How Covert Agents Infiltrate the Internet to Manipulate, Deceive, and Destroy Reputations

Joined
Dec 19, 2011
Messages
2,454
main2.png

How Covert Agents Infiltrate the Internet to Manipulate, Deceive, and Destroy Reputations
By Glenn Greenwald 24 Feb 2014, 6:25 PM EST

One of the many pressing stories that remains to be told from the Snowden archive is how western intelligence agencies are attempting to manipulate and control online discourse with extreme tactics of deception and reputation-destruction. It’s time to tell a chunk of that story, complete with the relevant documents

Among the core self-identified purposes of JTRIG are two tactics: (1) to inject all sorts of false material onto the internet in order to destroy the reputation of its targets; and (2) to use social sciences and other techniques to manipulate online discourse and activism to generate outcomes it considers desirable. To see how extremist these programs are, just consider the tactics they boast of using to achieve those ends: “false flag operations” (posting material to the internet and falsely attributing it to someone else), fake victim blog posts (pretending to be a victim of the individual whose reputation they want to destroy), and posting “negative information” on various forums. Here is one illustrative list of tactics from the latest GCHQ document we’re publishing today:

deception_p47.png

more here... https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/
 
Last edited:
Glen Greenwald: Covert Agents Infiltrate the Internet to Manipulate and Destroy Reputations

How Covert Agents Infiltrate the Internet to Manipulate, Deceive, and Destroy Reputations
By Glenn Greenwald24 Feb 2014, 6:25 PM EST

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/

One of the many pressing stories that remains to be told from the Snowden archive is how western intelligence agencies are attempting to manipulate and control online discourse with extreme tactics of deception and reputation-destruction. It’s time to tell a chunk of that story, complete with the relevant documents.

Over the last several weeks, I worked with NBC News to publish a series of articles about “dirty trick” tactics used by GCHQ’s previously secret unit, JTRIG (Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group). These were based on four classified GCHQ documents presented to the NSA and the other three partners in the English-speaking “Five Eyes” alliance. Today, we at the Intercept are publishing another new JTRIG document, in full, entitled “The Art of Deception: Training for Online Covert Operations.”

By publishing these stories one by one, our NBC reporting highlighted some of the key, discrete revelations: the monitoring of YouTube and Blogger, the targeting of Anonymous with the very same DDoS attacks they accuse “hacktivists” of using, the use of “honey traps” (luring people into compromising situations using sex) and destructive viruses. But, here, I want to focus and elaborate on the overarching point revealed by all of these documents: namely, that these agencies are attempting to control, infiltrate, manipulate, and warp online discourse, and in doing so, are compromising the integrity of the internet itself.

Among the core self-identified purposes of JTRIG are two tactics: (1) to inject all sorts of false material onto the internet in order to destroy the reputation of its targets; and (2) to use social sciences and other techniques to manipulate online discourse and activism to generate outcomes it considers desirable. To see how extremist these programs are, just consider the tactics they boast of using to achieve those ends: “false flag operations” (posting material to the internet and falsely attributing it to someone else), fake victim blog posts (pretending to be a victim of the individual whose reputation they want to destroy), and posting “negative information” on various forums. Here is one illustrative list of tactics from the latest GCHQ document we’re publishing today:

Continued with documents and diagrams at the link....
 
From the comments,
pieceofcake 25 Feb 2014 at 6:30 am

“Public servants — those who are paid by taxpayers — have a duty to work in the best interests of their employers.”

Absolutely – we need “better” spies!

Wrong.
We need transparency and Honest Government. That would make spies irrelevant and useless.
 
I think they are more prevalent on Facebook and other social media sites than here. 90% of this forum is clued in.
 
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-...e-websites-intending-manipulate-deceive-and-d
In the annals of internet conspiracy theories, none is more pervasive than the one speculating paid government plants infiltrate websites, social network sites, and comment sections with an intent to sow discord, troll, and generally manipulate, deceive and destroy reputations. Guess what: it was all true.
[...]
And this time we have a pretty slideshow of formerly confidential data prepared by the UK NSA equivalent, the GCHQ, to confirm it, and Edward Snowden to thank for disclosing it. The messenger in this case is Glenn Greenwald, who has released the data in an article in his new website, firstlook.org, which he summarizes as follows: "by publishing these stories one by one, our NBC reporting highlighted some of the key, discrete revelations: the monitoring of YouTube and Blogger, the targeting of Anonymous with the very same DDoS attacks they accuse “hacktivists” of using, the use of “honey traps” (luring people into compromising situations using sex) and destructive viruses. But, here, I want to focus and elaborate on the overarching point revealed by all of these documents: namely, that these agencies are attempting to control, infiltrate, manipulate, and warp online discourse, and in doing so, are compromising the integrity of the internet itself." Call it Stasi for "Generation Internet."
[...]
Greenwald's punchline is disturbing, and is sure to make paradnoid conspiracy theorists crawl even deeper into their holes for one simple reason: all of their worst fears were true all along.
No matter your views on Anonymous, “hacktivists” or garden-variety criminals, it is not difficult to see how dangerous it is to have secret government agencies being able to target any individuals they want – who have never been charged with, let alone convicted of, any crimes – with these sorts of online, deception-based tactics of reputation destruction and disruption.

The broader point is that, far beyond hacktivists, these surveillance agencies have vested themselves with the power to deliberately ruin people’s reputations and disrupt their online political activity even though they’ve been charged with no crimes, and even though their actions have no conceivable connection to terrorism or even national security threats. As Anonymous expert Gabriella Coleman of McGill University told me, “targeting Anonymous and hacktivists amounts to targeting citizens for expressing their political beliefs, resulting in the stifling of legitimate dissent.” Pointing to this study she published, Professor Coleman vehemently contested the assertion that “there is anything terrorist/violent in their actions.”
[...]
What is perhaps most disturbing is the level of detail these modern day Stasi agents engage in, paradoxically proposing social subversion without realizing they themselves would be susceptible to just that. And all it would take is one whistleblower with a conscience:
[...]
So the next time you run into someone in a chat room or a message board who sounds just a little too much like a paid government subversive... it may not be just the paranoia speaking.

http://www.jrdeputyaccountant.com/2011/02/why-did-us-military-buy-500-fake.html

It's happening, people, the question is whether you'll be standing there arguing with a fake sockpuppet of the establishment or shoving your foot up his or her fictitious ass when it happens to you.
 
Just remember, government agents are human beings, not robots. They can be educated and persuaded like any other human being. And since we aren't going to get rid of them, our focus should be on practicing our education and persuasion skills. After all, we are advocating for THEIR freedom too! And we just might help create another Ed Snowden.
 
I'm doubtful that this place has enough pull to warrant any manipulation. Besides, if it is happening, I'd venture a guess that the Truther-element are actually the spooks, and that they're trying to denigrate the entire movement with their nonsense.
 
Then again, I don't have the requisite delusion of grandeur to believe we're doing anything significant enough to raise eyebrows of People Who Matter and spur them into action. Those of you who do have such delusions probably disagree with me.
 
I'm doubtful that this place has enough pull to warrant any manipulation. Besides, if it is happening, I'd venture a guess that the Truther-element are actually the spooks, and that they're trying to denigrate the entire movement with their nonsense.

There probably is manipulation but it is minimal. Most people here are well versed in the startling revelations that Frank Church brought to light in 1973, so any mole would be ultimately wasting their time. However, I do believe there is a concerted effort on more mainstream sites to suppress information and confuse those who are undecided.
 
Then again, I don't have the requisite delusion of grandeur to believe we're doing anything significant enough to raise eyebrows of People Who Matter and spur them into action. Those of you who do have such delusions probably disagree with me.

You do recall the MIAC report, right?

People who supported former third-party presidential candidates like Texas Rep. Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin and former Georgia Rep. Bob Barr are cited in the report...

"Militia members most commonly associate with 3rd party political groups," the report reads. "It is not uncommon for militia members to display Constitutional Party, Campaign for Liberty or Libertarian material."
 
There probably is manipulation but it is minimal. Most people here are well versed in the startling revelations that Frank Church brought to light in 1973, so any mole would be ultimately wasting their time. However, I do believe there is a concerted effort on more mainstream sites to suppress information and confuse those who are undecided.

Thank God for Frank Church, and I agree on the more mainstream sites, and twitter, and facebook. That's where those looking to manipulate can completely cut-off the mass of people from dissenting thought.
 
online bullying, reputation trashing, etc.....

I'm one of the last folks that doesn't have a facebook page and feels that facebook was created for kids that need to keep receiving positive reinforcement - so none of the above (online bullying, reputation smear) really makes sense to me.

so, help me out here: isn't this the same tactic that a pissed off girl in high school might use against a classmate?
 
FTA: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/
We submitted numerous questions to GCHQ, [...].

As usual, they ignored those questions and opted instead to send their vague and nonresponsive boilerplate: “It is a longstanding policy that we do not comment on intelligence matters. Furthermore, all of GCHQ’s work is carried out in accordance with a strict legal and policy framework which ensures that our activities are authorised, necessary and proportionate, and that there is rigorous oversight, including from the Secretary of State, the Interception and Intelligence Services Commissioners and the Parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee. All our operational processes rigorously support this position.”

Translation: "We are doing it because it's OK and it's OK because we are doing it."
 
Back
Top