View Full Version : COINTELPRO 2.0 confirmed: How Covert Agents Infiltrate the Internet (Snowden GCHQ docs confirm)
mountain_jim
25th February 2014, 13:41
Greenwald/Snowden come through again with proof...
a commenter at Glenn's blog related this to US history:
Donald Segretti and his “rat****ers” from the Nixon days immediately came to mind while reading the article.
Glenn's twitter feed has lively commentary as well:
https://twitter.com/ggreenwald
The complete GCHQ document exposed:
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/
How Covert Agents Infiltrate the Internet to Manipulate, Deceive, and Destroy Reputations
By Glenn Greenwald24 Feb 2014, 6:25 PM EST
https://prod01-cdn03.cdn.firstlook.org/wp-uploads/2014/02/main2.png
A page from a GCHQ top secret document prepared by its secretive JTRIG unit
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:
https://prod01-cdn03.cdn.firstlook.org/wp-uploads/2014/02/deception_p47.png
https://prod01-cdn00.cdn.firstlook.org/wp-uploads/2014/02/screenshot4.png
https://prod01-cdn00.cdn.firstlook.org/wp-uploads/2014/02/deception_p12.png
https://prod01-cdn02.cdn.firstlook.org/wp-uploads/2014/02/deception_p48.png
.....
(more at link)
sheme
25th February 2014, 15:33
I hope they know they are either without moral fiber or they are a tad simple/foolish, or they are out of touch with their souls, lets just hope they are a little short on the IQ front. Oh yes they could be being manipulated by micro waves, I hope they can break free someday soon before they are made 'redundant'.
It seems quite a few CIA slaves have made the break lately and are spilling selective beans. I wonder how many slaves feel they have earned a place in the tunnel or should that read chamber?
We should all pray for them in their hour of need, they will be forgiven in time no doubt.
Openmindedskeptic
25th February 2014, 16:22
As a victim of overt government surveillance and harassment here in the U.S. I'm relieved to finally see this coming to light.
Whiskey_Mystic
25th February 2014, 20:05
This should be required reading at Avalon. In the past, Avalon has been easily divided, disrupted, and distracted. Know the tactics that are employed to make us chase our tail.
superconsciousness
26th February 2014, 00:38
Any public forum has this as part of the equation...including Avalon. Nothing substantive will change until the arrival of Superconsciousness.
ExomatrixTV
26th February 2014, 01:55
https://prod01-cdn03.cdn.firstlook.org/wp-uploads/2014/02/main2.png
A page from a GCHQ top secret document prepared by its secretive JTRIG unit.
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 (http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2014/01/27/22469304-snowden-docs-reveal-british-spies-snooped-on-youtube-and-facebook?lite) of articles (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/investigations/war-anonymous-british-spies-attacked-hackers-snowden-docs-show-n21361) about “dirty trick” tactics (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/investigations/snowden-docs-british-spies-used-sex-dirty-tricks-n23091) used by GCHQ’s previously secret unit, JTRIG (Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group). These were based on four (http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/Sections/NEWS/snowden_youtube_nbc_document.pdf) classified (http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/snowden_anonymous_nbc_document.pdf) GCHQ (http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/snowden_cyber_offensive2_nbc_document.pdf) documents (http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/snowden_cyber_offensive1_nbc_document.pdf) presented to the NSA and the other three partners in the English-speaking “Five Eyes” alliance (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/06/is-the-five-eyes-alliance-conspiring-to-spy-on-you/277190/). Today, we at the Intercept are publishing another new JTRIG document (https://firstlook.org/theintercept/document/2014/02/24/art-deception-training-new-generation-online-covert-operations/), 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:
https://prod01-cdn03.cdn.firstlook.org/wp-uploads/2014/02/deception_p47.png (https://prod01-cdn03.cdn.firstlook.org/wp-uploads/2014/02/deception_p47.png)
Other tactics aimed at individuals are listed here, under the revealing title “discredit a target”:
https://prod01-cdn02.cdn.firstlook.org/wp-uploads/2014/02/Screenshot3.png (https://prod01-cdn02.cdn.firstlook.org/wp-uploads/2014/02/Screenshot3.png)
Then there are the tactics used to destroy companies the agency targets:
~for more info: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/
Dennis Leahy
26th February 2014, 03:03
This should be required reading at Avalon. In the past, Avalon has been easily divided, disrupted, and distracted. Know the tactics that are employed to make us chase our tail.
I agree!
Great post, Mountain_Jim!
This page really hit me:
https://prod01-cdn02.cdn.firstlook.org/wp-uploads/2014/02/deception_p24.png
Dennis
Octavusprime
26th February 2014, 03:27
Similar article in RTnews today. http://rt.com/news/five-eyes-online-manipulation-deception-564/
Western spy agencies build ‘cyber magicians’ to manipulate online discourse
Published time: February 25, 2014 03:40
Secret units within the 'Five Eyes" global spying network engage in covert online operations that aim to invade, deceive, and control online communities and individuals through the spread of false information and use of ingenious social-science tactics.
Such teams of highly trained professionals have several main objectives, such as “to inject all sorts of false material onto the internet” and “to use social sciences and other techniques to manipulate online discourse and activism to generate outcomes it considers desirable,” The Intercept’s Glenn Greenwald reported based on intelligence documents leaked by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden.
The new information comes via a document from the Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group (JTRIG) of Britain’s Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), entitled 'The Art of Deception: Training for Online Covert Operations,' which is top secret and only for dissemination within the Five Eyes intelligence partnership that includes Britain, the US, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand.
The document outlines what tactics are used to achieve JTRIG’s main objectives. Among those tactics that seek to “discredit a target” include “false flag operations” (posting material online that is falsely attributed to a target), fake victim blog posts (writing as a victim of a target to disseminate false information), and posting “negative information” wherever pertinent online.
Other discrediting tactics used against individuals include setting a "honey-trap" (using sex to lure targets into compromising situations), changing a target's photo on a social media site, and emailing or texting "colleagues, neighbours, friends etc."
To "discredit a company," GCHQ may "leak confidential information to companies/the press via blog...post negative information on appropriate forums [or] stop deals/ruin business relationships."
JTRIG's ultimate purpose, as defined by GCHQ in the document, is to use "online techniques to make something happen in the real world or cyber world." These online covert actions follow the “4 D's:” deny, disrupt, degrade, deceive.
As Greenwald pointed out, the tactics employed by JTRIG are not used for spying on other nations, militaries, or intelligence services, but for “traditional law enforcement” against those merely suspected of crimes. These targets can include members of Anonymous, “hacktivists,” or really any person or entity GCHQ deems worthy of antagonizing.
“[I]t 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,” Greenwald wrote.
In addition, the targets do not need to have ties to terror activity or pose any national security threat. More likely, targets seem to fall closer to political activists that may have, for instance, used “denial of service” tactics, popular with Anonymous and hacktivists, which usually do only a limited amount of damage to a target.
“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,” Greenwald wrote.
In addition to the personal attacks on targets, JTRIG also involves the use of psychological and social-science tactics to steer online activism and discourse. The document details GCHQ’s “Human Science Operations Cell,” which focuses on “online human intelligence” and “strategic influence and disruption” that are used to dissect how targets can be manipulated using “leaders,” “trust,” “obedience,” and “compliance.”
Using tested manipulation tactics, JTRIG attempts to influence discourse and ultimately sow discord through deception.
When reached for comment by The Intercept, GCHQ avoided answering pointed questions on JTRIG while insisting its methods were legal.
“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 authorized, 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,” GCHQ stated.
ThePythonicCow
26th February 2014, 03:42
A page from a GCHQ top secret document prepared by its secretive JTRIG unit.
I merged this thread in with the previous one on the same topic.
ExomatrixTV
26th February 2014, 04:14
~article by: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/staff/glenn-greenwald/
mountain_jim
26th February 2014, 04:40
Now that I have located where my thread got moved to - here is some related conspiracy content:
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/02/reddit-censors-story-government-manipulation-disruption-internet.html
Reddit Censors Big Story About Government Manipulation and Disruption of the Internet
Posted on February 25, 2014 by WashingtonsBlog
Reddit Moderators Go to Extreme Lengths to Censor the Most Important Story of the Year
The moderators at the giant r/news reddit (with over 2 million subscribed readers) repeatedly killed the Greenwald/Snowden story on government manipulation and disruption of the Internet … widely acknowledged to be one of the most important stories ever leaked by Snowden.
Similarly, the moderators at the even bigger r/worldnews reddit (over 5 million subscribers) repeatedly deleted the story, so that each new post had to start over at zero.
For example, here are a number of posts deleted from r/news (click any image for much larger/clearer version):
(go to link for images)
Two Redditors provide further information on the censorship of this story:
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Red.jpg
Karma Ninja
26th February 2014, 04:53
Here is an interesting article that discusses the tactics and methods used by covert agents to discredit and lead us astray in our research.
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/
I haven't posted to this forum in a really long time but have seen the work of agents in this discussion board many times. I hope you all will enjoy the read. The work of disinfo agents is a little discussed facet of the Edward Snowden files.
This is a description of the exact tactics used to confuse and distract us from a meaningful discussion. Don't fall for the traps laid out by these government trolls.
Karma Ninja
26th February 2014, 05:17
Here are some interesting quotes from the article
"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."
or even further...
"Government plans to monitor and influence internet communications, and covertly infiltrate online communities in order to sow dissension and disseminate false information, have long been the source of speculation. Harvard Law Professor Cass Sunstein, a close Obama adviser and the White House’s former head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, wrote a controversial paper in 2008 proposing that the US government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-”independent” advocates to “cognitively infiltrate” online groups and websites, as well as other activist groups."
Karma Ninja
26th February 2014, 05:28
Mods: Just realized this is a duplicate thread and could either be deleted or merged with mountain_jim's thread
superconsciousness
26th February 2014, 09:02
http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2014-02-25/why-trolls-start-flame-wars-swearing-and-name-calling-shut-down-ability-think
Psychological studies show that swearing and name-calling in Internet discussions shut down our ability to think.
2 professors of science communication at the University of Wisconsin, Madison - Dominique Brossard and Dietram A. Scheufele - wrote in the New York Times last year:
In a study published online last month in The Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, we and three colleagues report on an experiment designed to measure what one might call “the nasty effect.”
We asked 1,183 participants to carefully read a news post on a fictitious blog, explaining the potential risks and benefits of a new technology product called nanosilver. These infinitesimal silver particles, tinier than 100-billionths of a meter in any dimension, have several potential benefits (like antibacterial properties) and risks (like water contamination), the online article reported.
Then we had participants read comments on the post, supposedly from other readers, and respond to questions regarding the content of the article itself.
Half of our sample was exposed to civil reader comments and the other half to rude ones — though the actual content, length and intensity of the comments, which varied from being supportive of the new technology to being wary of the risks, were consistent across both groups. The only difference was that the rude ones contained epithets or curse words, as in: “If you don’t see the benefits of using nanotechnology in these kinds of products, you’re an idiot” and “You’re stupid if you’re not thinking of the risks for the fish and other plants and animals in water tainted with silver.”
The results were both surprising and disturbing. Uncivil comments not only polarized readers, but they often changed a participant’s interpretation of the news story itself.
In the civil group, those who initially did or did not support the technology — whom we identified with preliminary survey questions — continued to feel the same way after reading the comments. Those exposed to rude comments, however, ended up with a much more polarized understanding of the risks connected with the technology.
Simply including an ad hominem attack in a reader comment was enough to make study participants think the downside of the reported technology was greater than they’d previously thought.
While it’s hard to quantify the distortional effects of such online nastiness, it’s bound to be quite substantial, particularly — and perhaps ironically — in the area of science news.
So why do people troll in a rude way?
Psychologists say that many of them are psychopaths, sadists and narcissists getting their jollies. It's easy to underestimate how many of these types of sickos are out there: There are millions of sociopaths in the U.S. alone.
But intelligence agencies are also intentionally disrupting political discussion on the web, and ad hominen attacks, name-calling and divide-and-conquer tactics are all well-known, frequently-used disruption techniques.
Now you know why ... flame wars polarize thinking, and stop the ability to focus on the actual topic and facts under discussion.
Indeed, this tactic is so effective that the same wiseguy may play both sides of the fight.
Postscript: Fortunately, it's not that difficult to isolate the trolls and stop their disruption ... if we just point out what they're doing.
For example, I've found that posting something like this can be very effective:
Good Number 1!
Or this might be better if the troll is a sociopath:
Isn't that kind of "entertainment" more appropriate elsewhere?
(include the link so people can see what you’re referring to.)
The reason this is effective is that other readers will learn about the specific disruption tactic being used … in context, like seeing wildlife while holding a wildlife guide, so that one learns what it looks like “in the field”. At the same time, you come across as humorous, light-hearted and smart ... instead of heavy-handed or overly-intense.
Try it … It works. (go to link on the top for the other links referenced)
mountain_jim
26th February 2014, 14:58
(which was moved in a merge with another thread, and I know of at least one more thread about this with a vague title.) :)
When I created my thread, I wondered where it should go, and chose News and Events, which I thought it was, but it later got moved in a merge to Conspiracy forum.
I am just glad this exposure by Snowden/Greenwald is getting such effective transmission, in spite of MSM complete avoidance of covering it.
earthadvocate
26th February 2014, 16:16
Wondering if this misinformation tactic has anything to do with Courtney Brown's announcement to discredit his reputation?
Camilo
26th February 2014, 16:50
How Covert Agents Infiltrate the Internet to Manipulate, Deceive, and Destroy Reputations – Glenn Greenwald
This powerful article by Glenn Greenwald on the new on-line news service, The Intercept, exposes the games played by the so-called intelligence services to entrap and defame innocent targets.
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.
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/
This is a brief video introduction to this story by Democracy Now.
http://youtu.be/Gw1gUMWBlTc
Published on Feb 25, 2014
A new report based on leaks by Edward Snowden reveals new details of how Western spy agencies manipulate information online. Writing at TheIntercept.org, Glenn Greenwald describes the tactics of a secret unit inside Britain's top spy agency called JTRIG, or Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group. JTRIG's self-identified goals are to discredit targets by posting fake material -- including, for example, fake blog posts purporting to be by a target's victim -- and to manipulate online discourse. A newly revealed document titled, "Disruption: Operational Playbook," lists tactics like "false flag operation," or posting material online, then falsely attributing it to someone else. The targets appear to include those suspected of "hacktivism," meaning online acts of political protest. "The broader point," Greenwald writes, "is that ... 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."
Agape
26th February 2014, 17:13
Do you people have to post one and the same article 5 times on the same board ?
Start a new thread on every single piece of news ?
Is something like co-emergence of new reality EVER possible here, referring to the larger net ?
What sort of intelligence is that, what are you doing please ?
This same SIGNIT is found in at least 5 threads from yesterday including here :
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?59919-Edward-Snowden-the-whistleblower-behind-the-NSA-surveillance-revelations/page30
and here :
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?68844-There-are-agents-among-us--Here-is-how-they-work...
No that's not all, what about the 'alien life ' in earthly biosphere found by Sheffield University weather balloon last summer ..
the 'news' is being posted again and again, in new threads, 10 new threads, do you ever read other peoples threads before posting ?
Or do you just come open the forum and compulsively post, post, post ?
I'm probably infamous for not starting new threads readily , why ? Because you all do, and every little piece of nonsense requires brand new thread ... for what IF people want to discuss it ... most get 2 replies , or even 10 .
I don't understand mankind :cry:
Mod hat on:
I was going to delete this post, with a gentle PM to Agape, as substantially derailing the thread --
but then decided to leave it in as an excellent example of EXACTLY what the topic is about.
In other words, how (although Agape is certainly not an agent!) someone who WAS an agent
would jump in exactly like this to distract, divert, and (as surfer points out in post #15 above (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?68819-COINTELPRO-2.0-confirmed-How-Covert-Agents-Infiltrate-the-Internet--Snowden-GCHQ-docs-confirm-&p=801846&viewfull=1#post801846))
to blunt our capacity for focusing on the real issues (my paraphrase).
:focus:
Bill Ryan
26th February 2014, 17:51
-------
Three threads merged, and many thanks to all. I was going to post this myself, but mountain_jim and others beat me to it as well. :)
This is very important material.
Here's WIRED Magazine's response:
http://wired.com/opinion/2014/02/comes-around-goes-around-latest-snowden-revelation-isnt-just-dangerous-anonymous-us
The New Snowden Revelation Is Dangerous for Anonymous — And for All of Us
The latest Snowden-related revelation (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/investigations/war-anonymous-british-spies-attacked-hackers-snowden-docs-show-n21361) is that Britain’s Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) proactively targeted the communications infrastructure used by the online activist collective known as Anonymous.
Specifically (http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/snowden_anonymous_nbc_document.pdf), they implemented distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks on the internet relay chat (IRC) rooms used by Anonymous. They also implanted malware to out the personal identity details of specific participants. And while we only know for sure that the U.K.’s GCHQ and secret spy unit known as the “Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group” (JTRIG) launched these attacks in an operation called “Rolling Thunder,” the U.S.’ NSA was likely aware of what they were doing because the British intelligence agents presented their program interventions at the NSA conference SIGDEV in 2012. (Not to mention the two agencies sharing close ties (http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/aug/01/nsa-paid-gchq-spying-edward-snowden) in general.)
Whether you agree with the activities of Anonymous (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/tag/anonymous/) or not — which have included everything from supporting the Arab Spring protests to DDoSing copyright organizations to doxing child pornography site users — the salient point is that democratic governments now seem to be using their very tactics against them.
The key difference, however, is that while those involved in Anonymous can and have faced their day in court for those tactics, the British government has not. When Anonymous engages in lawbreaking, they are always taking a huge risk in doing so. But with unlimited resources and no oversight, organizations like the GCHQ (and theoretically the NSA) can do as they please. And it’s this power differential that makes all the difference.
There are many shades of gray around using denial-of-service attacks as a protest tactic. Unlike a hack, which involves accessing or damaging data, a DDoS attack renders a web page inaccessible due to an excessive flood of traffic. As an anthropologist who has studied hacker culture, hacktivism, and Anonymous in particular (http://www.cigionline.org/sites/default/files/no3_8.pdf), I struggled to find some black-and-white moral certitude for such activities. But as one member of Anonymous told me: “Trying to find a sure fire ethical defense for Anonymous DDoSing is going to twist you into moral pretzels.”
Judging the “moral pretzel” of DDoS attacks requires understanding the nuances of how they are carried out, and DDoS attacks tend to be problematic no matter what the motivation. Still, they’ve been a worthwhile exercise in experimenting with a new form of protest in an increasingly digital era. In the case of Anonymous, this form of protest came about because (http://pandalabs.pandasecurity.com/an-interview-with-anonymous/) of the banking blockade against WikiLeaks. While the protest was rooted in deceit (they used botnets and many of their participants did not know that), it was certainly not destructive (especially since it was leveled against (http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2010/12/ANONOPS_The_Press_Release.pdf) a large organization that could withstand it). The whole point was to get media attention (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/06/anonymous-parmy-olson-review/all/), which they did.
But here’s the thing: You don’t even need to believe in or support DDoS as a protest tactic to find the latest Snowden revelations troubling. There are clearly defined laws and processes that a democratic government is supposed to follow. Yet here, the British government is apparently throwing out due process and essentially proceeding straight to the punishment — using a method that is considered illegal and punishable by years in prison. Even if DDoS attacks would do more damage upstream (than to IRC), it’s a surprising revelation.
The real concern here is a shotgun approach to justice that sprays its punishment over thousands of people who are engaged in their democratic right to protest simply because a small handful of people committed digital vandalism. This is the kind of overreaction that usually occurs when a government is trying to squash dissent; it’s not unlike what happens in other, more oppressive countries.
Since 2008, activists around the world have rallied around the name ‘Anonymous’ to take collective action and voice political discontent. The last two years in particular have been a watershed moment in the history of hacktivism: Never before have so many geeks and hackers wielded their keyboards for the sake of political expression, dissent, and direct action.
Even though some Anonymous participants did engage in actions that were illegal, the ensemble itself poses no threat to national security. The GCHQ has no business infecting activists’ systems with malware and thwarting their communications. And if we’re going to prosecute activists and put them in jail for large amounts of time for making a website unavailable for 10 minutes, then that same limitation should apply to anyone who breaks the law — be they a hacker, our next door neighbor, or the GCHQ.
As it is, the small subset of Anonymous activists who engaged in illegal civil disobedience face serious consequences. These activists — on both sides of the Atlantic — are currently paying a steep price for breaking the law, because the current form of the laws under which they’re charged (the Computer Misuse Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Misuse_Act_1990) in the U.K., and the CFAA (http://www.wired.com/opinion/tag/cfaa/) in the U.S.) tend to mete out more excessive and often disproportionate punishments compared to analogous offline ones. For instance, physical tactics such as trespass or vandalism of property rarely result in serious criminal consequences for participants and tend to be minor civil infractions instead of federal crimes. Yet that same nuance — which fundamentally recognizes the intention and the consequences of such protest actions — is rarely extended to online activities. Criminal punishments for such acts can stretch out to years, disrupt lives, lead to felony charges on employment records, and result in excessively high fines.
To put this in perspective: In Wisconsin alone a man was fined for running an automated DDoS tool against the Koch Industries website for 60 seconds. (He was protesting the billionaire Koch brothers’ role (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/22/us/22koch.html?pagewanted=all) in supporting the Wisconsin governor’s effort to reduce the power of unions and public employees’ right to engage in collective bargaining.) The actual financial losses were less than $5,000, but he was charged a fine (http://www.geek.com/apps/man-fined-183000-for-helping-anonymous-ddos-a-site-for-one-minute-1579317/) of $183,000 — even though a far worse physical crime in the same state was only fined $6400.
In the U.K., Chris Weatherhead — who didn’t directly contribute to a DDoS campaign but ran the communication hub where the protests were coordinated — received a whopping 18-month sentence. This is even more time than was given to hackers who broke into computer systems, stole data, and dumped it on the internet.
Based on these and other sentences (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/11/hammond-sentence/) already handed out, it’s clear that judges consider Anonymous’ actions to be serious and punishable. Scores of Anonymous hacktivists have already been arrested or jailed.
Meanwhile, agencies like the GCHQ face no such risks, deterrents, consequences, oversight, or accountability. This scenario is all the more alarming given that some of Anonymous’ actions may be illegal and might warrant attention from some law enforcement agencies — but do not even come close to constituting a terrorist threat. And that means we’re inching into the same territory as the dictatorial regimes criticized by democratic governments for not respecting internet freedoms.
mountain_jim
26th February 2014, 17:59
(edit - while crafting this post I see Bill's content was posted)
Well I only started my thread (in News and Updates) after it was suggested I do so, in the ongoing Snowden thread on page 30 or so where I posted links within an hour after the article was posted by Greenwald on the net.
Then I discovered one earlier thread with a poor title that did not indicate it's contents. Then I watched my thread moved with a merge to Conspiracy, now moved again in another merge to General Discussions.
So every time I return to my thread it's in a different forum. it would seem to me that merges should keep the oldest thread in it's original location, but that's just me. :)
I agree about everyone started new threads on same link is unhelpful, part of the problem is a subject like this might go in Current Events, News and Updates, Conspiracy, or General Discussion. There are somewhat confusing overlapping subject sub-forums and that encourages duplication.
I now follow Greenwald's twitter feed and comments section and see almost every substantive link related to this article and all of Snowden's released document contents. I refer all to my first post for links to Glenn's twitter feed.
Mod hat on again :)
Hi, MJ -- thanks for this. All understood. I did at least some of the merging myself, and might easily have made an error somewhere. I saw that it had been recommended that you start your own thread on this, and in my opinion that was the right thing to do.
To all others: it's easy to miss a news item which has already been posted. But I'd much rather something important was posted several times (and the mods can then take care of the cleanup, if needed), than not at all.
:focus:
mountain_jim
26th February 2014, 18:22
Glenn's comment section provides great examples of these thread derailers as well - I have no doubt he has these dirty tricksters all over his comments and he has excellent responses to them.
(Glenn's replies (in bold) to the derailers/shills):
Glenn Greenwald
26 Feb 2014 at 10:58 am
For ****’s sake, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker did that telling his employees and campaign aides to go to news websites and post comments promoting him and his record (http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/scott-walker-urged-county-staff-campaign-aides-to-promote-him-online-b99210902z1-246713991.html) Is he working for NSA or GCHQ too?
Now *that is a dedicated and hard-core Democratic partisan shill and Obama loyalist: finding ways to turn a story about NSA/GCHQ deceit into a complaint about some Republican governor. Congrats. An MSNBC chair awaits.
What’s compromising the internet is that you have the biggest ****ing racket around: Posting powerpoint slides with no context whatsoever and projecting whatever phobias you’re hiding under your tinfoil hat while Pierre pays you the big bucks for it.
NO CONTEXT is the new preferred Dem partisan platitude when faced with documents that make them uncomfortable.
This isn’t the first story I’ve reported on these documents. It’s the fourth. NBC spent a good deal of time talking to GCHQ about the “context”. The documents themselves provide a lot more. There’s zero question they used these tactics as the links make clear, and the very last page of the new document says that they are currently training 150+ new operatives trained in these tactics for full roll-out in early 2013. There’s your context.
Bill Ryan
26th February 2014, 18:27
-------
This, too, has been posted and discussed in several other threads. But it's worth reiterating:
The mods and I are very confident that the Avalon 'firewall' (i.e. the very rigorous new member application process) works really pretty well to protect the forum from destructive and divisive "drop-in" comments that plague so many other forums and chatrooms in exactly the way this article and others describe.
The vast majority of the occasional road bumps we experience here in the Avalon community are a natural (and largely healthy) product of human nature. We're a very eclectic community, with between us a wide variety of cultures, nationalities, experiences, abilities, professions, knowledge bases, and backgrounds. So it's quite natural that we may not all agree on certain details.
That's all right and proper. The big, broad picture -- that we're not told the truth in the mainstream media, that our planet in general and the human race in particular is in deep trouble, that human freedom is under serious assault, that there has been a coup on Planet Earth, and that there's a huge conflict going on which for some reason may be of great importance not only to us -- is shared by almost all members.
Sometimes, a few key individuals are targeted by means far more sophisticated than anything Snowden has ever described: electronic and/or psychic warfare, deployed remotely. This is real.
That's the only really viable way for an enemy to get past the firewall, and it's definitely utilized from time to time. Fortunately, there are also (a) many members who are very able to perceive such anomalies, and (b) many members who are very able to handle them. The mods team is also fully aware of all this, and between them possess not a small amount of competence. It's a fascinating and important topic.
Again, :focus: :)
ghostrider
26th February 2014, 18:30
the agents of corruption and control are probably more prevalent than we know ... the sad part is taxpayers pay for all the agents of government to spy on us all and cause trouble ... we pay for our own demise ... not for long ... all you government types get your resumes updated ... your all fired ... when the wave goes around the world , the game is over ...you can't fight a vibration ...
mountain_jim
26th February 2014, 18:36
related:
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/02/secret-playbook-social-media-censors.html
The Secret Playbook of Social Media Censors
Posted on February 26, 2014 by WashingtonsBlog
The “Counter Reset”
Glenn Greenwald’s piece on manipulation of the Internet by intelligence agencies gives examples – based upon documents leaked by Edward Snowden – of how governments disrupt social media websites.
Other whistleblowers have provided very specific information about how agents disrupt social media news sites.
This essay will focus one specific technique: the “Counter Reset”.
To explain the Counter Reset technique, we have to understand the concepts of “momentum” and “social proof”.
Specifically, the government spends a great deal of manpower and money to monitor which stories, memes and social movements are developing the momentum to actually pose a threat to the status quo. For example, the Federal Reserve, Pentagon, Department of Homeland Security, and other agencies all monitor social media for stories critical of their agencies … or the government in general. Other governments – and private corporations – do the same thing.
Why?
Because a story gaining momentum ranks high on social media sites. So it has a high probability of bursting into popular awareness, destroying the secrecy which allows corruption, and becoming a real challenge to the powers-that-be.
“Social proof” is a related concept. Social proof is the well-known principle stating that people will believe something if most other people believe it. And see this. In other words, most people have a herd instinct, so if a story ranks highly, more people are likely to believe it and be influenced by it.
That is why vested interests go to great lengths – using computer power and human resources – to monitor social media momentum. If a story critical of one of these powerful entities is gaining momentum, they will go to great lengths to kill its momentum, and destroy the social proof which comes with alot of upvotes, likes or recommendations in social media.
They may choose to flood social media with comments supporting the entities, using armies of sock puppets, i.e. fake social media identities. See this, this, this, this and this. Or moderators at the social media sites themselves can just censor the stories.
Or they can be more sneaky … and do a Counter Reset to destroy momentum.
Giving specific examples will illustrate the technique. Reddit moderators have continuously reset the counter over the last couple of days on the new Greenwald/Snowden story, to destroy momentum which would otherwise have guaranteed that the story was the top story.
Similarly, the owners of popular Youtube channels have repeatedly reported that Counter Resets are done on their most controversial news stories.
The attractiveness of the Counter Reset from a moderator’s perspective is that it destroys momentum, while leaving some plausible deniability.
If users point out that the story keeps getting spiked, the moderator can say that it hasn’t been censored, but instead that the moderators have allowed it to stay up (with periodic Counter Resets along the way).
Alternatively – if the moderators have continuously deleted the story each time it is posted – the moderators can say that it has been posted “numerous times”, and pretend that shows that they are letting the story gather momentum, when they are in fact deleting it again and again. For example, when hundreds of Redditors complained yesterday that the Greenwald/Snowden story kept getting deleted, moderators chimed in on every thread proclaiming that the story had run multiple times … without admitting that it had been deleted each time.
Now that you know about the Counter Reset, watch your favorite social media sites to see how this technique is used for the hardest-hitting stories and videos which directly challenge the legitimacy of the powers-that-be.
Hervé
26th February 2014, 19:34
A good example of the above as documented by GoodeTXSG with his Facebook account:
FACEBOOK Actively Jacking w/My Group Page: Bank and Politician Financial Corruption Page (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?65902-FACEBOOK-Actively-Jacking-w-My-Group-Page-Bank-and-Politician-Financial-Corruption-Page)
miqeel
26th February 2014, 20:18
There may be only two conflicting interpretation for this:
These documents, existing in public space will make more room for the shift and the positive change then anything else that was ever picked up, in my opinion.
OR
The releases of these documents are all a part of a grand plan that has no beginning and no end, and can be all called at the same time: "time, observation, evolution"
When you understand what does it mean "let go of the need to be in control", it may be possible for you to see the "excluded third" that these two interpretations may be actually one and the same thing.
That is all I have to say about this, and I cannot thank you enough for letting me participate in your tunnel of reality for just this moment. - Not the Avalon Forum, but you, The Fellow Seeker of The Truth"
Agape
26th February 2014, 20:20
Hello Bill, thank you Bill, you're right , as always . Love being a terrorist .
Error's on my side .. vivat the agenda.. I better take holidays for few days . My self moderating abilities are beyond imagination.
There was zero intention to derail the topic from my side .
:angel:
Openmindedskeptic
27th February 2014, 00:32
So now the Brits can't act like it's just the U.S. Intelligence Agencies that have run amok given Greenwald's recent article. Oh, and if you Great White Northerners, Aussies or Kiwis think things are better where you live - you're kidding yourselves too.
Carmody
27th February 2014, 05:35
I hope folks understand that since they can't seem to stop the human race from finding freedom, they will try to move to a bigger stick. Martial Law. The only thing a parasite fears more than a free being/group, is a being/group freeing itself from a parasite.
Anyway, I'm not sure many of you would understand the level of, er, observation I've been under. Some will, some won't. Most would never believe it unless they spent some time in my presence on a daily basis. In those cases, I suspect many of you would have freaked out by now.
My morning start was interesting. First... the disappearing jet in the sky. Then ... ..
edit:
Everytin' be Everytin', as above, so below...note that a x4.9 flare came of the sun right about the same time this article hit the public's eye, at the same time this other thing is 'going down' over in the Ukraine.
jackovesk
27th February 2014, 13:36
***Thought I might add this here...
http://i2.wp.com/blazingmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/h1-e1392382973569.png?resize=400%2C144
Reddit Censors Big Story About Government Manipulation and Disruption of the Internet
Posted on February 25, 2014 by WashingtonsBlog
Reddit Moderators Go to Extreme Lengths to Censor the Most Important Story of the Year
The moderators at the giant r/news reddit (with over 2 million subscribed readers) repeatedly killed the Greenwald/Snowden story on government manipulation and disruption of the Internet … widely acknowledged to be one of the most important stories ever leaked by Snowden.
Similarly, the moderators at the even bigger r/worldnews reddit (over 5 million subscribers) repeatedly deleted the story, so that each new post had to start over at zero.
For example, here are a number of posts deleted from r/news
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Red4.jpg
Related posts from other sites – like 21stCenturyWire – were deleted as well:
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Red6.jpg
Related posts from other sites – like 21stCenturyWire – were deleted as well:
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Red6.jpg
And here are a number of the posts deleted by the moderators of r/worldnews:
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Red2.jpg
Write-ups of the same story from other sites – like Zero Hedge – were also deleted:
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Red3.jpg
Two Redditors provide further information on the censorship of this story:
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Red.jpg
This isn’t the first time Reddit moderators have been caught censoring:
◾Censorship Costs Reddit Thousands of Readers
◾Reddit Busted Censoring Alternative Media
◾Biggest Social Media Sites Censor Alternative News
Source links: Here, here, here, here, here and here.
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/02/reddit-censors-story-government-manipulation-disruption-internet.html
PS - Too many links to attach, so click the 'above' link to access...
Openmindedskeptic
27th February 2014, 14:53
Just yesterday my thread over at GameFaqs about Glenn Greenwald's piece was deleted entirely. Seems some members complained that the article contains top secret slides and documents so it's illegal to post links to it. Isn't that ridiculous?
The paid internet trolls are on every social networking site, forum and comments section on the web. Their goal is simple; if they can't suppress information that governments don't want discussed then they overwhelm the legitimate info with disinformation. Fortunately, the savvy members of Project Avalon are wise to those tactics too.
I agree with Bill Ryan when his says that human freedom is under attack all around the world. Here in the U.S. my wife and I have been victimized with intensive surveillance and even RF based psychotronic technology but all that has done is strengthened our resolve to resist. We often find strength from this quote from Sir Winston Churchill:
“If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”
mountain_jim
27th February 2014, 15:18
I admit I have not looked around on Avalon yet to see if this already posted:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/27/gchq-nsa-webcam-images-internet-yahoo
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/2/27/1393508802483/cdf1262e-9c5e-42ee-b28c-8b26b1966918-460x276.jpeg
The GCHQ program saved one image every five minutes from the users' feeds. Photograph: Chris Jackson/Getty Images
UK spy agency intercepted webcam images of millions of Yahoo users
• Optic Nerve program collected Yahoo webcam images in bulk
• 1.8m users targeted by GCHQ in six-month period alone
• Yahoo: 'A whole new level of violation of our users' privacy'
• Material included large quantity of sexually explicit images
Britain's surveillance agency GCHQ, with aid from the National Security Agency, intercepted and stored the webcam images of millions of internet users not suspected of wrongdoing, secret documents reveal.
GCHQ files dating between 2008 and 2010 explicitly state that a surveillance program codenamed Optic Nerve collected still images of Yahoo webcam chats in bulk and saved them to agency databases, regardless of whether individual users were an intelligence target or not.
In one six-month period in 2008 alone, the agency collected webcam imagery – including substantial quantities of sexually explicit communications – from more than 1.8 million Yahoo user accounts globally.
Yahoo reacted furiously to the webcam interception when approached by the Guardian. The company denied any prior knowledge of the program, accusing the agencies of "a whole new level of violation of our users' privacy".
GCHQ does not have the technical means to make sure no images of UK or US citizens are collected and stored by the system, and there are no restrictions under UK law to prevent Americans' images being accessed by British analysts without an individual warrant.
The documents also chronicle GCHQ's sustained struggle to keep the large store of sexually explicit imagery collected by Optic Nerve away from the eyes of its staff, though there is little discussion about the privacy implications of storing this material in the first place.
Optic Nerve, the documents provided by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden show, began as a prototype in 2008 and was still active in 2012, according to an internal GCHQ wiki page accessed that year.
The system, eerily reminiscent of the telescreens evoked in George Orwell's 1984, was used for experiments in automated facial recognition, to monitor GCHQ's existing targets, and to discover new targets of interest. Such searches could be used to try to find terror suspects or criminals making use of multiple, anonymous user IDs.
Rather than collecting webcam chats in their entirety, the program saved one image every five minutes from the users' feeds, partly to comply with human rights legislation, and also to avoid overloading GCHQ's servers. The documents describe these users as "unselected" – intelligence agency parlance for bulk rather than targeted collection.
One document even likened the program's "bulk access to Yahoo webcam images/events" to a massive digital police mugbook of previously arrested individuals.
"Face detection has the potential to aid selection of useful images for 'mugshots' or even for face recognition by assessing the angle of the face," it reads. "The best images are ones where the person is facing the camera with their face upright."
The agency did make efforts to limit analysts' ability to see webcam images, restricting bulk searches to metadata only.
However, analysts were shown the faces of people with similar usernames to surveillance targets, potentially dragging in large numbers of innocent people. One document tells agency staff they were allowed to display "webcam images associated with similar Yahoo identifiers to your known target".
Optic Nerve was based on collecting information from GCHQ's huge network of internet cable taps, which was then processed and fed into systems provided by the NSA. Webcam information was fed into NSA's XKeyscore search tool, and NSA research was used to build the tool which identified Yahoo's webcam traffic.
Bulk surveillance on Yahoo users was begun, the documents said, because "Yahoo webcam is known to be used by GCHQ targets".
Programs like Optic Nerve, which collect information in bulk from largely anonymous user IDs, are unable to filter out information from UK or US citizens. Unlike the NSA, GCHQ is not required by UK law to "minimize", or remove, domestic citizens' information from its databases. However, additional legal authorisations are required before analysts can search for the data of individuals likely to be in the British Isles at the time of the search.
There are no such legal safeguards for searches on people believed to be in the US or the other allied "Five Eyes" nations – Australia, New Zealand and Canada.
GCHQ insists all of its activities are necessary, proportionate, and in accordance with UK law.
The documents also show that GCHQ trialled automatic searches based on facial recognition technology, for people resembling existing GCHQ targets: "[I]f you search for similar IDs to your target, you will be able to request automatic comparison of the face in the similar IDs to those in your target's ID".
The undated document, from GCHQ's internal wiki information site, noted this capability was "now closed … but shortly to return!"
The privacy risks of mass collection from video sources have long been known to the NSA and GCHQ, as a research document from the mid-2000s noted: "One of the greatest hindrances to exploiting video data is the fact that the vast majority of videos received have no intelligence value whatsoever, such as pornography, commercials, movie clips and family home movies."
Sexually explicit webcam material proved to be a particular problem for GCHQ, as one document delicately put it: "Unfortunately … it would appear that a surprising number of people use webcam conversations to show intimate parts of their body to the other person. Also, the fact that the Yahoo software allows more than one person to view a webcam stream without necessarily sending a reciprocal stream means that it appears sometimes to be used for broadcasting pornography."
The document estimates that between 3% and 11% of the Yahoo webcam imagery harvested by GCHQ contains "undesirable nudity". Discussing efforts to make the interface "safer to use", it noted that current "naïve" pornography detectors assessed the amount of flesh in any given shot, and so attracted lots of false positives by incorrectly tagging shots of people's faces as pornography.
GCHQ did not make any specific attempts to prevent the collection or storage of explicit images, the documents suggest, but did eventually compromise by excluding images in which software had not detected any faces from search results – a bid to prevent many of the lewd shots being seen by analysts.
The system was not perfect at stopping those images reaching the eyes of GCHQ staff, though. An internal guide cautioned prospective Optic Nerve users that "there is no perfect ability to censor material which may be offensive. Users who may feel uncomfortable about such material are advised not to open them".
It further notes that "under GCHQ's offensive material policy, the dissemination of offensive material is a disciplinary offence".
Once collected, the metadata associated with the videos can be as valuable to the intelligence agencies as the images themselves.
It is not fully clear from the documents how much access the NSA has to the Yahoo webcam trove itself, though all of the policy documents were available to NSA analysts through their routine information-sharing. A previously revealed NSA metadata repository, codenamed Marina, has what the documents describe as a protocol class for webcam information.
In its statement to the Guardian, Yahoo strongly condemned the Optic Nerve program, and said it had no awareness of or involvement with the GCHQ collection.
"We were not aware of, nor would we condone, this reported activity," said a spokeswoman. "This report, if true, represents a whole new level of violation of our users' privacy that is completely unacceptable, and we strongly call on the world's governments to reform surveillance law consistent with the principles we outlined in December.
"We are committed to preserving our users' trust and security and continue our efforts to expand encryption across all of our services."
Yahoo has been one of the most outspoken technology companies objecting to the NSA's bulk surveillance. It filed a transparency lawsuit with the secret US surveillance court to disclose a 2007 case in which it was compelled to provide customer data to the surveillance agency, and it railed against the NSA's reported interception of information in transit between its data centers.
The documents do not refer to any specific court orders permitting collection of Yahoo's webcam imagery, but GCHQ mass collection is governed by the UK's Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, and requires certification by the foreign secretary, currently William Hague.
The Optic Nerve documentation shows legalities were being considered as new capabilities were being developed. Discussing adding automated facial matching, for example, analysts agreed to test a system before firming up its legal status for everyday use.
"It was agreed that the legalities of such a capability would be considered once it had been developed, but that the general principle applied would be that if the accuracy of the algorithm was such that it was useful to the analyst (ie, the number of spurious results was low, then it was likely to be proportionate)," the 2008 document reads.
The document continues: "This is allowed for research purposes but at the point where the results are shown to analysts for operational use, the proportionality and legality questions must be more carefully considered."
Optic Nerve was just one of a series of GCHQ efforts at biometric detection, whether for target recognition or general security.
While the documents do not detail efforts as widescale as those against Yahoo users, one presentation discusses with interest the potential and capabilities of the Xbox 360's Kinect camera, saying it generated "fairly normal webcam traffic" and was being evaluated as part of a wider program.
Documents previously revealed in the Guardian showed the NSA were exploring the video capabilities of game consoles for surveillance purposes.
Microsoft, the maker of Xbox, faced a privacy backlash last year when details emerged that the camera bundled with its new console, the Xbox One, would be always-on by default.
Beyond webcams and consoles, GCHQ and the NSA looked at building more detailed and accurate facial recognition tools, such as iris recognition cameras – "think Tom Cruise in Minority Report", one presentation noted.
The same presentation talks about the strange means the agencies used to try and test such systems, including whether they could be tricked. One way of testing this was to use contact lenses on detailed mannequins.
To this end, GCHQ has a dummy nicknamed "the Head", one document noted.
In a statement, a GCHQ spokesman said: "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."
The NSA declined to respond to specific queries about its access to the Optic Nerve system, the presence of US citizens' data in such systems, or whether the NSA has similar bulk-collection programs.
However, NSA spokeswoman Vanee Vines said the agency did not ask foreign partners such as GCHQ to collect intelligence the agency could not legally collect itself.
"As we've said before, the National Security Agency does not ask its foreign partners to undertake any intelligence activity that the US government would be legally prohibited from undertaking itself," she said.
"The NSA works with a number of partners in meeting its foreign intelligence mission goals, and those operations comply with US law and with the applicable laws under which those partners operate.
"A key part of the protections that apply to both US persons and citizens of other countries is the mandate that information be in support of a valid foreign intelligence requirement, and comply with US Attorney General-approved procedures to protect privacy rights. Those procedures govern the acquisition, use, and retention of information about US persons."
Agape
27th February 2014, 16:29
I admit I have not looked around on Avalon yet to see if this already posted:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/27/gchq-nsa-webcam-images-internet-yahoo
Actually , Openmindedskeptic did, with you ..4 minutes apart :
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?68894-UK-spy-agency-intercepted-webcam-images-of-millions-of-Yahoo-users
I also saw it in the news and thought it's pertinent to the topic here . It's still all good .
:panda:
fractal being
27th February 2014, 22:12
It's incredible how "selectively" the information is being distributed in the MSM. Furthermore, there are hints of fear mongering, by focusing extensively on the "it could be you" aspect of it.
excerpts from the guardian article (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/27/gchq-nsa-webcam-images-internet-yahoo):
Britain's surveillance agency GCHQ, with aid from the US National Security Agency, intercepted and stored the webcam images of millions of internet users not suspected of wrongdoing, secret documents reveal.
GCHQ files dating between 2008 and 2010 explicitly state that a surveillance program codenamed Optic Nerve collected still images of Yahoo webcam chats in bulk and saved them to agency databases, regardless of whether individual users were an intelligence target or not.
and guess what, the government knows about it and oh yes, it's business as usual:
In a statement, a GCHQ spokesman said: "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.
so comply because 1 moment of every five minutes of that only time that you had a couple of more drinks will find the way to your boss/colleague/client/promotion etc. It can be guaranteed in many creative ways:
The same presentation talks about the strange means the agencies used to try and test such systems, including whether they could be tricked. One way of testing this was to use contact lenses on detailed mannequins.
To this end, GCHQ has a dummy nicknamed "the Head", one document noted.
But don't worry, the big boss is there fighting for a global solution for you:
In its statement to the Guardian, Yahoo strongly condemned the Optic Nerve program, and said it had no awareness of or involvement with the GCHQ collection.
"We were not aware of, nor would we condone, this reported activity," said a spokeswoman. "This report, if true, represents a whole new level of violation of our users' privacy that is completely unacceptable, and we strongly call on the world's governments to reform surveillance law consistent with the principles we outlined in December.
I really hope that people will find a way to the full information, regardless of the fact that the initial triggers were these distractions from the MSM. I'm glad that PA (among others) provides this opportunity. It increases the chances that more people can reach it
Love and Peace,
FB
Karma Ninja
28th February 2014, 03:59
With all due respect Bill, I would say your confidence in the "firewall" is not fully thought through. Would it really be difficult to believe that someone could sit and observe this forum and gain an understanding of what it might take to gain entry? How long would it take to read your comments and the comments made by the mods and come up with a personality profile that would gain someone entry to our lovely little forum? If the NSA or the CIA or the FBI decided they wanted to shape the message and mood of this forum it would not be difficult. They could even send multiple requests to join from mulltiple IP addresses and multiple systems using a variety of MAC addresses so that you never saw that the requests were from a common source. They could continue to do so until they hit the magic recipe. They might then engage in a number of the tactics discussed in the article in more subtle and covert ways without raising the suspicions of anyone. We all would be none the wiser. I can't say I have seen suspicious activity in more recent times but there were times during the "Charles" fiasco and various other contentious moments on this forum where we may have been infiltrated and subjected to some of the tactics mentioned in the article.
In fact, I would say if we lend ourselves to believe that we are discussing matters of truth and awakening than I say we would be a likely target for these types of activities. Unless, we are all so far from the truth or so far from piecing it all together that no one sees fit to infiltrate us and mess around.
In this instance, I respectfully disagree with your assessment.
-------
This, too, has been posted and discussed in several other threads. But it's worth reiterating:
The mods and I are very confident that the Avalon 'firewall' (i.e. the very rigorous new member application process) works really pretty well to protect the forum from destructive and divisive "drop-in" comments that plague so many other forums and chatrooms in exactly the way this article and others describe.
The vast majority of the occasional road bumps we experience here in the Avalon community are a natural (and largely healthy) product of human nature. We're a very eclectic community, with between us a wide variety of cultures, nationalities, experiences, abilities, professions, knowledge bases, and backgrounds. So it's quite natural that we may not all agree on certain details.
That's all right and proper. The big, broad picture -- that we're not told the truth in the mainstream media, that our planet in general and the human race in particular is in deep trouble, that human freedom is under serious assault, that there has been a coup on Planet Earth, and that there's a huge conflict going on which for some reason may be of great importance not only to us -- is shared by almost all members.
Sometimes, a few key individuals are targeted by means far more sophisticated than anything Snowden has ever described: electronic and/or psychic warfare, deployed remotely. This is real.
That's the only really viable way for an enemy to get past the firewall, and it's definitely utilized from time to time. Fortunately, there are also (a) many members who are very able to perceive such anomalies, and (b) many members who are very able to handle them. The mods team is also fully aware of all this, and between them possess not a small amount of competence. It's a fascinating and important topic.
Again, :focus: :)
Agape
28th February 2014, 17:12
With all due respect Bill, I would say your confidence in the "firewall" is not fully thought through. Would it really be difficult to believe that someone could sit and observe this forum and gain an understanding of what it might take to gain entry? How long would it take to read your comments and the comments made by the mods and come up with a personality profile that would gain someone entry to our lovely little forum? If the NSA or the CIA or the FBI decided they wanted to shape the message and mood of this forum it would not be difficult. They could even send multiple requests to join from mulltiple IP addresses and multiple systems using a variety of MAC addresses so that you never saw that the requests were from a common source. They could continue to do so until they hit the magic recipe. They might then engage in a number of the tactics discussed in the article in more subtle and covert ways without raising the suspicions of anyone. We all would be none the wiser. I can't say I have seen suspicious activity in more recent times but there were times during the "Charles" fiasco and various other contentious moments on this forum where we may have been infiltrated and subjected to some of the tactics mentioned in the article.
In fact, I would say if we lend ourselves to believe that we are discussing matters of truth and awakening than I say we would be a likely target for these types of activities. Unless, we are all so far from the truth or so far from piecing it all together that no one sees fit to infiltrate us and mess around.
In this instance, I respectfully disagree with your assessment.
I think ..that Bill only referred to so called 'agent provocateurs' , trolls and debunkers in his posting who are more common disruption in groups and forums . Most of them are common public 'volunteers ' anyway and even if some are deployed by specific alphabet agencies, they're not more than pawns in the game .
As such , they're detectable because they do not display more intelligence than the founder /admin/moderator team .
I would fully agree with Karma Ninje here that should any of those agencies deploy agent or group of them for specific task/operation within group such as ours , albeit this being very large forum,
we would have zero chance to know about it. It's rather more difficult to recognise 'who is who' over the net than in real life encounters . True intelligence agent , in my opinion, would pose as perfectly normal person, as trustable as possible, with no intent to playing 'games' here or being uncovered by suspecting members.
On forum like this, the level of awareness is intriguingly higher than on boards to do, lets say with gardening , we contain people who are handling sensitive information.
So also , the level of suspicions can rise high ... and it's hardly in 'their' ( not to speak of the forums ) favour to turn people over-suspicious and stop them from sharing .
My personal take towards this is simple : protect your own 'assets ' . If something is valuable to you like your own life, don't tweet it to the world .
When I was new to the internet, in 2006 , I came with specific purpose ..reaching out .. sharing my witness testimony . I know the best what sensitivity is , information wise - and I never thought 'we are alone' , either in Universe or on the forums.
To what deal it matters, I don't know and frankly , I don't care .
If we lived in some kind of retrograde regime this forum would not exist . There's a freedom of speech so far ,
and if someone wants to gather information on anyone, in professional manner they can always do that .
The only thing that I see clearly in my mind is : you'd have to pay me 100000$ a month to be paranoid and play 'an agent' . If you don't, I refuse to think about it because I'd be firstly ill , and unpayed . The paranoia thing is not worth it . Unless you have it natural and there's very little we can do for you ( commonly ) at all .
:angel:
Openmindedskeptic
28th February 2014, 17:53
I have little doubt that even PA has been compromised given that some rational threads, at times, have interlopers who attempt to discredit the thesis. This is oft done by taking the concept being presented to wild extremes that can potentially make it appear laughable or silly.
Edward Snowden's documents have made it difficult for governments and their Intelligence Agencies to convincingly deny their illegal activates. Unfortunately, we don't always have that level of whistleblower to expose wrongdoing by other institutions like big pharma and big banking which are equally if not more so corrupt.
mountain_jim
28th February 2014, 18:13
As some one who read and appreciated Greenwald's contributions since he first started his self-published blog Unclaimed Territory back when Bush was president, I have closely followed these stories and think the new organization he has helped found has attracted major unco-opted reporting talent.
I believe the reasons Snowden chose him were the same ones that made me value Glenn's contributions so highly (in pointing out the failure of the 'rule of law' and holding US political power to account). I suspect he's coming around to realizing some of the conspiracies he would not go near in the past may actually be true.
I will have to rely on others here to follow this 'beat' closely at Avalon as I must pay the bills with a return to full-time project work with travel next week, and my Avalon time will be cut back greatly, to maybe a quick 15 minutes nightly or so to scan and read and catch up.
Openmindedskeptic
3rd March 2014, 04:36
HUWnGXAfabA
"Abby Martin talks about journalist Glenn Greenwald's report regarding the intelligence community's use of subversive and manipulative online tactics to destroy the reputations of businesses and individuals."
Octavusprime
8th March 2014, 18:50
That last video puts it all into perspective. If we here at Avalon think that we are immune to this type of attack and manipulation then we are sadly mistaken. In order to identify a disinformation expert and professional provocateur than we need to know their tools of the trade.
Bumping with the hope that more people will see this. This is the world we live in. A dangerous world of information control.
Powered by vBulletin™ Version 4.1.1 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.