COINTELPRO 2.0 confirmed: How Covert Agents Infiltrate the Internet (Snowden GCHQ docs confirm)

Greenwald/Snowden come through again with proof...

a commenter at Glenn's blog related this to US history:

Quote:

---

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/2...-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.o...4/02/main2.png
A page from a GCHQ top secret document prepared by its secretive JTRIG unit

Quote:

---

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.o...eption_p47.png



https://prod01-cdn00.cdn.firstlook.o...creenshot4.png



https://prod01-cdn00.cdn.firstlook.o...eption_p12.png



https://prod01-cdn02.cdn.firstlook.o...eption_p48.png


.....
(more at link)

---

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.

As a victim of overt government surveillance and harassment here in the U.S. I'm relieved to finally see this coming to light.

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.

Any public forum has this as part of the equation...including Avalon. Nothing substantive will change until the arrival of Superconsciousness.

https://prod01-cdn03.cdn.firstlook.o...4/02/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.o...eption_p47.png
Other tactics aimed at individuals are listed here, under the revealing title “discredit a target”:
https://prod01-cdn02.cdn.firstlook.o...creenshot3.png
Then there are the tactics used to destroy companies the agency targets:

~for more info: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2...-manipulation/

Quote:

---

Posted by Whiskey_Mystic

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.o...eption_p24.png

Dennis

Similar article in RTnews today. http://rt.com/news/five-eyes-online-...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.

Quote:

---

Posted by ExomatrixTV

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.

~article by: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/s...enn-greenwald/

Now that I have located where my thread got moved to - here is some related conspiracy content:

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/...-internet.html

Quote:

---

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-co...014/02/Red.jpg

---

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/2...-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.

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."

Mods: Just realized this is a duplicate thread and could either be deleted or merged with mountain_jim's thread

http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed...-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)

(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.

Wondering if this misinformation tactic has anything to do with Courtney Brown's announcement to discredit his reputation?

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/2...-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."

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 :

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...lations/page30

and here :

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...-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)
to blunt our capacity for focusing on the real issues (my paraphrase).

:focus:

-------

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/com...s-anonymous-us

The New Snowden Revelation Is Dangerous for Anonymous — And for All of Us

The latest Snowden-related revelation is that Britain’s Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) proactively targeted the communications infrastructure used by the online activist collective known as Anonymous.

Specifically, 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 in general.)

Whether you agree with the activities of 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, 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 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 a large organization that could withstand it). The whole point was to get media attention, 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 in the U.K., and the 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 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 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 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.