6 ms·

Revealed: US spy operation that manipulates social media (2011)

59 points by Jerry2 10y ago

edkennedy 10y ago
Article is from 2011
projectramo 10y ago
Every time I see a revelation of what a spy agency does, I am surprised that anyone else is surprised. Haven't we known, or assumed, this is the case all along?
- waterphone 10y ago
  Every time I see a revelation of what a spy agency does, I see someone making a statement like this. I'm not sure it is very helpful to the discussion, because it treats the situation as expected and dismisses people's concerns about it. It's a cynical thing to do, and begets more cynicism. And cynicism is appealing, because the revelations keep coming, keep getting worse, and efforts to counter them are outnumbered by efforts to make the situation worse. But I don't think we should give up in trying to raise awareness and understanding, and trying to fix the damage.
  - pigpaws 10y ago
    ...speaking of 'unhelpful' to the conversation, please explain what 'We' can do about it? Nothing. The fact is that CONgress actually legalized domestic propaganda (which is what this is). 'raising awareness' does nothing as the snowden incident showed us. 1984 is the SOP now.
    - waterphone 10y ago
      If that's unhelpful to the discussion, why should we discuss it at all? Isn't the point of discussing a problem finding a solution to it?
    - smhenderson 10y ago
      But it's not domestic. The article specifically states that this is not be used on US based sites. Posts are not in English. Not saying some other program doesn't potentially exist but this particular program is aimed at sites in the Middle East and Asia. From the article: languages in which the interventions are conducted include Arabic, Farsi, Urdu and Pashto.
      - tunap 10y ago
        The problem, as I see it, is (the Alphabet Agency) has a proven ability and now authorization to do X to Y but promises to never to do it to Z. This is the point where trust comes into the equation. As has been shown via FISA courts, warrantless eavesdropping & sneak/peak ex post facto warrant abuses, trust no longer exists. Sorta like how the US vehemently denied torture until disclosures & evidence mounted so high they couldn't keep up appearances & now hem & haw about how somebody will be held accountable... some day. tldr: If they have the ability, you can depend on them finding a credible(sic) excuse for using it just that one, initial time. Thus starts the tide of more rationalizations and the ultimate abuses to follow.
  - projectramo 10y ago
    I accept the charge of cynicism. I am not saying we shouldn't do anything about it, though. The distinction is important. But it does beg the question: if we knew it then, and it bothered us, why didn't we do something about it then?
    - waterphone 10y ago
      There's a distinct difference between suspecting something or knowing it's probable or likely, and seeing evidence that it's actually happening.
      - projectramo 10y ago
        Are you suggesting that the only reason we didn't get outraged sooner at the spy agencies is because we didn't have evidence?
- anonbanker 10y ago
  truth cones in three phases: First, it is mocked and ridiculed. Second, it is vehemently/violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
agd 10y ago
Question. Are there any laws/regulations that we know of which prevent the NSA from altering domestic discourse for security reasons? What is the oversight of this? Can the NSA, say, alter/create Facebook posts in order to disseminate domestic propaganda in the name of national security? We know the Chinese do this. Does the US?
- leesalminen 10y ago
  I've read that the 2013 NDAA passed by Congress removed the ban on propaganda targeted at domestic audiences. I'm not entirely sure if that's true, but there are several places online claiming this. Wikipedia mentions it as well [0]. Anecdotally, around that time Google News started indexing Voice of America, which is funded by the US government [1]. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year_2013 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorizati... [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_of_America https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_of_America
  - ickwabe 10y ago
    Also... https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/07/14/u-s-repeals-propaganda-ban-spreads-government-made-news-to-americans/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/07/14/u-s-repeals-propaganda-...
  - tptacek 10y ago
    Not really. It remains unlawful to appropriate funds (or use appropriated funds) to influence US public opinion. The problem the legislation tried to solve was that material meant for foreign consumption is, in the Internet era, overwhelmingly likely to find its way to a domestic audience, and the plain text of the law prior to the NDAA forbad any such material --- it was a practical problem for State and the BBG. The 2013 NDAA amended the law to allow the State Department and the Broadcasting Board Of Governors to disseminate material meant for foreign audiences domestically, using domestic services like Youtube, &c. Fun fact: the Broadcasting Board of Governors also pays for free crypto audits (from some very strong firms) for privacy and anonymity tools. Virtually all the privacy tools you've heard about have had several tens of thousands of dollars worth of audit dollars spent by the BBG to make sure they're not endangering people. So far as I know --- I've participated in a couple of these audits, but never been a recipient of one --- these are no-strings-attached.
api 10y ago
I am shocked, shocked... :)
anonbanker 10y ago
HN is considered social media, correct?
- CM30 10y ago
  Yes. And you can bet anything that the US government wants to manipulate it (or at least monitor it), especially with the general disdain of the NSA and their operations or comment threads about certain political articles.
- 5ilv3r 10y ago
  Have you notice the quality has gone down DRAMATICALLY over the last few years, with most front page posts being from major media companies?
djscram 10y ago
So, Hootsuite?
- 20andup 10y ago
  My guess ia Palantir.
kronazoan 10y ago
I might not even be against this practice because if it is truly countering bad ideas, then it could be effective. Bad ideas can spread fast and influence people in subtle and profound ways. But obviously they should be countered in organic ways by moderates or skeptics or Neil deGrasse Tysons- in their countries. What I don't understand is how the US military can say, oh this is illegal (and thus unethical) to do in the US to Americans, but foreigners are exempt, so let's create a world of false personas and disinformation for them. The only argument for using tactics like this and others, like spying on people, is in a time of temporary war. We Americans are a nation built on the acknowledgement of natural rights and to deny that all humans have these rights against any oppressive government, is absurd and wrong. Endless ambiguous and 'total war' is more dangerous than radicals posting on a message board or even the threat of terrorism. The existential risk to human freedom is far greater when we have an infinite budget military mandated with doing unjust and immoral things forevermore with no sense of what made America great or what will eventually make the whole world great; natural rights and secular governments.
- joe_the_user 10y ago
  Ah, if the US military could distinguish the world's good ideas from the world's bad ideas, we could just discard all that messy democratic discussion and debate and just get our ideas from them. But somehow, that sound like a, uh, bad idea. Thing is that the methods of propaganda tend to lean on psychological manipulation more than rational arguments - it's effective and the military is generally tasked with persuading people of whatever idea their superiors want to forward and there might not be any rational argument in favor it. One can consults psy-ops manuals and such for confirmation.
- brbsix 10y ago
  illegal != unethical. To play devil's advocate, doesn't a state possess a greater obligation to it's own people than to those outside of it? You (perhaps naïvely) expect your government to protect you from foreign threats. You don't expect (and probably don't want) your government to protect everyone, everywhere.
  - 10y ago
bitL 10y ago
Soon only bots will be discussing on Reddit and Facebook :-D
realguy 10y ago
This is actually a good thing. Surely any opinion that a "sock puppet" holds is one that some actual tax-paying citizens hold. They are in effect protecting the minority opinion-holders by letting their arguments see the light of day.
- 5ilv3r 10y ago
  ^^ I believe this may be a real world example. The irony hurts.
- ionised 10y ago
  What have you been smoking?
NullCharacter 10y ago
I love how headlines like this are supposed to incite anger and fear. The article mentioned nothing about manipulating "social media" (like reddit or HN as the headline would lead you to believe), in fact it mentions that none of the correspondence will even be in English. All this is is creating fake personas on extremist/underground forums as a source of intelligence. This Internet is so quick to outrage.
- knowaveragejoe 10y ago
  Why is this downvoted? This is an entirely rational explanation and probably far closer to the truth than something vaguely conspiratorial, such as the NSA trying to manipulate opinion on Facebook or Reddit. I say "vaguely" because depending on who you ask, you'll get a different answer as to what possible motive they could have.
jameslk 10y ago
Just based on all the positive comments on this thread, I'd say it's already well underway. Yes they say that this is targeted towards foreign audiences and yes they say it's an attempt to balance out conversations. I'm sure the Russian and Chinese governments say the same things too. Propaganda is still propaganda.
yompers888 10y ago
What I find interesting about this is the way it contrasts to Russia's use of comment trolls. While Russia uses their trolls to degrade the quality of all internet discourse (tragedy of the commons as a feature?), the US would rather exploit the implicit partial trust relationship that is assumed of purportedly real people discussing things. Or, maybe I just perceive them differently because of how they're reported.
a3n 10y ago
Currently spam is the greatest email payload. Will sock puppets one day be the greatest "participants" on social networks?
vonklaus 10y ago
a 2.7m contract is basically the exploration of the exploration of the idea of the possibility of a product. Healthcare.gov is essentially a standard html website and ti cost >800m. I am sure they (us gov't) is interested in this, and I am sure they are planning on it, but if a front end product can't get built for aroubnd 1 billion, it is unlikely they can beat the truing test for 2.3m.

59 points by Jerry2 10y ago

Article is from 2011

Every time I see a revelation of what a spy agency does, I am surprised that anyone else is surprised. Haven't we known, or assumed, this is the case all along?

waterphone 10y ago
Every time I see a revelation of what a spy agency does, I see someone making a statement like this. I'm not sure it is very helpful to the discussion, because it treats the situation as expected and dismisses people's concerns about it. It's a cynical thing to do, and begets more cynicism. And cynicism is appealing, because the revelations keep coming, keep getting worse, and efforts to counter them are outnumbered by efforts to make the situation worse. But I don't think we should give up in trying to raise awareness and understanding, and trying to fix the damage.
- pigpaws 10y ago
  ...speaking of 'unhelpful' to the conversation, please explain what 'We' can do about it? Nothing. The fact is that CONgress actually legalized domestic propaganda (which is what this is). 'raising awareness' does nothing as the snowden incident showed us. 1984 is the SOP now.
  - waterphone 10y ago
    If that's unhelpful to the discussion, why should we discuss it at all? Isn't the point of discussing a problem finding a solution to it?
  - smhenderson 10y ago
    But it's not domestic. The article specifically states that this is not be used on US based sites. Posts are not in English. Not saying some other program doesn't potentially exist but this particular program is aimed at sites in the Middle East and Asia. From the article: languages in which the interventions are conducted include Arabic, Farsi, Urdu and Pashto.
    - tunap 10y ago
      The problem, as I see it, is (the Alphabet Agency) has a proven ability and now authorization to do X to Y but promises to never to do it to Z. This is the point where trust comes into the equation. As has been shown via FISA courts, warrantless eavesdropping & sneak/peak ex post facto warrant abuses, trust no longer exists. Sorta like how the US vehemently denied torture until disclosures & evidence mounted so high they couldn't keep up appearances & now hem & haw about how somebody will be held accountable... some day. tldr: If they have the ability, you can depend on them finding a credible(sic) excuse for using it just that one, initial time. Thus starts the tide of more rationalizations and the ultimate abuses to follow.
- projectramo 10y ago
  I accept the charge of cynicism. I am not saying we shouldn't do anything about it, though. The distinction is important. But it does beg the question: if we knew it then, and it bothered us, why didn't we do something about it then?
  - waterphone 10y ago
    There's a distinct difference between suspecting something or knowing it's probable or likely, and seeing evidence that it's actually happening.
    - projectramo 10y ago
      Are you suggesting that the only reason we didn't get outraged sooner at the spy agencies is because we didn't have evidence?
anonbanker 10y ago
truth cones in three phases: First, it is mocked and ridiculed. Second, it is vehemently/violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as self-evident.

agd 10y ago

Question. Are there any laws/regulations that we know of which prevent the NSA from altering domestic discourse for security reasons? What is the oversight of this? Can the NSA, say, alter/create Facebook posts in order to disseminate domestic propaganda in the name of national security? We know the Chinese do this. Does the US?

leesalminen 10y ago
I've read that the 2013 NDAA passed by Congress removed the ban on propaganda targeted at domestic audiences. I'm not entirely sure if that's true, but there are several places online claiming this. Wikipedia mentions it as well [0]. Anecdotally, around that time Google News started indexing Voice of America, which is funded by the US government [1]. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year_2013 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorizati... [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_of_America https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_of_America
- ickwabe 10y ago
  Also... https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/07/14/u-s-repeals-propaganda-ban-spreads-government-made-news-to-americans/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/07/14/u-s-repeals-propaganda-...
- tptacek 10y ago
  Not really. It remains unlawful to appropriate funds (or use appropriated funds) to influence US public opinion. The problem the legislation tried to solve was that material meant for foreign consumption is, in the Internet era, overwhelmingly likely to find its way to a domestic audience, and the plain text of the law prior to the NDAA forbad any such material --- it was a practical problem for State and the BBG. The 2013 NDAA amended the law to allow the State Department and the Broadcasting Board Of Governors to disseminate material meant for foreign audiences domestically, using domestic services like Youtube, &c. Fun fact: the Broadcasting Board of Governors also pays for free crypto audits (from some very strong firms) for privacy and anonymity tools. Virtually all the privacy tools you've heard about have had several tens of thousands of dollars worth of audit dollars spent by the BBG to make sure they're not endangering people. So far as I know --- I've participated in a couple of these audits, but never been a recipient of one --- these are no-strings-attached.

api 10y ago

I am shocked, shocked... :)

anonbanker 10y ago

HN is considered social media, correct?

CM30 10y ago
Yes. And you can bet anything that the US government wants to manipulate it (or at least monitor it), especially with the general disdain of the NSA and their operations or comment threads about certain political articles.
5ilv3r 10y ago
Have you notice the quality has gone down DRAMATICALLY over the last few years, with most front page posts being from major media companies?

djscram 10y ago

So, Hootsuite?

20andup 10y ago
My guess ia Palantir.

kronazoan 10y ago

I might not even be against this practice because if it is truly countering bad ideas, then it could be effective. Bad ideas can spread fast and influence people in subtle and profound ways. But obviously they should be countered in organic ways by moderates or skeptics or Neil deGrasse Tysons- in their countries. What I don't understand is how the US military can say, oh this is illegal (and thus unethical) to do in the US to Americans, but foreigners are exempt, so let's create a world of false personas and disinformation for them. The only argument for using tactics like this and others, like spying on people, is in a time of temporary war. We Americans are a nation built on the acknowledgement of natural rights and to deny that all humans have these rights against any oppressive government, is absurd and wrong. Endless ambiguous and 'total war' is more dangerous than radicals posting on a message board or even the threat of terrorism. The existential risk to human freedom is far greater when we have an infinite budget military mandated with doing unjust and immoral things forevermore with no sense of what made America great or what will eventually make the whole world great; natural rights and secular governments.

joe_the_user 10y ago
Ah, if the US military could distinguish the world's good ideas from the world's bad ideas, we could just discard all that messy democratic discussion and debate and just get our ideas from them. But somehow, that sound like a, uh, bad idea. Thing is that the methods of propaganda tend to lean on psychological manipulation more than rational arguments - it's effective and the military is generally tasked with persuading people of whatever idea their superiors want to forward and there might not be any rational argument in favor it. One can consults psy-ops manuals and such for confirmation.
brbsix 10y ago
illegal != unethical. To play devil's advocate, doesn't a state possess a greater obligation to it's own people than to those outside of it? You (perhaps naïvely) expect your government to protect you from foreign threats. You don't expect (and probably don't want) your government to protect everyone, everywhere.
- 10y ago

bitL 10y ago

Soon only bots will be discussing on Reddit and Facebook :-D

realguy 10y ago

This is actually a good thing. Surely any opinion that a "sock puppet" holds is one that some actual tax-paying citizens hold. They are in effect protecting the minority opinion-holders by letting their arguments see the light of day.

5ilv3r 10y ago
^^ I believe this may be a real world example. The irony hurts.
ionised 10y ago
What have you been smoking?

NullCharacter 10y ago

I love how headlines like this are supposed to incite anger and fear. The article mentioned nothing about manipulating "social media" (like reddit or HN as the headline would lead you to believe), in fact it mentions that none of the correspondence will even be in English. All this is is creating fake personas on extremist/underground forums as a source of intelligence. This Internet is so quick to outrage.

knowaveragejoe 10y ago
Why is this downvoted? This is an entirely rational explanation and probably far closer to the truth than something vaguely conspiratorial, such as the NSA trying to manipulate opinion on Facebook or Reddit. I say "vaguely" because depending on who you ask, you'll get a different answer as to what possible motive they could have.

jameslk 10y ago

Just based on all the positive comments on this thread, I'd say it's already well underway. Yes they say that this is targeted towards foreign audiences and yes they say it's an attempt to balance out conversations. I'm sure the Russian and Chinese governments say the same things too. Propaganda is still propaganda.

yompers888 10y ago

What I find interesting about this is the way it contrasts to Russia's use of comment trolls. While Russia uses their trolls to degrade the quality of all internet discourse (tragedy of the commons as a feature?), the US would rather exploit the implicit partial trust relationship that is assumed of purportedly real people discussing things. Or, maybe I just perceive them differently because of how they're reported.

a3n 10y ago

Currently spam is the greatest email payload. Will sock puppets one day be the greatest "participants" on social networks?

vonklaus 10y ago

a 2.7m contract is basically the exploration of the exploration of the idea of the possibility of a product. Healthcare.gov is essentially a standard html website and ti cost >800m. I am sure they (us gov't) is interested in this, and I am sure they are planning on it, but if a front end product can't get built for aroubnd 1 billion, it is unlikely they can beat the truing test for 2.3m.