One of the more disturbing revelations to come out of the recent leaks by Edward Snowden is the fact that the the NSA and GCHQ specifically target social media and online forums using a variety of methods to sway domestic public opinion and manufacture false consensus for government actions. SN, being a relatively small and new website, probably isn't currently being targeted, but as a growing site it is almost guaranteed to be targeted at some point in the future. GCHQ programs have already been the subject of media reporting.
What methods, if any, could be deployed to spot these techniques and government agents? The tech-savvy, pro-privacy, niche that this website caters to probably makes it a particularly important potential target, and the threat will scale exponentially as SN's community expands in size and influence. I would like to see SN foster a culture of pro-active defense and vigilance. We know this sort of manipulation happens, being aware of it is the first step to neutralizing its pernicious effects. At the very least, I think we need keep the conversation going, so that it remains in the foreground of our collective consciousness.
Related Stories
Edward Snowden has called on supporters at the HOPE hacking conference to develop easy-to-use technologies to subvert government surveillance programs.
Mr Snowden, who addressed conference attendees on Saturday via video link from Moscow, said he intends to devote much of his time to promoting such technologies, including ones that allow people to communicate anonymously and encrypt their messages.
"You in this room, right now, have both the means and the capability to improve the future by encoding our rights into programs and protocols by which we rely every day," he told the New York City conference, known as Hackers on Planet Earth, or HOPE. "That is what a lot of my future work is going to be involved in."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 15 2014, @10:37PM
Not sure there is a lot we can do. As how do you filter out propaganda and a person who actually thinks that way? I have ran into my share of real wack jobs out there...
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 15 2014, @10:58PM
> As how do you filter out propaganda and a person who actually thinks that way?
> I have ran into my share of real wack jobs out there...
Right, useful idiots really are genuine in their beliefs.
But I think the kinds of attacks we can more easily identify would be with respect to moderations.
I have no idea what kind analysis slashcode does on moderations, but I bet psy-ops moderations might be identifiable by patterns like:
Accounts that do not log in very often, but when they do log in:
they barely read anything
they moderate very soon after logging in
they go directly to a specific post and moderate it (like they have the direct URL to the posting)
they moderate in sync -
a group of accounts that only moderate posts that other accounts in the group have also moderated
I don't think any of these attributes are black-and-white identifiers, but they would be suspicious and the more attributes that apply to an account the more likely it is a sock-puppet.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday July 16 2014, @12:09AM
None at all in the manner you're thinking. It's an extremely tricky problem telling normal users from psyops. In the worst case they essentially are a normal user but one that always supports the administration's policies. You know, just like a whole lot of perfectly ordinary, foolish people do without any government encouragement at all.
Your list, all of them apply to me except the last. I only click through to the stories I find interesting in the RSS feed. When I notice I have mod points, I try to spend them before they go poof. I regularly get linked to a specific comment from our IRC chat channels and if I think it needs moderating, I do, points allowing.
The last might be more useful for alternate accounts that normal users use to mod-bomb someone or some topic but it would be extremely difficult to implement with a zero rate of false positives. And we would absolutely have to have a zero rate since you'd expect administrative action to be taken along the lines of banning the account(s).
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by khallow on Wednesday July 16 2014, @12:17AM
As an aside, that sort of thing could be made into an indirect means of manipulating a social media site. Rather than doing the dirty work directly, maintain a popular blog or chat room and get those readers to do modding or the disagreeing for you.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday July 16 2014, @12:37AM
Agreed, it smacks of a mod army tactic.
An organized campaign to shut someone up, or prop someone up.
Just seems distasteful.
But, then I've said all of that before [soylentnews.org].
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 16 2014, @02:17AM
I think you are doing that thing where you play dumb in order to tear something down rather than think about how to make it better.
For example, you say you "I only click through to the stories I find interesting in the RSS feed." That right there disqualifies you from one of the conditions:
* Barely read anything.
The very fact that you click through to the story and not the post means you are reading stuff in a way that the system can record.
Then, looking at your posting history, I see 24 posts in about 15 distinct time groupings over the last 16 days. That's would eliminate you from the group that "do not log in very often" and that's just going on posts, so it is a lower bound on your frequency of logins.
* And we would absolutely have to have a zero rate since you'd expect administrative action to be taken along the lines of banning the account(s).
That's the one that really gets my goat about playing dumb. The idea is to bring accounts to the attention of admins for the purpose of making a judgment, not to auto-ban them with no human intervention. Even the ones that an admin judges to be clearly sock-puppets don't need to be banned, just reduce the rate at which they get mod points.
(Score: 2) by Common Joe on Wednesday July 16 2014, @08:59AM
The first three points sort of describe me. I lurk via rss (anonymously). Usually, I only log on if I have something to say or I want to read the comments in complete detail. If I login, I may (or may not) have time to moderate... assuming I have points. On rare occasion, I may see something in my rss feed that I like and want to moderate so I'll jump directly there.
I'm not guilty of the fourth one. I have a second account (for my other online personality), but I never moderate twice. Not only is it unfair, but I'm lazy.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Darth Turbogeek on Tuesday July 15 2014, @11:01PM
That's really about the only thing you can do. You HAVE to attack back. When someone like cold fjord come sin and starts with his pro-NSA crap, you have to howl him down and the community cant compromise.
Hey look, I understand that people have different political views, even if some of them are just dumb. However there should be things everyone agrees on is wrong and the current overreaching spy agencies is one of them. Go after them without compromise when they show up.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday July 15 2014, @11:47PM
Problem with this is that you end up shouting down people without even trying to counter their argument or insisting that they back up claims that they made with researched links, etc.
Even I, no friend of the NSA, understand there are some things they should be listening to outside of our boarders, as the law was written.
Listening to.
Listening.
Not trying to influence, obstruct, change, bait, alter or shape the conversation.
But I'm not sure I'm willing to call people out just for expressing an opinion.
---While I'm in rant mode...
The other thing hate is being accused of being on the payroll of Google, Microsoft, Apple, IBM, or any number of other corporations just because there was ONE thing they did right, that I liked, and I said so. Sure enough, some pimply faced kid in his mom's basement who hasn't had a job that didn't involve rolled up newspapers and a bike decides I must get paid for my opinion. I wish.
We have to avoid that, as well as all out attacks on people with different opinions.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Funny) by frojack on Tuesday July 15 2014, @11:50PM
But people who can't close a html tag!!! Those clowns deserve everything you can throw at them.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Appalbarry on Wednesday July 16 2014, @12:06AM
Yeah! Ship 'em all back over the boarder!
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday July 16 2014, @01:55PM
Seriously, man, my eyes are still ringing from all the shouting. :-)
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tathra on Wednesday July 16 2014, @01:44AM
attack the argument, not the person. there is absolutely no reason to throw out any kind of insults or personal attacks - none! all it does is drive people away (which some people may consider a good thing) and accomplishes nothing. that and bad moderation (using them as agree/disagree, or because they have a different political view than you) are the quickest ways to turn the site into an echo chamber. if i only wanted to read all the same crap with no differing viewpoints over and over again, i'd go to forums for Fox News or [insert liberal shill-job site here, i honestly dont know any]. i come here because of the differing viewpoints. if you resort to personal attacks in a debate, its clear that you've already lost.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by hemocyanin on Wednesday July 16 2014, @04:37AM
I've gotten in plenty of arguments with Cold Fjord and at first, I actually argued my points. But over time, it became so glaringly obvious he was either a paid NSA shill or a total retard (the distinction between these options is unimportant). Several times when I've had mod points, I just looked him up and downmodded his posts till I ran out of points. And I don't feel bad. Just as there _are_ stupid questions, there are stupid opinions and there are posters who are so prolific in spewing crap, it's hard to go wrong downmodding them without even reading their posts. Not many posters dip to those depths, but Cold Fjord is so consistently horrid that you have a 99.99999999999% chance of being correct modding him "troll" or "flamebait" without even reading a single letter of any of his postings.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Wednesday July 16 2014, @10:12PM
well, yeah, people who are demonstrably insane, like geocentrists, fine, but then who draws the line and where is it to be drawn? if we say "people who refuse to accept facts determined by science are ok to attack" then that means everyone who doesn't think AGW is real deserves to be attacked (and from their point of view, people who do think its real deserve to be attacked, since, similar to creationists and geocentrists, they believe there's a world-wide conspiracy to suppress the real facts about it). sure, paid shills shouldn't be welcomed with open arms either, but that eventually leads to what we see at slashdot, with "everyone who says even one thing favorably about a company is a shill!" which is even more destructive to the community.
attacking individuals leads to worse things. moderation is a much better approach to silencing crazy people and shills.
(Score: 2) by Hawkwind on Wednesday July 16 2014, @10:53PM
And Darth Turbogeek's post has been modded Troll (current Score: 1)? About the only aggressive bit is calling out a single account but even there, other comments have backed him up.
(Score: 0) by Ethanol-fueled on Tuesday July 15 2014, @11:08PM
The Gentleman's guide to forum spies [pastebin.com] is a good place to start, although you don't want to assume that everybody who uses logical fallacies to disagree with you is "out to get you," sometimes people are just idiots.
You could also look at slides, such as these, [techdirt.com] released by Snowden.
A more humorous option amidst all this depressing news is the "60 Ways Jews Shill /pol/" parts one [tinypic.com] and two. [tinypic.com]
Of course, now that I posted those, you should assume that they're compromised, and intelligence services are working to undermine them.
(Score: 1) by dast on Wednesday July 16 2014, @03:45PM
Wow, I hadn't seen that guide to forum spies. Great stuff.
One thing occurs to me, however... A large part of the guide seems to direct the spies/agents to keep activists occupied in useless forums, postings, etc, to encourage resource burn with little gain.
I wonder, though, if this can be turned around the other way to the advantage of the activist. Perhaps activists have a role in occupying the spies/agents with useless distractions designed to burn their resources.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 15 2014, @11:10PM
I can assure you citizen that we would never attempt such shenanigans.
We have never been, nor will we ever be here.
You have nothing to fear, we are there to protect you.
3 TLA
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 15 2014, @11:32PM
GCHQ/NSA designed Beta? ETC?
Did anyone invest in puppet strings?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 16 2014, @12:05AM
GCHQ designed Beta? LOL -- I'm not even mad, that's amazing.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by buswolley on Tuesday July 15 2014, @11:38PM
NSA employees are largely citizens, therefore should be extended the basic courtesy we extend other citizens in expressing their opinions, or ones they have agreed to express as part of their job. This IS free speech. We have to allow dissenting opinions, verbal manipulation, and everything else that comes with free speech, even when it is by an organization that we feel has exceeded its authority and violated our American constitutional rights. Soylent News is People. Deal with it.
subicular junctures
(Score: 5, Insightful) by BsAtHome on Tuesday July 15 2014, @11:49PM
Although you are entirely correct that anybody has the right to speak, and I agree completely, it is not what is at stake here. The problem is manipulation, in which speech is turned into a weapon. A weapon that unfairly punishes *other's* right to the same free speech.
The only solution I see is to be vigilant. Be very vigilant. Don't feed the trolls (do not mistake sarcasm for trolling). Be very succinct and as polite as is necessary. Be critical of anything you see and read. Think for yourself and always make up your own mind.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Tuesday July 15 2014, @11:56PM
You were off to a good start there, but then you stumbled.
If they have agreed to express an opinion as part of their JOB, it is by definition, NOT free speech.
They are getting paid to express an opinion, paid with our tax dollars.
Not free at all.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by buswolley on Wednesday July 16 2014, @12:04AM
Freedom of contract says it is. They are free to quit their job.
subicular junctures
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday July 16 2014, @12:52AM
But not free to speak their minds.
That prohibition is life long. (Unless you like the weather in Moscow.)
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Wednesday July 16 2014, @01:24AM
Many people working for the NSA are junior military. You don't just "quit" the military before retirement* without
(Score: 2) by tibman on Wednesday July 16 2014, @03:50AM
Stop loss isn't as bad now. I was stop-loss'd for 18 months. Congress passed a law where anyone on stoploss got an additional 500$ a month. Phew, talk about some nice backpay (tax free even). But the point was that the government now had a cost for holding someone beyond the agreement. It isn't abused much anymore.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2) by gman003 on Wednesday July 16 2014, @12:27AM
How about a compromise - they can post it, but any accounts identified as ones used by NSA sockpuppets get a nice big "I work for the NSA and may be posting this under duress" badge next to all of their posts. It's only fair, right? Information - particularly metadata, which is all that would be - can't hurt us, right?
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Wednesday July 16 2014, @01:41AM
The polite term for people who do that is "astroturfers". I don't see any way to stop them that wouldn't work for corporate shills, but they sure aren't any better.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by Hawkwind on Wednesday July 16 2014, @10:58PM
Seems like with Slashcode we can give them the courtesy of sharing their opinions while helping other readers to ignore them by using 'Overrated'. For a shill, how about we aim for a score of 0?
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Tuesday July 15 2014, @11:41PM
I don't mean a way to track them to their house, just maybe logging the IP so that the AC has some sort of "history" that one can use to spot patterns. If a person ONLY posts on government subjects and ONLY to spew the party line? There ya go. After all a normal actual person has an opinion on more than one subject and wil be happy to argue that opinion, whereas somebody on the clock has to stay "on message" to make the bosses happy. Also you can look for buzzword bingo as I have noticed that the PR drones that write this schlock don't speak like normal humans so you get a LOT of buzzword bingo going on.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2) by buswolley on Tuesday July 15 2014, @11:55PM
I do not want to live in a way where I suspect everyone of being an informer/spy. It tears relationships apart.
subicular junctures
(Score: 1) by anubi on Wednesday July 16 2014, @12:38AM
Kinda reminds me of that Star Trek TNG episode where a bunch of security-types got aboard the Enterprise and just about had the entire system paralyzed with fear.
Not fear from the "bad guy", mind you, rather it was fear of the report-makers and all the trouble they had the power to issue.
I have seen that happen before in the real world, and I am seeing the same thing happening right now in this nation.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by mth on Wednesday July 16 2014, @12:08AM
ACs are taken less seriously and post at a lower score, so I think someone posting propaganda would be more likely create an account. Trying to prevent that with real-name policies or something similar will probably do more harm than good.
There is also the issue that it's hard to tell if someone is posting propaganda as their job, repeating propaganda because they fell for it or just happens to have an opinion that matches propaganda. So I think it's better to address the content of a message. And when I say "address", I mean other users reacting or moderating, not some kind of filter from the admins.
This is assuming sophisticated, hand-crafted propaganda. If propaganda is posted like spam, deal with it like spam.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Hairyfeet on Wednesday July 16 2014, @01:46AM
You would think that to be true but slash has proven that it isn't so, as not only is the goal to sway opinion but more often simply derailing conversations is enough for them. So at the very least the mods should have a way to do a tracert and see if the threads are being consistently derailed by a single IP address. I have noticed if anything insightful starts being said that is anti-gov on Slash suddenly you will have ACs trying to derail the thread with anything from off-topic bullshit to outright racist shit, anything to get folks off the subject and ya know what...it often works sadly.
But I still think that in the interest of fairness we need a NO AC button so that those of us interested in having actual dialog on a subject can do so, while the ACs can dump their spammy crap and never be seen. as a nice bonus that would mean that the only way to affect those that have the NO AC button active would be to make an account, thus having a history which one could use to see whether they are pushing a message or not. Since the most insightful stuff seems to come from actual users this would force them to either ignore a good portion of those making insightful comments or having to create an account and leave a trail...win/win I'd say.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday July 16 2014, @04:38AM
I agree. A no AC button would be nice, but I actually thing you need one more thing...
AC posts can't be modded, They stay at zero.
And they can't reply to any post from the same IP, so they can't working both sides of the sock puppet arguments.
{I've actually seen this happen on the Green site. (they out themselves by a some slip).
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Wednesday July 16 2014, @05:35AM
Oh I agree completely and have saved your points to add next time the topic of ACs come up. Some have tried to say the mod system "fixes" the problem but it really doesn't. Take myself as an example, I go at +2 to keep out the ACs yet I still have to see upmodded ACs (which as you pointed out can be sockpuppeted, see the green site to see plenty of that) while at the same time I can't see real users who get downmodded by the politically correct like Ethanol which I want to see.
At the end of the day Soylent is supposed to be about choice, so why not give us one?
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 16 2014, @05:48AM
> At the end of the day Soylent is supposed to be about choice, so why not give us one?
You are free to hack on the code and add it yourself.
Seriously, the "why not give us one" complaint is the same as "this is a stupid submission/summary/title" - if you aren't willing to do better yourself, then it really isn't very important to you.
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Thursday July 17 2014, @02:16AM
And this AC proves my point as THERE IS NO WAY TO DIY since any greasemonkey scripts WILL BE BROKEN the first time the devs change the code, which means there is NO POSSIBLE WAY for a normal user to block ACs, none. Look at this AC...has he said anything insightful? No its a way of saying "go fuck off" yet has been upmodded, probably by a sockpuppet, while any poster that bothers to go make an account but isn't politically correct like Ethanol isn't seen by me.
Like it or not the current system is based on broken slashdot code which will only become MORE broken as we gain users...is that what we REALLY want? Do we REALLY want this place to become another land of sockpuppets and groupthink and modbombing...really? I thought we came here to get away from that, maybe i was wrong, maybe I should start looking at pipedot.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday July 16 2014, @05:54AM
Don't feed the trolls in such cases.
At most, if possible, cut their argument with a 10-words phase, let them ramble for a tl;dr effect. (sometime it is possible: enough of trolling goes on the lines of "But it is them that started" or "What do you prefer, being protected by US or spied by insert-bad-guy-here").
Good luck with that [soylentnews.org] (just don't...!!!)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by gidds on Wednesday July 16 2014, @01:14PM
IMHO, that would be going too far.
People post as AC either because they can't be bothered to sign up or log in, or because they're posting something they don't want associated with their 'identity'. The latter could indeed be because they're trolling, disrupting, spreading misinformation, astroturfing, etc. But it could also be because they're expressing a genuine belief, viewpoint, experience, or knowledge that could make them unpopular, have adverse effects at work, leave them open to harassment, have legal implications, or risk flagging them for enhanced surveillance by a three- or four-letter organisation.
Some of those are not worthy of our attention. But some really, really are.
We already have moderation to help distinguish between the two cases. (Inasmuch as you can assign any object measure.) To mix metaphors, bypassing that sounds like a step towards throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
[sig redacted]
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Wednesday July 16 2014, @11:04PM
If you CHOOSE to read ACs and believe in them? I support you. By that same context if I CHOOSE not to believe in the AC system and not want to read them i shouldn't HAVE to constantly write and rewrite greasemonkey scripts (which often fail the second they change anything) or cut off every user that posts an unpopular comment by having to surf at plus 2 to support YOUR right to look at spammy AC crap. And I'm sorry but feel free to go to the green site, pick ANY article that you like, and count how many "good" AC post you get versus how many flamebait/troll/racist/spamshit posts you get...I've done this and you'll find the ratio of noise to signal is a good 30+ to 1.
I'm not saying it should be on by default, nor am I saying this would block ACs from posting, in fact ALL it would do is 2 things...1.- It would put a flag at the end of a person's UID to let AC trolls know this person is not seeing AC posts so don't bother, this should cut down on the stalkers and personal shit, and 2.- It would allow the person who has NO AC active to see ALL USER POSTS without seeing the AC posts...that's all, that's it, it would allow guys like me to see all the user posts without dealing with AC trolls.
And if you think there isn't stalking and AC trolls on this site? Just look at my sig, its clear that I will never see an AC troll yet they continue to spew shit which then shows up in my messages like it was from a user, only for me to click and see nothing because its AC shit. this is right now derailing any chance of me having conversations because I don't want to click through a dozen messages to find the single legit user out of the dozen AC trolls. Asking for a single button isn't too much to ask for, not when its obvious that the AC is being abused.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday July 16 2014, @01:50PM
Whether a poster is repeating a talking point because he is paid to do it or because he fell for it and is repeating it voluntarily is irrelevant. They are both part of the same side, wittingly or unwittingly, and oppose freedom and free expression. They must be treated the same, as staunch, dangerous threats to liberty.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 16 2014, @02:29AM
> I don't mean a way to track them to their house, just maybe logging the IP so that the AC has some sort of "history"
That one is trivial to circumvent. They can use proxies, if they own a bot-net (and does anyone doubt that they don't all have multiple bot-nets?) they can post from tens of thousands of different IP addresses.
Besides, being an AC means starting with a score of 0 anyway, it is rare for an AC post to get modded up very high to begin with.
Plus, "towing the party line" is kind of meaningless. Who's party? What's the difference between a pro-russian post and a pro-western post in a discussion about the Ukraine? Then there are the cases where the spy agency is doing a "long con" where they are advocating for something that appears to be against their national interests in order to cause a 2nd order effect that is in their interests.
(Score: 2) by Common Joe on Wednesday July 16 2014, @09:11AM
I'm not a very big fan of SN retaining a lot of data. The three letter agencies can then "forcibly request" the information. We all know IP Addresses doesn't always correspond to a single person, but it will betray a lot of information. (Although it doesn't make a difference while we're not using https.)
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Wednesday July 16 2014, @10:00PM
1702845791×2
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday July 16 2014, @01:46PM
That's right. Government agencies operate by memo. Every morning, press offices in every government department get an email about talking points for the day. Many of the press office employees come from PR agencies and return to them once their time in government is over. Once you know how PR people talk, it becomes pretty easy to see their fingerprints everywhere.
You can recall, for example, the NSA talking points from the early days of the Snowden revelations. "If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about." "Everyone spies on everyone, and always has. Snowden? *Yawn*." "The NSA's supposed violations of the Constitution are fully legal and under the authority of the FISA courts." "Congress knows about everything we do and has approved it all." "If it helps them fight terrorists and muslims then we should be glad they're watching everything." "Snowden is a traitor." "Snowden is in league with Chinese & Russian agents." "Snowden is a glory hound." "Snowden isn't all that bright." "Snowden is an evil hacker genius." There are many more memes and talking points they have pushed, but they're all absurd and they have only infuriated more people. That's why you don't see them being pushed as much any more. They even put out that propaganda video with Keith Alexander explaining in his paternal tones how universal surveillance is necessary so he can protect us. That backfired in a major way, too.
At the moment, the NSA's JTRIG teams have gone rather quiet. I don't know if that's because they're focus-group testing new memes to push that will get their necks out of the nooses that are drawing nearer, or because they're all quietly trying to abandon ship before it hits the rocks.
I do know that this sort of activity that they're engaged in is extremely dangerous. They are actively disrupting the process through which free men and women reach consensus peacefully, ie. public discourse. The sort of process that produces correct, productive, and meaningful change to cope with new circumstances that arise in the world. If the GCHQ and NSA persist in trying to short-circuit that legitimate and necessary process, they will not eliminate public frustration and anger but multiply it exponentially. And instead of orderly change, you will have a paroxysm of rage that will explode in unexpected ways everywhere, and threaten civilization with mindless mob violence.
So what defense does SN have against the GCHQ and NSA? Learning to discern and out the JTRIG team members is important. It makes the community stronger and more immune to disruption. The JTRIG memos themselves recognized this and recommended scrapping those userIDs and trying afresh with new ones and new tactics including character assassination of particularly troublesome community members.
I believe, though, that playing nothing but defense is a surefire way to lose. We need offense. We need to turn the panopticon on itself. How will the employees of the NSA and GCHQ fare when they discover they have been outed and are being tracked everywhere they go, in everything they do? Senator Diane Feinstein flipped out when protestors flew a drone outside her mansion windows, so perhaps if the criminals who are doing all this stuff have the tables turned they will cease and desist. If not, and more severe measures are needed to bring them to justice, then it is always better to know exactly who your enemies are and where they are and what they are doing at all times.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday July 16 2014, @02:21AM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 16 2014, @02:29AM
Problem is that propaganda sneaks in slowly and persistently.
it's not like somebody just pushes a button in your brain and you believe it.
WE all know THAT!
we are on guard!
nevertheless with all the droning and "repetition, repetition, repetition"! it does leak in.
the opposite, let's call it Propaganda-purge, doesn't work like that.
it's brutal and swift and we hate it because it makes us realize just how much the relentless propaganda has really
leaked in and has actually already influenced us and makes us notice that our own "speak" also already has a droning sound to it : )
-
so here you go: -1 offtopic
and sincerely yours
Anonymous
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 16 2014, @04:43AM
I don't think there's much you can do about it on a pseudonymous site like this. If you can detect it with certainty, sure, but anything you try to do is probably going to backfire and nail someone innocent, or worse, push the commentary into groupthink, which is already a danger with a mob-moderated system. Google/facebook policies of real-names-only would solve the prob for the most part, but too many of us don't want that. In fact, I think SN should go the other direction. Notice the GCHQ tools to find the ip's/identities of anonymous/pseudonymous posters/tweeters/chatters etc? What SN should do is offer a truly anonymous way to post, one that won't/can't log an ip or other traceable info and can't be intercepted.
Personally, as an AC commenter, I find it suspicious when people try to get everyone to post under a pseudonym. I see benefits in both anonymous and non-ac. I wouldn't mind if SN had a button to separate ac from non-ac, but personally I think a lot of the ac comments are often good and important, especially when they go against the grain. But I think the moderation system works relatively well. Ideally, I think it would be cool if editors moderated comments and had those posted in a 'moderated' column, but also left 'group-moderated' and 'unmoderated' columns as well. But it's probably not worth the effort.
SN may not be able to directly fight that kind of mass manipulation, but exposing these programs, to the extent that they are deleterious to free speech and free thought, is something we can promote. We can also pressure our representatives to make sure this type of thing doesn't happen here. Unfortunately, I'm concerned that it may already be happening. We know similar things were done with cointelpro in the us with the infiltration and undercutting of student groups; it's possible (likely?) that it's happening again. If so, it should be exposed, and we need specific legislation which criminalizes the practice.
(Score: 1) by mrkaos on Wednesday July 16 2014, @06:46AM
Seriously - so many are there and they are so obvious.
The whole thing produces drag drag on humanity solving its biggest problems.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 16 2014, @10:14AM
is everywhere. Always. Resistance is futile.
(Score: 1) by migz on Wednesday July 16 2014, @11:23AM
Firstly, everyone who reads this thread is suspect ... doh!
(Score: 2) by zafiro17 on Wednesday July 16 2014, @04:33PM
The only really effective way is to establish a web of trust, exchange keys in person, that kind of stuff - all impossible for a small, community site. And even that doesn't protect you much from exchanging a key from an undercover op - how would you even know?
Some interesting examples from China (like the Fifty Centers) here at the Dictator's Handbook:
http://dictatorshandbook.net/book/node236.html [dictatorshandbook.net]
Dad always thought laughter was the best medicine, which I guess is why several of us died of tuberculosis - Jack Handey
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Wednesday July 16 2014, @09:58PM
I considered a web of trust but the trust is too thin.
When we allow the message to stand apart from the messager then we can only rely on the truth in the message. So, challenge everything from every account. Fortunately, we are scientists, mathematicians and programmers, so we have more hope than most.
1702845791×2
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 17 2014, @06:20AM
...check the evil bit.