
over competitors. However, a variety of forces
If a cuckoo’s egg survives through to hatching, a
act to erode this advantage, including mimesis by
host of new challenges emerge for the chick. The
competitors, competitors developing neutralising
most significant challenge is that, in comparison to
countermeasures, or a ruling that makes the
the adult host bird, the cuckoo chick is enormous.
advantage illegal. These actions result in a
At fourteen days old, a common cuckoo chick is
rebalancing of the playing field across competitors.
about three times the size of an adult reed warbler,
Note that the only responses that establish a new
and it requires significantly more food to survive
lead for a competitor are to generate their own,
than one of the host’s chicks would receive. The
more significant, competitive advantage, or for
chick therefore rapidly begins to monopolise any
them to buy-out and acquire the advantage for
food that the adult brings, most commonly, by
themselves.
throwing any of the host’s surviving chicks out of
the nest.
How might a competitor use deception to protect
a new source of competitive advantage? Potential
Cuckoo chicks have also developed several
approaches include: hiding the source, disguising
strategies to persuade the hosts to bring additional
it, or misdirecting competitors’ attention away
food. This includes emitting a rapid begging call
from the source via the presentation (or planting)
that simulates the sound of a whole brood of host
of a more conspicuous, plausible, yet entirely false
chicks. And the horsfield’s hawk cuckoo chick has
source of advantage, etc.
even evolved bright yellow patches under its wings
that can be displayed to simulate two extra gaping
deceptionbydesign.com 6 © 2021 Simon HendersonHow to Win the Deception/Counter-deception Arms Race?
Competitor’s Response Without Deception With Deception
Copies your advantage. Advantage is neutralised. Competitor copies false source of
Parity is re-established. advantage. Advantage is retained.
Develops a countermeasure that Advantage is neutralised. Competitor neutralises false
neutralises your advantage. Parity is re-established source of advantage. Advantage is
retained.
Appeals for your advantage to be Advantage is neutralised. Competitor reports false source of
ruled illegal. Parity is re-established advantage. Advantage is retained.
Develops more significant Advantage switches to competitor. Advantage is lost.
competitive advantage
Buys-out and acquires your Advantage switches to competitor. Advantage is lost.
advantage.
Table 1 - Impact of using deception to protect a new competitive advantage
Table 1 presents the impact of using deception to “I don’t know if it’s possible to put a
protect a new competitive advantage. mechanism or a sort of gear inside. Perhaps
there is a mechanism inside [the wheels]
Various examples of employing deception to that increases inertia to gain or retain
misdirect a competitor away from a real source of speed. Perhaps I am fantasising.”
competitive advantage occurred during the London
2012 Olympics. Great Britain’s Track Cycling Team Fotheringham (2012)
was astoundingly successful at the competition,
winning gold in seven out of the ten cycling events. The row only intensified when the British Cycling
In two of the three remaining events, Great Britain Performance Director, Dave Brailsford, told a
won a silver and a bronze respectively. French newspaper that the wheels were, indeed,
special:
The team employed many novel, influential, and
deceptive strategies. For example, after every race, “I told them we had some special wheels
technicians would remove the wheels from the because we had made them specially
team bikes and secure them in unique zip-up wheel round. The French seemed to have taken
bags. The British were the only team to do this, and it seriously, but I was joking. They are the
the action led multiple competitors to suspect that same wheels as everyone else. There is
the team was somehow using specially modified nothing special about them.”
wheels. Isabelle Gautheron, the French Cycling
Performance Director, stated in a contemporary Davenport & Dominiczak (2012)
interview:
Brailsford later stated that:
“We’re asking a lot of questions. How have
they gained so many tenths of a second “The real secret to our success is peaking
per lap in the space of a few months? And at the right time, talented athletes,
even seconds in the pursuit?… They cover commitment and … brilliant coaching.”
up their wheels a lot. The ones on the
bikes they use in competition are placed Davenport & Dominiczak (2012)
under covers as soon as they finish. Unlike
frames, wheels don’t have to be ratified by This action served to expend competitors’ energies
the UCI. Are they really Mavic [a French on a fruitless quest to uncover secrets that did not
manufacturer’s] wheels?” exist. It stole attention away from the real source
of British Cycling’s success. And the strategy also
Cycling News (2012) disrupted and undermined competitors’ focus and
concentration on delivering their best possible
Speaking about the issue to the website Rue 89, performance during the competition.
Gautheron further speculated:
What core lessons emerge then from these different
studies of the deception/counter-deception arms
race?
deceptionbydesign.com 7 © 2021 Simon HendersonHow to Win the Deception/Counter-deception Arms Race?
Emergent Lessons competitor’s away from the true source of
their competitive advantage.
The gambling, sports, military and animal case
studies discussed in this article exemplify only a 4. Repurpose your competition’s innovation
small subset of the environments in which these to work against them. A competitor that
kinds of races occur. Nonetheless, the examples gains a new source of advantage will likely
reveal a host of important lessons for gaining, recognise when another competitor tries to
sustaining, and countering competitive advantage. use that advantage against them. However,
For example: by using the same principle differently, you
can gain back the advantage. What are
1. Use psychology to defeat technology.
the principles underlying your competitor’s
When competing against a technologically
new advantage? How else, where else,
superior adversary, turn their reliance upon
and when else could you apply these
that technology to your advantage through
principles? See: Princeton University
the use of sneaky psychology. What does
painting the football to match their jerseys,
the technology do for the user? What does
as opposed to making their jerseys match
it report? What does it enable the user to
the football.
see? What is the user expecting to see?
What would set, and not set, the user’s
5. Mine the margins of the ruleset for
alarm bells ringing? See: Richard Marcus’s
new threats and opportunities. Explore,
strategy of only cheating when he lost, to
understand, and probe the margins of
defeat the casino’s reliance on eye-in-the-
the rules that determine and govern
sky technologies.
legality. Identify gaps in specificity, ill-
defined boundaries, and previously
2. Use simple, economical means
unrecognised opportunities that rely on
to simulate credible complexity.
interpretation. What is the entirety of the
Understand the fidelity required to portray
rules? What are the boundaries? What is
convincing falsehood and seek to imitate
not specified? What is ambiguous or open
this degree of fidelity using more frugal
to interpretation? See: Carlisle’s Receiver
means. What are the indicators that the
running off the field of play, down the
competitor is expecting to see? How
sidelines, and then back onto the field of
can cheap, alternative means simulate
play to score a touchdown.
these indicators? See: Serbian decoys
constructed from garbage successfully
6. Decelerate and disrupt competitors’
fooling technologically superior NATO
agility. To slow the rate of your competitors’
forces. And the horsfield hawk cuckoo
responses to your innovation, build unique
chick’s yellow patches under its wings
and novel components into your innovation
credibly simulating additional gaping beaks,
that are difficult for the competition to
thereby enabling it to acquire more food.
replicate. Consider forcing the competition
to restart their response cycle. What would
3. Use deception to protect and sustain
make your innovation harder to copy? What
new competitive advantage. Block your
would force a restart of your competitor’s
competitors from observing the true source
innovation cycle? See: The warbler making
of your edge. Misdirect them away from
the entrance to its nest too small for the
it. Allow competitors to speculate about,
cuckoo, the warbler’s evolution of a more
or to discover, a false source of your
complex egg pattern, and the cuckoo’s
advantage. What is a plausible alternative
destruction of the warbler’s eggs to force it
source of your advantage? How can you
to restart its egg laying cycle.
make it look like you are trying to protect
this? How can you hide your real source?
The case studies presented here contain a wealth
How can you make your false source more
of additional lessons for achieving and sustaining
compelling than your real source? See:
advantage in adversarial settings. Further lessons
Great Britain’s cycling team hiding their
can be learned by studying other domains where
bike wheels between races to misdirect
similar deceptive arms races also play out.
deceptionbydesign.com 8 © 2021 Simon HendersonHow to Win the Deception/Counter-deception Arms Race?
Summary Chung, E. (2017). Birds Can Evolve So Fast That
Scientists Can Watch It Happen. Retrieved
This article has presented case studies drawn 16/02/2021 from https://www.cbc.ca/news/
from the domains of gambling, sports, warfare, science/evolution-kite-finches-1.4421594
and nature. The studies exemplify some of the
strategies used to win in adversarial deception/ Cycling News. (2012). Doubts raised over Great
counter-deception arms races. Britain’s “magic wheels”. Retrieved
24/02/2021 from https://www.cyclingnews.
The strategies discussed here barely scratch the com/news/doubts-raised-over-great-
surface. However, by studying examples from britains-magic-wheels/
different domains it becomes feasible to identify
generic and transferable principles that could be Davenport, J., & Dominiczak, P. (2012). London
used to gain new forms of competitive advantage in 2012 Olympics: Bike chief’s joke about
other settings. roundness of our wheels fuels French
row over our cycle success. Retrieved
When a competitor gains a new advantage, other 24/02/2021 from https://www.standard.
competitors may respond by copying it, countering co.uk/sport/sport-olympics/london-
it, protesting about it to a higher authority, acquiring 2012-olympics-bike-chief-s-joke-about-
it, or creating even more significant advantage for roundness-of-our-wheels-fuels-french-row-
themselves. Deception can act as an additional over-our-cycle-success-8015045.html
safeguard against most of these types of response.
Davies, N. B. (2011). Cuckoo adaptations: trickery
In this way, innovation underpins the design and tuning. Journal of Zoology, 284(1),
of deceptive actions that create competitive 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-
advantage, and deception can also be used protect 7998.2011.00810.x
and sustain that innovation.
Dawkins, R. (1996). The Blind Watchmaker: Why
Bibliography the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe
Without Design. WW Norton & Company.
Bosse, M., Spurgin, L. G., Laine, V. N., Cole, E.
F., Firth, J. A., Gienapp, P., Gosler, A. G., Dockterman, E. (2015). ESPN Says Patriots’
McMahon, K., Poissant, J., Verhagen, I., SpyGate Scandal More Extensive Than NFL
Groenen, M. A. M., van Oers, K., Sheldon, B. Revealed. Retrieved 25/04/2021 from https://
C., Visser, M. E., & Slate, J. (2017). Recent time.com/4025354/espn-patriots-spygate/
Natural Selection Causes Adaptive Evolution
of an Avian Polygenic Trait. Science, Fear-Segal, J., & Rose, S. D. (2016). Carlisle Indian
358(6361), 365-368. https://doi.org/10.1126/ Industrial School: Indigenous Histories,
science.aal3298 Memories, and Reclamations. University of
Nebraska Press.
Cattau, C. E., Fletcher Jr, R. J., Kimball, R. T., Miller,
C. W., & Kitchens, W. M. (2018, 2018/01/01). Fotheringham, W. (2012). London 2012: Team GB
Rapid Morphological Change of a Top ‘Magic Wheels’ Saga Keeps on Rolling.
Predator With the Invasion of a Novel Prey. Retrieved 24/02/2021 from https://www.
Nature Ecology & Evolution, 2(1), 108-115. theguardian.com/sport/2012/aug/07/london-
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0378-1 2012-team-gb-magic-wheels
Chakra, M. A., Hilbe, C., & Traulsen, A. (2014, Mar Fox Sports. (2020). Oklahoma State Tried to Get
4). Plastic Behaviors in Hosts Promote the Texas to Miss a Field Goal by Putting Up
Emergence of Retaliatory Parasites. Sci Rep, Yellow Lines on the Video Board. Retrieved
4, 4251. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep04251 25/04/2021 from https://twitter.com/
FOXSports/status/1322667249082146816
Chapple, A. (2019). Tanks but No Tanks: The
Dummy Weapons of War. Retrieved
27/04/2021 from https://www.rferl.org/a/
tanks-but-no-tanks-the-dummy-weapons-
of-war/29836493.html
deceptionbydesign.com 9 © 2021 Simon HendersonHow to Win the Deception/Counter-deception Arms Race?
Giraudeau, M., Nolan, P. M., Black, C. E., Earl, Schmitt, E. (1999). The World; Bombs Are Smart.
S. R., Hasegawa, M., & McGraw, K. J. People Are Smarter. Retrieved 24/11/2020
(2014, 2014/11/12). Song Characteristics from https://www.nytimes.com/1999/07/04/
Track Bill Morphology Along a Gradient of weekinreview/the-world-bombs-are-smart-
Urbanisation in House Finches (Haemorhous people-are-smarter.html
Mexicanus). Frontiers in Zoology, 11(1), 83.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12983-014-0083-8 Seifert, K. (2020). What Really Happened During
Deflategate? Five Years Later, the NFL’s
Grant, B. R. G., Peter R. (2003). What Darwin’s ‘Scandal’ Aged Poorly. Retrieved 25/04/2021
Finches Can Teach Us about the from https://www.espn.co.uk/nfl/story/_/
Evolutionary Origin and Regulation of id/28502507/what-really-happened-
Biodiversity. BioScience, 53(10), 965-975. deflategate-five-years-later-nfl-scandal-
aged-poorly
Jenkins, S. (2008). The Real All Americans: The
Team That Changed a Game, a People, a Stoddard, M. C., & Kilner, R. M. (2013). The
Nation. Anchor Books. Past, Present and Future of ‘Cuckoos
Versus Reed Warblers’. Animal Behaviour,
Lamichhaney, S., Han, F., Webster, M. T., 85(4), 693-699. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Andersson, L., Grant, B. R., & Grant, P. R. anbehav.2013.01.005
(2018). Rapid hybrid speciation in Darwin’s
finches. Science, 359(6372), 224-228. Stoddard, M. C., Kilner, R. M., & Town, C. (2014,
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aao4593 2014/06/18). Pattern Recognition Algorithm
Reveals How Birds Evolve Individual Egg
Marcus, R. (2003). American Roulette: How I Turned Pattern Signatures. Nature Communications,
the Odds Upside Down - My Wild Twenty- 5(1), 4117. https://doi.org/10.1038/
Five Year Ride Ripping Off the World’s ncomms5117
Casinos. Thomas Dunne Books.
Stoddard, M. C., & Stevens, M. (2010, May 7).
Martín-Gálvez, D., Soler, M., Soler, J. J., Martín- Pattern Mimicry of Host Eggs by the
Vivaldi, M., & Palomino, J. J. (2005). Food Common Cuckoo, as Seen Through a Bird’s
acquisition by common cuckoo chicks in Eye. Proc Biol Sci, 277(1686), 1387-1393.
rufous bush robin nests and the advantage https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2009.2018
of eviction behaviour. Animal Behaviour,
70(6), 1313-1321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Tanaka, K. D., & Ueda, K. (2005, Apr 29). Horsfield’s
anbehav.2005.03.031 Hawk-Cuckoo Nestlings Simulate Multiple
Gapes for Begging. Science, 308(5722), 653.
Norton-Taylor, R. (2000). How the Serb Army https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1109957
Escaped NATO. Retrieved 24/11/2020 from
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/ Trott, D. (2013). Predatory Thinking: A Masterclass
mar/09/balkans1 in Out-Thinking the Competition. Macmillan.
RTO Task Group SCI-131/RTG-028. (2008). Military Yang, C., Wang, L., Liang, W., & Møller, A. P. (2017).
Impact of Future Denial and Deception (RTO How Cuckoos Find and Choose Host Nests
Technical Report TR-SCI-131). for Parasitism. Behavioral Ecology, 28(3),
859-865. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/
Rugby Onslaught. (2021). France Rugby All but Win arx049
Six Nations as They Hire Referee Jerome
Garces. Retrieved 25/02/2021 from https:// York, J. E., & Davies, N. B. (2017, Oct). Female
rugbyonslaught.com/france-rugby-all-but- Cuckoo Calls Misdirect Host Defences
win-six-nations-as-they-hire-referee-jerome- Towards the Wrong Enemy. Nat Ecol Evol,
garces/ 1(10), 1520-1525. https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41559-017-0279-3
Satterlee, A. (2002). The Carlisle Indian Industrial
School. United States Army War College.
Retrieved 27/04/2021 from https://files.eric.
ed.gov/fulltext/ED472262.pdf
deceptionbydesign.com 10 © 2021 Simon HendersonHow to Win the Deception/Counter-deception Arms Race? Deception By Design deceptionbydesign.com 11 © 2021 Simon Henderson
You can also read
