Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: S-99 on February 25, 2014, 11:05:32 pm
-
Back to the nsa again. It seems that what many like myself have feared is true, with many disbelieving. Oh well, this directly affects us americans, and even non-americans. Found here (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140224/17054826340/new-snowden-doc-reveals-how-gchqnsa-use-internet-to-manipulate-deceive-destroy-reputations.shtml).
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.
-
More non-news from Snowden. Isn't that sort of stuff the entire point of having something like the NSA? Spy agencies did that sort of things since long before the internet, and not only the NSA. It's just that they wrote false newspaper articles and spread false news on the radio. Those are old, proven methods, and I would be surprised if they didn't use them. The more important question is (which Snowden didn't answer, of course) is who gets that sort of treatment.
Also, if they are supposedly good at posting false info, how can we thrust stuff that Snowden says? Maybe it's all a coverup of something much bigger? Note, they could have discredited him if they wanted, so they obviously don't, for whatever reason...[/paranoia]
-
they certainly tried.
so the NSA have now basically militarized trolling?
-
More non-news from Snowden. Isn't that sort of stuff the entire point of having something like the NSA? Spy agencies did that sort of things since long before the internet, and not only the NSA. It's just that they wrote false newspaper articles and spread false news on the radio. Those are old, proven methods, and I would be surprised if they didn't use them. The more important question is (which Snowden didn't answer, of course) is who gets that sort of treatment.
Also, if they are supposedly good at posting false info, how can we thrust stuff that Snowden says? Maybe it's all a coverup of something much bigger? Note, they could have discredited him if they wanted, so they obviously don't, for whatever reason...[/paranoia]
No, targeting domestic individuals who have broken no law and undergone no due process is NOT the role of an intelligence agency.
-
More non-news from Snowden. Isn't that sort of stuff the entire point of having something like the NSA? Spy agencies did that sort of things since long before the internet, and not only the NSA. It's just that they wrote false newspaper articles and spread false news on the radio. Those are old, proven methods, and I would be surprised if they didn't use them. The more important question is (which Snowden didn't answer, of course) is who gets that sort of treatment.
You would do well to read up on the interactions between J. Edgar Hoover's FBI and Martin Luther King.
-
My "Conspiracist Thinking Detector is softly tingling right now, in a way that makes me sort of narrow my eyes and tilt my head to the side, like this:
(http://www.socialinns.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/leonardo-dicaprio-inception-movie-meme-face.jpg)
The funny thing about Snowden is that, when he releases some kind of leak or claim, most of the time there seems to be no readily available way to either find confirmation from independent sources, and likewise it is really difficult to falsify these claims.
In other words there are no guarantees, at all, that he isn't just making **** up.
Yet everyone seems to just assume that all the things he releases are actually genuine documents from the info cache he took with him.
The only "confirmation" that he possesses some classified information is the response from the US. Clearly, he had access to a lot of information, took a bunch of it, and escaped the country with it.
How much of his releases are actually from this legitimate cache of documents is anyone's guess. Any particular document could just as well be real or a forgery for all that I know, and I have no means to validate or falsify any of that ****.
What I'm saying is - it's pretty dangerous to just assume anything released by Snowden and his associates - or even just claimed to come from Snowden - is actually legitimate. Much of the official documents are probably genuine (and profoundly uninteresting even if they are classified). Determining if a particular released document is genuine is a practical impossibility.
This particular document seems to be a new employer orientation presentation with generic graphics and slogans with some "SECRET//SI//REL TO USA, FVEY" stamped on top and bottom of every slide.
Literally anyone with a modicum of ability with the challenging software known as "Microsoft Office Powerpoint" could put together something just as convincing, as long as it's general enough to not be feasible to disprove, you claim it comes from a source that makes it practically impossible to validate, and make sure it has enough content that appeals to Conspiracist Thinking. Someone with access to real documents could even make them indistinguishable from a real document by making all the official-looking "classified" -markings, logos etc. identical to what an official document of that particular classification level would have.
Is it real? It could be. Or it might not. There is absolutely no way to know, and trying to use the "Snowden says it's real" as an actual argument is not.
Also, if they are supposedly good at posting false info, how can we thrust stuff that Snowden says? Maybe it's all a coverup of something much bigger? Note, they could have discredited him if they wanted, so they obviously don't, for whatever reason...
If it's real, they don't discredit it because Streisand Effect.
If it's false, they don't discredit it because every time you try to discredit a conspiracy theory you end up just strengthening it.
E: bad formatting at the beginning
-
When you put it like that... yeah. Add to it that he never actually released any concrete information, just some general goals, software names, stuff like that. And he never said just who this all this technology is used against. TBH, I was never too excited about what he said, but you made me wonder if it's worth paying attention to him at all.
No, targeting domestic individuals who have broken no law and undergone no due process is NOT the role of an intelligence agency.
Did Snowden actually give evidence it was ever done to Americans who have broken no law? Or even those that did, or were suspected of it? I don't see any in the article. We can, of course, suspect it was, but he didn't say much about this.
they certainly tried.
Yeah, we tried and we know about that. But to think of it, couldn't they do it in such a way we wouldn't know? Say, create evidence of him being a pedophile, or perhaps link him to a terrorist group, or some other stuff people would focus on, losing sight of his revelations. This is what I meant, his latest release indicates they are capable of (and experienced in) doing just that.
-
Hahah, we don't even need the NSA. We do it to ourselves. (http://i.somethingawful.com/forumsystem/emoticons/emot-allears.gif)
If you think the United States covert intelligence community does not target and socially attack individuals that it decides are policy problems, at home and abroad, without respect for law or due process, you may want to open up Wikipedia or Scahill's book or just run a simple Google search and investigate this interesting phenomena called 'history'. To tap an example The_E pointed out above:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King,_Jr.#FBI_surveillance_and_wiretapping
In a secret operation code-named "Minaret," the National Security Agency (NSA) monitored the communications of leading Americans, including King, who criticized the U.S. war in Vietnam.[204] A review by NSA of the NSA's Minaret program concluded that Minaret was "disreputable if not outright illegal."[204]
This isn't even getting into what happened after the post-9/11 AUMF which is what we actually care about today.
-
Ok, I admit it. I'm a government agent who makes fake government documents in the hopes that conspiracy theorists will attribute said documents to third parties. I also work as an agent non-provocateur by attending protests in a calm and orderly manner in order to throw the public off the trail. This post will erase itself in 5...4...No we ran out of money.
-
This particular document seems to be a new employer orientation presentation with generic graphics and slogans with some "SECRET//SI//REL TO USA, FVEY" stamped on top and bottom of every slide.
Literally anyone with a modicum of ability with the challenging software known as "Microsoft Office Powerpoint" could put together something just as convincing, as long as it's general enough to not be feasible to disprove, you claim it comes from a source that makes it practically impossible to validate, and make sure it has enough content that appeals to Conspiracist Thinking. Someone with access to real documents could even make them indistinguishable from a real document by making all the official-looking "classified" -markings, logos etc. identical to what an official document of that particular classification level would have.
You know what's equal parts hilarious and/or sad? That's how the US Army, at least, does things. Generic powerpoint set-ups with an annoying to format stamp at the bottom that usually says "FOUO" (for official use only). This comes from the government assumption that any given federal employee will end up doing a lot of work at home anyway, and needs to be able to conduct this business without requiring special software. Generally. I imagine things that are really classified might have some special formatting, but not likely.
-
Do they at least use fun slide-transfer effects and sounds?
-
More non-news from Snowden. Isn't that sort of stuff the entire point of having something like the NSA? Spy agencies did that sort of things since long before the internet, and not only the NSA. It's just that they wrote false newspaper articles and spread false news on the radio. Those are old, proven methods, and I would be surprised if they didn't use them. The more important question is (which Snowden didn't answer, of course) is who gets that sort of treatment.
Also, if they are supposedly good at posting false info, how can we thrust stuff that Snowden says? Maybe it's all a coverup of something much bigger? Note, they could have discredited him if they wanted, so they obviously don't, for whatever reason...[/paranoia]
I don't consider this to be non-news while you do. The nsa has had the potential to do this all along with the powers they have and the technology they reign. It's just now that we have a confirmation.
The other idea that he has never released anything concrete? How do you know this? I would say it's better to ask the people who he's been giving information and files to directly whether he's released anything concrete. The other thing is measuring the nsa's and government's responses whenever he does release something. You can find out what something someone is saying is true or false through this.
I am saying your idea of not trusting snowden is definitely your own opinion, but that I believe requires extra thought. There was and still is a very big smear campaign all over the media and the internet when he left america. Just simply to get people to be outraged and hate the guy. Just like in the article to destroy someone's reputation, business, contacts, etc. The second thing is that snowden is no longer with the people who will destroy reputations.
What must be considered is the probability of snowden lying compared to the probability of the nsa lying.
-
What must be considered is the probability of snowden lying compared to the probability of the nsa lying.
Consider the probability of a coin to produce "heads" and the probability of a single die to produce "6" on a single throw... Now if you get heads on a coin toss, what bearing does that have on the probability of the die producing a six?
-
Snowden's revelations have been substantiated by convergent evidence from US corporate collaborators, the policy reaction of US government organs, and the intelligence agencies of foreign countries. They have been examined by dozens if not hundreds of media organizations worldwide. The parsimonious conclusion about pretty much anything Snowden and his press partners reveal, especially in light of the known history of US intelligence agencies, is that they're telling the truth.
The sigint capabilities Snowden disclosed are frankly not dissimilar to the pervasive tracking used by modern corporations. If you buy from a chain like Target the company keeps a file on you and uses it to make predictions about your behavior. This information is itself a business: corporations sell this data wholesale. As inferential ability escalates, the world needs to discuss how to handle this type of mass tracking and analysis.
-
Yeah, I get that, and I think it's quite likely the documents are genuine (insofar as I can judge probabilities accurately). I haven't been particularly surprised by any of them, either.
It's just that when it comes to being able to personally assess the validity of those documents, I have no way to do that at all. I have to rely on third party assessments, which - to me - feels about as scientific as using Wikipedia as a source in a peer-reviewed paper. It just reduces itself to argument from authority or whatever - whose assessment should I choose to trust?
-
Your own perhaps? I prefer staying low anyway, whatever you do you do not want their attention.
-
What must be considered is the probability of snowden lying compared to the probability of the nsa lying.
Consider the probability of a coin to produce "heads" and the probability of a single die to produce "6" on a single throw... Now if you get heads on a coin toss, what bearing does that have on the probability of the die producing a six?
Consider the probability of a dog that ate something really bad to produce a fart or poop, and the probability of a person located 1000 miles away whether to eat breakfast or skip it. What bearing does the dog that produced a fart have on the probability of the person 1000 miles away to want to eat breakfast?
My probability comparison was meant to be so easy as to not need to spoon feed people the answer. Here you go.
Somebody who lies sometimes or not at all compared to an organization that does nothing but lie. Which of the two can you at least trust some of the time? The answer is easy being snowden. This probability comparison was for the people who blankly said that he's lying, and that he never had anything concrete against the nsa or the government. These people don't have much of an education on the subject let alone hardly any thought to consider with for the subject have nothing but pure conjecture instead.
For those people, while this topic may be non-news, we must consider for them that Kim kardashian goes to the mall tonight at 10 on your local news probably is news.
Offering more than just conjecture for snowden possibly being a liar would have been the better thing to do
-
The sigint capabilities Snowden disclosed are frankly not dissimilar to the pervasive tracking used by modern corporations. If you buy from a chain like Target the company keeps a file on you and uses it to make predictions about your behavior. This information is itself a business: corporations sell this data wholesale. As inferential ability escalates, the world needs to discuss how to handle this type of mass tracking and analysis.
Jeez, I'm just a wellspring of topically relevant experiences up in this thread. Working at Target, I can also say that this is 100%, absolutely correct - to the point that as team members at Target one of our primary goals on the sales floor is to push the usage of Target mobile and online apps and services so that the company can build an even better picture of how you like to shop by identifying when and how you use it to save money. It also happens on a much smaller, local scale. The contents of your cart often times determine what coupons print out when the transaction completes for next time.
Which is all not to say that this is necessarily a bad thing, just that it happens.
-
I've heard a story that Target's pattern analysis is good enough that they're able to determine with high accuracy if a female customer is pregnant based on changes in their purchasing habits. This one father cited in the story became outraged when Target sent a maternity ad flier addressed to his teenage daughter...until he learned that said daughter was actually pregnant.
-
Yep, that did actually happen. Target actually specializes in that because pregnant women are among the only people whose buying habits change and centralize radically (they need to get everything in one trip in their limited time), which makes them a golden target for conversion. Some people have attributed Target's huge revenue spike in the last few years to their pregnancy analytics.
-
There's a sort of feedback effect in play there, as well. Target specializes in catering to pregnant women. Pregnant women shop at Target. Target refines criteria, makes shopping easier, and the cycle repeats. It happens on a less visible and less dramatic scale with other demographics, but it's a very real (and very effective) business model.
-
I think it's entirely fair towards the NSA (or any other intelligence agency) to assume that whatever they say is most likely a lie, because that's what we know intelligence agencies [are supposed to] do.
I think the only sane thing to do is to assume that anything an intelligence agency says is by default a lie. Their very job is to lie and spread misinformation and cover up their own lies, and they have a lot of power to do so. There's no reason to trust them, and plenty of reasons for mistrust.
Of course I can't know if Snowden's revelations are true or not, but I don't have a problem with believing it by default. If they were not true, then the NSA and co could prove it with more transparency and oversight. They don't.
-
While they could prove his revelations are not true (assuming that they aren't), this would have a serious disadvantage, though. It would inform anyone at odds with them of capabilities they don't have. Note, I'm not saying NSA doesn't do things Snowden said they do. In fact, they're not the only ones that do this (FBI vs. Martin Luther King case was referenced a few times), but if it turned out they don't, it'd be quite a compromitation, because they're, you know, an intelligence agency. They're kind of supposed to do exactly this sort of shady work, and it'd be really embarrassing if it turned out supermarkets and data mining companies do it better. Also, the fact that NSA is lying (they almost certainly are) doesn't mean Snowden is telling the truth. Quite the contrary, I have a suspicion both are lying, for different reasons and in different ways. This whole situation does not smell fishy by that point, it reeks like an old trawler.
So what should we do? What we always did. Let's face it, we're being watched, no matter where or who we are. NSA is just another pair of eyes sifting through our data. Along with data mining companies, ad sites, Google, every major shopping network, probably half the websites we visit and more than one foreign intelligence agency. Just be careful what you say on the internet, and don't say things you're not ready to say in public. Sensitive data doesn't belong on internet anyway. I don't think that an average person is at risk of having an active defamation campaign started by NSA (or any other intel agency) for one simple reason: money. NSA (and not only they, IIRC, Mossad pulled this out with some Iranian scientists, too) surely can destroy any chosen person's credibility, but it costs money, probably a whole lot. Therefore, I don't think they'd do such a thing without a very good reason. Travel restrictions for calls to Middle East are cheap; it's just a phone call/some paperwork sent to TSA. An active campaign against a person much less so, probably involving quite a few trained (and well paid) specialists.
-
We did not always accept covert social sanction of unprosecuted, innocent undesirables and disruptives, and we will continue to not accept this.
-
Also, the fact that NSA is lying (they almost certainly are) doesn't mean Snowden is telling the truth. Quite the contrary, I have a suspicion both are lying, for different reasons and in different ways. This whole situation does not smell fishy by that point, it reeks like an old trawler.
I hear people saying that, but I myself haven't seen anything fishy or suspicious about Snowden, his actions, or the whole debacle.
So what should we do? What we always did. Let's face it, we're being watched, no matter where or who we are. NSA is just another pair of eyes sifting through our data. Along with data mining companies, ad sites, Google, every major shopping network, probably half the websites we visit and more than one foreign intelligence agency. Just be careful what you say on the internet, and don't say things you're not ready to say in public. Sensitive data doesn't belong on internet anyway. I don't think that an average person is at risk of having an active defamation campaign started by NSA (or any other intel agency) for one simple reason: money. NSA (and not only they, IIRC, Mossad pulled this out with some Iranian scientists, too) surely can destroy any chosen person's credibility, but it costs money, probably a whole lot. Therefore, I don't think they'd do such a thing without a very good reason. Travel restrictions for calls to Middle East are cheap; it's just a phone call/some paperwork sent to TSA. An active campaign against a person much less so, probably involving quite a few trained (and well paid) specialists.
The point is that most people could become such a person of interest by simply being in the right/wrong place at the right/wrong time, not that they'd spend billions on smear campaigns against ordinary people who say the wrong thing online.
-
I think the situations stinks of politics for miles. The facts that he's the only existing source, there are no leaks that would confirm or deny his revelations and that he never said anything that would actually impede the NSA make me suspicious. Also, he's not releasing everything he wants to at once, but over time, perhaps with some deliberate timing. Call me paranoid, but I'm just not sure of his motives. Note, this is intelligence we're talking about.
The point is that most people could become such a person of interest by simply being in the right/wrong place at the right/wrong time, not that they'd spend billions on smear campaigns against ordinary people who say the wrong thing online.
And that's where the real, still unanswered question lies: what are the chances of that happening, versus the chances of NSA actually applying it's methods against a valid target? It's not an easy question, too. It all depends on many factors, many of which are in constant flux. Skill of the NSA personnel, the degree of paranoia among the leadership, technology itself... It seems that the government considers NSA a worthy investment (otherwise, they'd probably slash it's funding), so there's a chance they catch more guilty people than innocent ones. However, actually evaluating the numbers is beyond our capability, and perhaps that's really what should change about it's transparency. Not knowing about the methods or programs used by them is to be expected, but we should at least know if they are actually getting the results, or if they are another money sink that could be disposed of and it's duties handed off to FBI and CIA.
-
I think the situations stinks of politics for miles. The facts that he's the only existing source
Factually incorrect, there have been multiple other whistleblowers since.
there are no leaks that would confirm or deny his revelations and that he never said anything that would actually impede the NSA make me suspicious.
Factually incorrect, see above.
Also, he's not releasing everything he wants to at once, but over time, perhaps with some deliberate timing. Call me paranoid, but I'm just not sure of his motives. Note, this is intelligence we're talking about.
Wikileaks was massacred for trying to dump everything without screening it to perform a risk assessment.
The question of the efficacy of NSA and CIA programs can be answered by history.
-
The problem is they have the keys to considerable leverage for influencing domestic issues and very little oversight due to all the 9/11 legislation that got squeezed through under the guise of fear and "patriotism". Given many politicians penchant for collecting **** they don't want public that's quite a bit of power you wish to hand over to an intelligence agency. I suppose you can hope they will be benevolent from now and forever.
Though I wonder what would have happened if say Eygpt, Syria or Libya had access to their entire populaces' message traffic?
-
I think the situations stinks of politics for miles. The facts that he's the only existing source
Factually incorrect, there have been multiple other whistleblowers since.
Sources. Links to articles. Names. "There have been". Then why haven't I heard about them? Why is there a ruckus only when Snowden says something? Why is he getting all the press, despite his information being pretty bland? Sure, there were some mentions of others, here and there. But Snowden is the only one I know anything about, besides the fact he exists. Maybe that info is just buried somewhere in the depths of the internet, but you'd think it'd be more publicized.
Wikileaks was massacred for trying to dump everything without screening it to perform a risk assessment.
That's why I said "everything he wants to". He should know just what info is where when it comes to risk assessment. Wikileaks had to guess a lot more than him.
-
From what I heard the "new" stuff is just stuff he gave to Greenwald et al. a while ago but which they are only now releasing.
Wikileaks was massacred for trying to dump everything without screening it to perform a risk assessment.
Except they actually did screen the stuff, and the US govt still went and ruined their day.
-
Snowden doesn't just "release", he gives the information to a team of journalists from various newspapers around the world (the dutch NRC being amongst them) who help them sift trough it and release the important bits (publishing it in their respective newspapers). This is a very slow process (and there's probably massive amounts of data involved).
-
Again, gave not gives.
-
I think the situations stinks of politics for miles. The facts that he's the only existing source
Factually incorrect, there have been multiple other whistleblowers since.
Sources. Links to articles. Names. "There have been". Then why haven't I heard about them?
I don't know! I'm not you!
Why is there a ruckus only when Snowden says something? Why is he getting all the press, despite his information being pretty bland? Sure, there were some mentions of others, here and there. But Snowden is the only one I know anything about, besides the fact he exists. Maybe that info is just buried somewhere in the depths of the internet, but you'd think it'd be more publicized.
Your map of intelligence whistleblowers is not the territory of intelligence whistleblowers. Tice, Klein, Tamm and Drake all predated Snowden. So did Binney and Wiebe. Snowden's leaks were corroborated by the US government itself, sometimes when internal investigations by other government arms uncovered NSA activity (such as surveillance of foreign allies) that had been kept compartmentalized. The US Director of National Intelligence admitted to and apologized for lying directly to Congress under oath. An NSA official in Germany just went to Bild am Sonntag to reveal that the NSA's reaction to Snowden's leaks about surveillance in Germany included an expansion of surveillance to German ministers.
Snowden's revelations are, by the available convergent evidence, not fabrications. PRISM, XKEYSCORE, and TEMPORA are real and substantiated.
-
Consider the implication that the NSA has all the dirt it ever wanted on the nation's lawmakers, judges, supreme court justices, and the president. Or if it doesn't, the NSA could just as easily fabricate dirt since they mass collect everything anyway, who would be able to argue? The poor unfortunate soul's word against theirs? Something tells me we won't see a legislated reigning in of power at the NSA any time soon, so how then would we ever limit their power? Scary thought, IMO.
-
Well certain states have proposed (or passed?) legislation that makes it illegal to provide material support (including utilities like water and electricity) to any agency that claims to have the power to collect data or metadata without a warrant (paraphrased)... so that's a start.
-
lol. Good luck with that.