3 ms·

In a very real sense, do you think its appropriate for one's government actively attempt to social engineer the population it is supposed to serve?

jazzyjackson 2y ago
The grant is for "proposals in the area of automated defense against social engineering attacks."
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- iugtmkbdfil834 2y ago
  Would you be willing to expand on that definition? Are you referring to this part[1]? https://www.highergov.com/document/hr001117s0050-amendment-02-pdf-a3f775/ https://www.highergov.com/document/hr001117s0050-amendment-0...
- essentiallywhen 2y ago
  Probably, when a certain non supported narrative takes hold, Reuters is tasked with combating it with counter intel to change public narrative. This has been happening since Rome and before. Nothing new here.
snypher 2y ago
Maybe you missed the 'defence' part?
- Lammy 2y ago
  That's defense of the government apparatus in the same sense as “Continuity Of Government” — not defense of constituents themselves.
- iugtmkbdfil834 2y ago
  Friend, I accept that there is a level of snark, when it comes to this stuff, but even rudimentary check of the website in question[1] will tell you that there are two pieces to this program: - ACTIVE SOCIAL ENGINEERING DEFENSE (ASED) - LARGE SCALE SOCIAL DECEPTION (LSD) I presume you are being snarky about ASED. I was thinking about the other one. https://www.usaspending.gov/award/CONT_AWD_FA865018C7886_9700_-NONE-_-NONE- https://www.usaspending.gov/award/CONT_AWD_FA865018C7886_970...
  - imadethis 2y ago
    Where are you seeing that there’s two pieces? I’m only seeing it referred to as one program there. I’m not a govt contracts expert so by all means let me know what I’m missing.
- netbioserror 2y ago
  Was the Patriot Act patriotic?
- taurknaut 2y ago
  Right, just like the DoD is "defending" us.
derbOac 2y ago
Personally, I think that if your adversaries are doing just that, a grant with a title related to that makes sense, both to understand the problem domain and to defend against it. Yes, I would want the department of defense to be funding research in this area. Maybe more importantly, I would not expect anyone to glean anything useful about said research from a title entry in a grants database, or maybe from anything in the grant description. I especially think it's absurd to expect an individual coming from outside government, who is unfamiliar with the details of what is going on at DARPA to pull up the title of such projects and immediately have any idea what the hell is happening. I know this from a bit of personal experience with DARPA projects. There's a part of me that finds Musk's behavior in all of this to be a massive security breach. You can put aside any of the questions about the constitutionality of funding, this is an absurd breach of national security, both in terms of the INFSEC/IT aspect but also in terms of him casually shining spotlights on projects he knows nothing about and knows nothing of the consequences of disclosure. It's ridiculous how much attention and handwringing there was about Wikileaks and Snowden, and yet we just let a random ignorant (in the sense of having no idea what's going on in the government — otherwise his exercise would have been unnecessary) billionaire with ties to white supremacist groups tap into the federal government and start blasting it on his personal social media platform. If this was anyone else doing these exact same actions during a different administration, they would be arrested and charged with espionage and treason immediately. To me it's performative empty arrogance with real security consequences, both for the people whose personal information was accessed but also for national intelligence and military strategies and methods.
- iugtmkbdfil834 2y ago
  << It's ridiculous how much attention and handwringing there was about Wikileaks and Snowden The two situations are very, very different for reasons that should be relatively obvious. Musk ( via Trump ) has actual mandate to do that. << You can put aside any of the questions about the constitutionality of funding, this is an absurd breach of national security, both in terms of the INFSEC/IT aspect but also in terms of him casually shining spotlights on projects he knows nothing about and knows nothing of the consequences of disclosure. This may be one point I am kinda agreeing with you on. << To me it's performative empty arrogance with real security consequences, both for the people whose personal information was accessed but also for national intelligence and military strategies and methods. Maybe.. just maybe.. some of those methods should be revised in light of day. << Yes, I would want the department of defense to be funding research in this area. I am genuinely of two minds about it so the question is why you think it is a good idea especially given that you also stated the following: << I would not expect anyone to glean anything useful about said research from a title entry in a grants database, or maybe from anything in the grant description. Either it is ok to fund it, because you think it is a good idea or you don't know what it is and still think it is a good idea. I can accept one of those propositions.
red-iron-pine 2y ago
when foreign governments and hostile intelligence groups make concerted and aggressive efforts to subvert the US population then, yes, it is appropriate for the USG to make efforts to counter subversion efforts

jazzyjackson 2y ago

The grant is for "proposals in the area of automated defense against social engineering attacks."

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
iugtmkbdfil834 2y ago
Would you be willing to expand on that definition? Are you referring to this part[1]? https://www.highergov.com/document/hr001117s0050-amendment-02-pdf-a3f775/ https://www.highergov.com/document/hr001117s0050-amendment-0...
essentiallywhen 2y ago
Probably, when a certain non supported narrative takes hold, Reuters is tasked with combating it with counter intel to change public narrative. This has been happening since Rome and before. Nothing new here.

snypher 2y ago

Maybe you missed the 'defence' part?

Lammy 2y ago
That's defense of the government apparatus in the same sense as “Continuity Of Government” — not defense of constituents themselves.
iugtmkbdfil834 2y ago
Friend, I accept that there is a level of snark, when it comes to this stuff, but even rudimentary check of the website in question[1] will tell you that there are two pieces to this program: - ACTIVE SOCIAL ENGINEERING DEFENSE (ASED) - LARGE SCALE SOCIAL DECEPTION (LSD) I presume you are being snarky about ASED. I was thinking about the other one. https://www.usaspending.gov/award/CONT_AWD_FA865018C7886_9700_-NONE-_-NONE- https://www.usaspending.gov/award/CONT_AWD_FA865018C7886_970...
- imadethis 2y ago
  Where are you seeing that there’s two pieces? I’m only seeing it referred to as one program there. I’m not a govt contracts expert so by all means let me know what I’m missing.
netbioserror 2y ago
Was the Patriot Act patriotic?
taurknaut 2y ago
Right, just like the DoD is "defending" us.

derbOac 2y ago

Personally, I think that if your adversaries are doing just that, a grant with a title related to that makes sense, both to understand the problem domain and to defend against it. Yes, I would want the department of defense to be funding research in this area. Maybe more importantly, I would not expect anyone to glean anything useful about said research from a title entry in a grants database, or maybe from anything in the grant description. I especially think it's absurd to expect an individual coming from outside government, who is unfamiliar with the details of what is going on at DARPA to pull up the title of such projects and immediately have any idea what the hell is happening. I know this from a bit of personal experience with DARPA projects. There's a part of me that finds Musk's behavior in all of this to be a massive security breach. You can put aside any of the questions about the constitutionality of funding, this is an absurd breach of national security, both in terms of the INFSEC/IT aspect but also in terms of him casually shining spotlights on projects he knows nothing about and knows nothing of the consequences of disclosure. It's ridiculous how much attention and handwringing there was about Wikileaks and Snowden, and yet we just let a random ignorant (in the sense of having no idea what's going on in the government — otherwise his exercise would have been unnecessary) billionaire with ties to white supremacist groups tap into the federal government and start blasting it on his personal social media platform. If this was anyone else doing these exact same actions during a different administration, they would be arrested and charged with espionage and treason immediately. To me it's performative empty arrogance with real security consequences, both for the people whose personal information was accessed but also for national intelligence and military strategies and methods.

iugtmkbdfil834 2y ago
<< It's ridiculous how much attention and handwringing there was about Wikileaks and Snowden The two situations are very, very different for reasons that should be relatively obvious. Musk ( via Trump ) has actual mandate to do that. << You can put aside any of the questions about the constitutionality of funding, this is an absurd breach of national security, both in terms of the INFSEC/IT aspect but also in terms of him casually shining spotlights on projects he knows nothing about and knows nothing of the consequences of disclosure. This may be one point I am kinda agreeing with you on. << To me it's performative empty arrogance with real security consequences, both for the people whose personal information was accessed but also for national intelligence and military strategies and methods. Maybe.. just maybe.. some of those methods should be revised in light of day. << Yes, I would want the department of defense to be funding research in this area. I am genuinely of two minds about it so the question is why you think it is a good idea especially given that you also stated the following: << I would not expect anyone to glean anything useful about said research from a title entry in a grants database, or maybe from anything in the grant description. Either it is ok to fund it, because you think it is a good idea or you don't know what it is and still think it is a good idea. I can accept one of those propositions.

red-iron-pine 2y ago

when foreign governments and hostile intelligence groups make concerted and aggressive efforts to subvert the US population then, yes, it is appropriate for the USG to make efforts to counter subversion efforts