13 ms·

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 t

by 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.
  - Tiksi 10y ago
    >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. Are the reports from these audits publicly available? Seems like it would be an interesting bit of data to read through.
    - tptacek 10y ago
      I don't know; I know they're sent directly to the projects, and I know some of them have been made public, but I don't know if all of them have.
      - Tiksi 10y ago
        Thanks, I'll have to look into that. I didn't really expect them to be in a centralized public place but had a sliver of hope that they might be.
    - secfirstmd 10y ago
      It's not the BBG exactly, it's the Open Tech Fund via Radio Free Asia. Our audit is here: https://secfirst.org/blog.html https://secfirst.org/blog.html I think Cryptocat and a few others have published their audits also. The companies who conducted them have them on their site if I recall.
      - tptacek 10y ago
        I believe (corrections welcome) that OTF is RFA, and RFA is an offshoot of BBG.
        secfirstmd 10y ago
        Yep
      - 10y ago
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
smhenderson 10y ago
The article says it was updated to note that the program is specifically not targeting Facebook and Twitter. It also states: He[1] said none of the interventions would be in English, as it would be unlawful to "address US audiences" with such technology, and any English-language use of social media by Centcom was always clearly attributed. The languages in which the interventions are conducted include Arabic, Farsi, Urdu and Pashto. Despite that I think your question is still relevant. Although the article states that it would be unlawful to target US citizens I don't doubt that the NSA is not beholden to this based on their use of questionable tactics in the past. [1] He being Centcom spokesman Commander Bill Speaks
- rconti 10y ago
  Wait. US audiences == English-speaking, and English-speaking == US audiences? By not using English, first of all, they're limiting which non-US audiences they can propogandize (for better or for worse). Furthermore, not only is English not the only language used in the US, it's not even our OFFICIAL language! So they can impact US residences and Americans without using English at all. What an odd statement for them to make.
  - smhenderson 10y ago
    Oh, I agree, it's weasel worded (on purpose, I'm sure). I just wanted to point out that they seem to be going to great lengths to ensure people it's not happening on FB, Twitter or other US social networks. I personally don't think it's right regardless but I also thought the discussion was devolving quickly with comments about them doing it in the US when the article clearly states otherwise.
    - rconti 10y ago
      Yup; nothing against you, it just seemed like a good place to drop a reply that was vaguely on-topic.

by agd 10y ago

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.
- Tiksi 10y ago
  >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. Are the reports from these audits publicly available? Seems like it would be an interesting bit of data to read through.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    I don't know; I know they're sent directly to the projects, and I know some of them have been made public, but I don't know if all of them have.
    - Tiksi 10y ago
      Thanks, I'll have to look into that. I didn't really expect them to be in a centralized public place but had a sliver of hope that they might be.
  - secfirstmd 10y ago
    It's not the BBG exactly, it's the Open Tech Fund via Radio Free Asia. Our audit is here: https://secfirst.org/blog.html https://secfirst.org/blog.html I think Cryptocat and a few others have published their audits also. The companies who conducted them have them on their site if I recall.
    - tptacek 10y ago
      I believe (corrections welcome) that OTF is RFA, and RFA is an offshoot of BBG.
      - secfirstmd 10y ago
        Yep
    - 10y ago

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

smhenderson 10y ago

The article says it was updated to note that the program is specifically not targeting Facebook and Twitter. It also states: He[1] said none of the interventions would be in English, as it would be unlawful to "address US audiences" with such technology, and any English-language use of social media by Centcom was always clearly attributed. The languages in which the interventions are conducted include Arabic, Farsi, Urdu and Pashto. Despite that I think your question is still relevant. Although the article states that it would be unlawful to target US citizens I don't doubt that the NSA is not beholden to this based on their use of questionable tactics in the past. [1] He being Centcom spokesman Commander Bill Speaks

rconti 10y ago
Wait. US audiences == English-speaking, and English-speaking == US audiences? By not using English, first of all, they're limiting which non-US audiences they can propogandize (for better or for worse). Furthermore, not only is English not the only language used in the US, it's not even our OFFICIAL language! So they can impact US residences and Americans without using English at all. What an odd statement for them to make.
- smhenderson 10y ago
  Oh, I agree, it's weasel worded (on purpose, I'm sure). I just wanted to point out that they seem to be going to great lengths to ensure people it's not happening on FB, Twitter or other US social networks. I personally don't think it's right regardless but I also thought the discussion was devolving quickly with comments about them doing it in the US when the article clearly states otherwise.
  - rconti 10y ago
    Yup; nothing against you, it just seemed like a good place to drop a reply that was vaguely on-topic.