10 ms·

How Covert Agents Infiltrate the Internet to Manipulate, Deceive

234 points by rdl 13y ago

streetnigga 13y ago
If you want to look for examples of companies in the US and elsewhere engaging in activities mentioned in this article against political dissidents, look no further than the HB Gary email leak of years back. I referenced such works here[0] after Obama's announcement of NSA 'reforms' that hinted at offloading more sensitive data to private companies. I would like to bring the attention of people who read this article back to the tactics such as the real-time spying on Wikileaks viewers. Tactics discussed by the likes of HB Gary's Aaron Barr like going after activists by their families and careers, or the US Chamber of Commerce's interest in such work. There is a profound amount of moral hazards here that companies are wading deep into for cash and possible immunity such as what AT&T was granted. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7078402 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7078402
- tptacek 13y ago
  23 skidoo!
  - streetnigga 13y ago
    Why did you make like light of Michael Hasting's death then denigrate Barrett Brown[0] after irrelevantly bringing up Monsanto and Nickelback[1] in that thread 36 days ago instead of discussing the topic (or not engaging) like a reasonable person? You could of had the advantage of people not knowing more about this type of work enlisted by governments/carried out by for-profit concerns, instead you choose to be highly corrosive in an attempt to elicit some reaction. But by golly here you are again doing the same. So while your attention is clearly engaged upon me, could you answer the question above? [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7084938 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7084938 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7082094 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7082094
    - tptacek 13y ago
      Because Michael Hastings was killed for his unpublished work on chemtrails, not the reporting he'd done on CIA, and Barrett Brown is no hero: he's out to immanentize the eschaton! Hail Eris! If you're going to write a conspiracy theory for us, "streetnigga", at least do it with some style. Throw an "Ewige Blumenkraft" or two in there.
      - rdl 13y ago
        How many drinks have you had this evening?
        tptacek 13y ago
        Zero, but thanks for putting the idea in my head. :) I have a very hard time taking people who believe in the Michael Hastings conspiracy seriously, and that's just one of the goofy conspiracy theories the parent commenter has promoted on HN.
        rdl 13y ago
        Happy to help. This is Free Liquor Week (aka RSA), but you're probably wise enough to avoid it. I agree the most likely situation with Hastings was he had personal issues, but maybe got spooked by someone calling him or otherwise being threatening, and crashed his car. After writing some pretty good articles. And Barrett Brown has some serious issues as well, although (like aaronsw and weev, and manning's pre-trial detention conditions) the way the legal system is being used is itself unconscionable. I still think "punch up" applies.
        tptacek 13y ago
        I would rather eat a live wriggling cockroach than attend RSA or, for that matter, be in the same city as RSA. I don't understand where you're even coming from regarding Hastings. He had a history of abusing drugs and alcohol. His car crashed. A bunch of Internet conspiracy theorists decided that crashed cars don't burst into flames the way video showed Hastings car had, even as other Internet people, including (here on HN) an EMT, pointed out that they actually do exactly that surprisingly often; some even presented videos. The LA Coroner released a report that pointed out Hastings had amphetamines and cannabis in his system when his car crashed. From where, exactly, do you get the notion that he received a threatening phone call? Is there any evidence anywhere at all that that ever happened, or does it just make for a good story?
- FreakLegion 13y ago
  Do note that those emails were all talk. Other than the failed attempt to expose the "leadership" of Anonymous, none of Barr's big plans were even tried, let alone successfully carried out. His own employees (all two of them) mocked him and refused to participate. Aaron Barr was one guy, dealing with a failed marriage and a failing company, and he just lost the plot there for a bit.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    Since this appears to be the basis of the notion that Palantir is a branch of the NSA: the one Palantir person known to have been involved was a 27 year old sales engineer who was subsequently terminated from the company and rehired after the legal investigation Palantir launched on itself for coming within a mile of Aaron Barr cleared him. (This is based on reporting of what happened, not any kind of firsthand knowledge about Palantir, of which I have none).
    - streetnigga 13y ago
      Palantir is not a branch of the NSA, they are backed by the CIA[0]. [0] http://finance.yahoo.com/news/cia-backed-palantir-technologies-raises-200921615.html http://finance.yahoo.com/news/cia-backed-palantir-technologi...
      - tptacek 13y ago
        So was Decru. I suppose storage encryption is also a CIA plot. So was FireEye. I suppose killing zero-day is also a CIA plot. So was Inktomi. I suppose caching web traffic, &c &c. I could go on, if you like. In-Q-Tel has backed a lot of stuff.
        ChrisAntaki 13y ago
        In-Q-Tel is an interesting company. They've invested in Google (OSINT), and Keyhole (GEOINT/IMINT). Google went on to acquire Keyhole, to create Google Earth [1]. [1] http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/07/exclusive-google-cia/ http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/07/exclusive-google-cia...
- aspensmonster 13y ago
  Nice to tptacek is still alive and kicking. I kinda missed him.
DelightfulScone 13y ago
One wonders if Glenn's persistence in reporting this issue is due to being targeted by NSA contractors like Palantir, regarding Palantir's work against US activists. A "Spotlight" as the email says: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-2LJZSZknE-I/TVpg4sNeUHI/AAAAAAAAC6Y/0wmuTWTDaZs/s1600/steckman.png http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-2LJZSZknE-I/TVpg4sNeUHI/AAAAAAAAC6... Via street nigga's thread.
- rhizome 13y ago
  Someone will be along shortly to tell us all that Palantir would rather everybody just forget about their dalliance there.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    Exactly what is Palantir --- specifically Palantir, not nutball HBGaryFederal head Aaron Barr --- accused of doing unlawfully or unethically in this "dalliance"? Collecting public information for law firms isn't unethical. Having one of your 27-year-old SEs eagerly working alongside Barr to move a deal forward has bad optics. But believing that Glenn Greenwald should be thwarted is an opinion that, while obviously objectionable on HN, not actually unethical.
    - DelightfulScone 13y ago
      Thwarting a journalist from reporting by targeting him and his career, not actually unethical according to tptacek.
      - tptacek 13y ago
        Could you explain exactly how Palantir is accused of attempting to unethically damage Glenn Greenwald's career? In more detail than "one of their SEs was in an email thread with Aaron Barr"? Because what you just wrote is a straw-man version of my comment.
        DelightfulScone 13y ago
api 13y ago
More foil hat nutter stuff that is turning out to be quite real...
- billspreston 13y ago
  If you RTFA, calling out someone was a tin foil hatter is one of their techniques.
grkvlt 13y ago
Is this not just what spies and covert agents have been doing for centuries? But now with extra * INTERNET !!! * added, which somehow makes it worse? I would be more worried if our spy agencies and intelligence organisations did not have this sort of capability, and could only manipulate and deceive using TV, newspapers, talking, joining societies, clubs and associations, following people and so on.
- api 13y ago
  The net permits it to be done with unprecedented precision, scale, ease, and deniability.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    Computers do. Networks too, but the NSA and military have had networks far longer than the rest of us. The only thing that has really "scaled" here is the people themselves, and I don't find it strange that all the normal real-life problems have followed people as they migrated online.
  - einhverfr 13y ago
    It isn't just the net though. It's also deep pockets of the defence industry. If we really want reform, the uncomfortable truth is that the only way to reform the system is to reduce the amount of money flowing to defence contractors. Unfortunately I think, aside from a total economic collapse, pigs will sooner evolve wings.
- tippytop 13y ago
  And now thanks to Mr. Greenwald's reporting, citizens & elected officials, policy wonks & pundits, scholars & laymen alike, can all discuss actual facts instead of relying on grkvit's assumptions about how government spy programs operate.
- higherpurpose 13y ago
  In the 20th century CIA could assassinate people...and in the 21st century the same CIA can assassinate 1000x more people with drones. So what's the big deal? It's "the same". And it's their job. See the fallacy of your logic there? > 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.
MWil 13y ago
Honest question: is it poor logic or not that I tend to believe these slides are truly from the government they are supposed to be from based solely on how large of an eyesore the design is? However, surely by now people like Glen Greenwald have heard such feedback so if someone from the other side of the aisle wanted to reverse false flag they would just use atrocious designs. However, now the govt. has read THIS, so I clearly cannot choose the cup in front of me...
- rdl 13y ago
  I assume he is depending on the provenance marker that these are part of a big pile of documents provided by Snowden.
  - MWil 13y ago
    just so we're clear, what is the provenance marker specifically in these slides? I'm seeing .pngs when I click the slides where, if I was thinking there's a proveable origin, it would be a digitally signed pdf or something like what the GPO (government printing office) uses, but for secret things of course...
    - rdl 13y ago
      That Snowden handed it to you is the provenance marker. He claims to have jacked a whole bunch of shit from NSA, and has given no one particular reason to doubt him. If this is one file on media which he handed GG back in May 2013, GG has good reason to believe it was in fact jacked from NSA by Snowden. Falsification would be a lot more likely if anyone handed you docs after Snowden went public, but before it was public, it was either a set up (by Snowden), or pretty strongly authenticated. The arrow of time cannot be defeated.
      - MWil 13y ago
        I'm talking about from MY or YOUR perspective. Let's first set up the stage: -Snowden hands you paper/digital files, possibly with no trail that you can verify (besides govt. acknowledgment of any specific document) - You (likely) immediately make (many) digital copies, this is a trail others can verify later - like with an md5 sum or something (not my forte, obviously). - Before you assist with releasing the whole cache and risk another wikileaks-style attack for not being more sensitive to the content in each document, you start the long process of reviewing each document. - You find acceptable publications - You publish the documents from step 2 (which have a digital trail to verify they were handed to GG from Snowden at the time they say they were) That last step hasn't happened as far as I know, we're getting pictures of documents...
NN88 13y ago
Not sure how I feel about this. 1. If you're stupid enough to get caught up doing illegal crap online in PUBLIC domains then...yeah...I mean do you think they're NOT looking? 2. this is actual spy-craft and when applied abroad, I have NO qualms about using it to the USA's advantage 3. How is any of this new information? After Operation Mockingbird, how is anyone surprised?
- AnimalMuppet 13y ago
  About your point 2: You say it's fine if it's applied abroad. But assume that someone abroad is applying it to what is to them "abroad", that is, what to us is domestically. But it's a foreign operation trying to influence domestic policy. That is, to apply this against foreign operators, it may well need to be applied domestically. Now, the gotcha: I see the need. But do I trust the NSA/CIA/FBI/whoever to apply it only against foreign-controlled domestic operations? No, I don't.
- DennisP 13y ago
  The whole point is that the targets of this activity have not been caught "doing illegal crap online." If they had been caught, the government would actually charge them with a crime. Also note that the article is about the GCHQ, so anyone in the U.S. is "abroad" to them.
- ttctciyf 13y ago
  Since the source document is from GCHQ (Britain's NSA, if you like) it seems valid to ask whether similar workarounds by internationalisation are in place for disinfo (which this manifestly is about, right?) as seem to be in place for collection. Which is to say that US netizens are quite likely among the prime targets here. The practices alluded to - a battery of psychological techniques designed to influence group dynamics of, and disrupt the sharing of information by, online communities - seem at least as suitable for controlling dissent as for action against overtly illegal activities. How does destroying the reputation of a company help with the latter, for example? I'll tell you what though, fascinating though this is, I wish we had got the 'real poop' - materials which must surely exist for the training alluded to, fleshing out the practical details, with illustrative examples!
a3n 13y ago
> “using online techniques to make something happen in the real or cyber world” This isn't just an attack on the internet, as Greenwald portrays it, it's an attack on people and free will. It's intended to get people to do or say something that they might have done differently otherwise, in response to the "crime" of being a pain in the ass, or even a threat, to the powerful. > In fact, the discussion of many of these techniques occurs in the context of using them in lieu of “traditional law enforcement” against people suspected (but not charged or convicted) of ordinary crimes or, more broadly still, “hacktivism”, ... Is this the best we can do with this civilization, to wear away and destroy people because they're inconvenient to the powerful?
- spenvo 13y ago
  To me, the scariest part of JTRIG is how targets are "determined." The actions taken against said targets by the NSA/GCHQ seem extrajudicial yet they can ruin these peoples' lives. The word “hacktivism” is itself a moving target, which gives these opaque agencies unimaginable power.
  - a3n 13y ago
    > The actions taken against said targets by the NSA/GCHQ seem > extrajudicial That's why it's secret.
    - keyhole_downs 13y ago
- grecy 13y ago
  > This isn't just an attack on the internet, as Greenwald portrays it, it's an attack on people and free will. It's intended to get people to do or say something that they might have done differently otherwise, in response to the "crime" of being a pain in the ass, or even a threat, to the powerful.* Isn't that a good definition for terrorism?
  - 13y ago
gojomo 13y ago
You could make an 'Illuminati' card-game expansion set out of a few of these slides.
- tptacek 13y ago
  Is it just me or do these slides make GCHQ look like a bunch of frustrated PUAs? Jump forward to the slide following the text "The documents lay out theories of how humans interact" to see what I mean.
  - eru 13y ago
    It's tough being taken seriously for GCHQ when compared to the likes of NSA.
    - rdl 13y ago
      Everything in (press coverage about) the docs so far makes it seem pretty clear GCHQ punches way above their weight class (in terms of budget, and general UK military strength) compared to NSA.
      - tptacek 13y ago
        They also seem more brazen than NSA. GCHQ scares me more than NSA does. NSA is existentially terrified over losing budget. GCHQ doesn't act like they're worried about anything at all.
        rdl 13y ago
        I wonder if their internal cryptonym for themselves is "Honey Badger".
        1457389 13y ago
        NSA is bankrolling GCHQ and in most respects the latter seems incredibly subservient to the former. In light of that, your position doesn't make much sense to me.
ChuckFrank 13y ago
What was suspected about government abuse of power turns out to have been nothing compared to the scope of it. Here are some of my suggestions in response: 1. Stand up on mass, digitally and in person, for what you believe in - don't shy from people sneering or judging that you are distrustful of the existing structures of powers. 2. Exclude the people who support this type of spookery, from investment bankers, to hawking politicians, from polite company. Whether you meet them at a party, or a plane, shun and shame them. 3. Crank up the noise. Write, make, do what you can to get more stuff out there. 4. Don't be singular. Be the complexity. 5. Never believe again. Demand evidence, oversight, & review processes. Demand transparency. 6. Commit to fixing what's broken. Fix the drug wars, fix the election system, fix the income inequalities, fix the racial divide. etc. 7. ? what else? ps. Any obligatory comments about the obligatory NSA jokes?
- dfc 13y ago
  > 2. Exclude the people who support this type of spookery, from investment bankers, to hawking politicians, from polite company. Whether you meet them at a party, or a plane, shun and shame them. This is a remarkably effective method to alienate people who are "on the fence." These are precisely the people that you need for suggestion #1 to be effective.
  - ChuckFrank 13y ago
    I guess I wasn't talking about people on the fence, I was thinking more about those that either participating by proxy, or participating directly. However, I may disagree with your claim that social pressure would alienate people on the fence. Bush's 'you are either with us or against us', was surprisingly effective politics at the time.
    - dfc 13y ago
      > Bush's 'you are either with us or against us', was surprisingly effective politics at the time. I am curious how you came to this conclusion? Maybe this is more of a personal observations and is colored by your political leanings and those that you are surrounded by? I know a lot of people that were not turned on by the "with us or against us" line. I also think that it did not go over well in the international political arena.
syntern 13y ago
Ruining someone's reputation is not something only a government could do. Companies with enough money and a few (black-hat) SEO experts might be able to pull a large-scale reputation-kill to anyone who is an upcoming competitor or a pain-in-the-ass person. Small-scale reputation hacks happen all the time. What the heck, there is an industry where you can pump your own reputation up legally. So the question is: how can we protect ourselves from any of these efforts (may or may not be coming from a government)?
- a3n 13y ago
  The question one day may devolve to: how can we use these techniques in reverse?
  - dredmorbius 13y ago
    1. Get a government contracting job with a high-level security clearance and broad levels of access. 2. Assimilate significant quantities of incriminating information. 3. Disseminate this to the world via a leaking portal or sympathetic journalist. 4. Profit!
- mpyne 13y ago
  > So the question is: how can we protect ourselves from any of these efforts (may or may not be coming from a government)? What's been working for me so far is just being pretty boring. Although I guess I could be even more boring (e.g. less arguing online ;).
- dredmorbius 13y ago
  how can we protect ourselves from any of these efforts Good question. One is to live as honestly as possible. Including making others aware of attacks on your character. This may mean admitting your own faults or deviations, which can be painful, but it deprives your opponents of a lever or fulcrum against you. Reading the FBI blackmail letter to Martin Luther King recently, I was struck by how similar the language was to that of many modern-day trolls. Some tactics simply don't change. I'm looking for some good guides, though I'm not aware of any in particular (and the Albert Einstein Institution seems oddly silent on this point). This page has some good bits (under "WHAT CAN WE DO ABOUT IT?"): http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?action=printpage;topic=97573.0 http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?action=printpage;top...
DanielBMarkham 13y ago
Once again, let's not go overboard. This is real, but so is companies just having people online who naturally do these things. God knows you can't poke Google around too much without a Googler making an impassioned plea for them. Same goes for Facebook, or any of the other large SV employers. And then there's just fans. Seems like I remember Amazon coming to the conclusion, after digging through spurious bad reviews of products, that many of them were just from people who had other brands and didn't like that one. So they made up fake reviews. That's not some mysterious spy agency; that's the guy who runs the garage down the street. And that's why these things are so effective -- they blend into the noise that is the crap that is the internet at large. I'm concerned about this in general, but I need more information about how this is being used as part of an extra-judicial punishment before I start bouncing off the walls.
3327 13y ago
There is no source or link to the actual slides. They might be authentic but this site might also be doing the very thing they claim the agencies are doing. Its essentially a blog with some slides with "top secret" written all over it with damning information. No source, no link, nothing.
- MWil 13y ago
  Please see my discussion below b/c I agree. We deserve more than .pngs of these slides.
- intslack 13y ago
  It's linked under 'Documents' at the top of the page: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/documents/ https://firstlook.org/theintercept/documents/ https://firstlook.org/theintercept/document/2014/02/24/art-deception-training-new-generation-online-covert-operations/ https://firstlook.org/theintercept/document/2014/02/24/art-d... https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1021430/the-art-of-deception-training-for-a-new.pdf https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1021...
  - MWil 13y ago
    A slideshow does not an original document make.
lazyloop 13y ago
The Stasi has done the exact same thing, it's called "Zersetzung". http://www.ddr-wissen.de/wiki/ddr.pl?MfS-Richtlinie_1-76 http://www.ddr-wissen.de/wiki/ddr.pl?MfS-Richtlinie_1-76
- wavefunction 13y ago
  Is this a good thing or a bad thing that the Stasi has pursued a similar course of action? Personally, I am disgusted by not surprised that the same authoritarianism can be found all over the world, even in a nominal democracy like the US.
securingsincity 13y ago
The "Five Eyes Alliance" bothers me. What lines in the sand are drawn in each country? Are there some that the NSA isn't allowed to cross but GCHQ can? Is it a matter of saying "Hey GCHQ we have a guy who is in the US who we can't do these things to but he's related to this guy over here in foreign country ?" Wouldn't traditionally that example include the CIA/FBI instead? Or for less oversight would it make more sense to use one of the Five Eyes Alliance nations. I think that in that example that's troublesome in that it undermines what for better or worse where bureaucracy protects the citizenry of the US. Edit to include the CIA
- arca_vorago 13y ago
  "What lines in the sand are drawn in each country?" The line is drawn officially at the point they can use legalese verbiage to avoid any problems. So that line was supposed to be, at least for the NSA and CIA, "Never spy on American's without a warrant." (according to William Binney, Thomas Drake, et al) The real line though, is whatever they can get away with. The USUK (five eyes) was setup in 1947, and has been used as a giant loophole of sharing ever since. The real issue though, the one everyone likes to ignore, is the origins of the US and British intelligence world in the first place, as a covert arm for banker elites in Wall Street and in The City (London). These are entities and groups of entities who have very little allegiance to a single nation (British aristocratic royalists as the rare exception) and use nation against nation as if they were simply pieces on what Zbigniew Brzezinski calls the "Grand Chessboard'. I am continually awaiting the day that everyone realizes the NSA/CIA/DIA/DoD...etc violations of privacy are simply a small part of a larger issue, namely, that the supranational corporate elite realized that technology has finally gotten to the point where if they make a power play now, they or their grandchildren can be "gods" among the proletariat masses. Our entire American government system of checks and balances is utterly corrupt, including all three branches and the fourth estate. I used to be part of their action arm (USMC combat vet), and it took many years of study since I got out to come to these conclusions. What really frustrates me though, is that, just like the NSA issues before Snowden, no one is going to realize or admit these things until they stare them in the face. The irony is that the main reason people won't is because of the much larger than realized mass propaganda efforts (including the efforts described in this latest documentation) which keep a large enough of percentage of the populous distracted, apathetic, afraid, or even complicit enough to render any real opposition power null and void. The main issue I have been debating for the past few years is: "Should we be going underground subversive now, or should we make one last stand?" Either way, I fear freedom will be a long lost memory until the days that people can travel in space freely, if we don't destroy the planet and the species by then. As cliched as it is, the rabbit hole is not only deeper than most realize, but it's actually really uncomfortable to explore. (especially when you have a hand in the game, like many on HN)
1457389 13y ago
Wherefore art thou tptacek? I can't wait to hear how this is totally not surprising at all and how this is absolutely what spies have been doing since forever and therefore no action need be taken. I'm also missing my daily dose of his irrelevant ad hominem FUD against Greenwald, Barret Brown, Snowden et al.
metabunkshills 13y ago
metabunk.org . nuff said
vorg 13y ago
Decoys, diversions, repetition, statistics, mimic, story fragments, baiting, ruses, exploits, feigned incompetence, gaming rankings, creating bottlenecks, disruption, infiltration, plausible denials, leaks, honey traps, spoofing, fake victim, fake rescue, competitor surveillance... All of these are standard practise in business. Any business that doesn't do them get demolished or taken over by one that does. And any person who doesn't do them gets knifed by one who does, not only in business but also in open source software so I've found out. Perhaps the NSA/GCHQ have simply been taken over by business people.
- wavefunction 13y ago
  You are working for the wrong companies.
mkhpalm 13y ago
I think we should make a new list of laws. Basically, a list of laws that still apply to the US Government. The "does not apply" list is getting a little top-heavy.
junto 13y ago
Julian Assange should read these two slides: https://prod01-cdn02.cdn.firstlook.org/wp-uploads/2014/02/deception_p48.png https://prod01-cdn02.cdn.firstlook.org/wp-uploads/2014/02/de... https://prod01-cdn02.cdn.firstlook.org/wp-uploads/2014/02/deception_p24.png https://prod01-cdn02.cdn.firstlook.org/wp-uploads/2014/02/de...
olifante 13y ago
So, besides tptacek who are the other astroturf accounts used to infiltrate and manipulate HN?

234 points by rdl 13y ago

If you want to look for examples of companies in the US and elsewhere engaging in activities mentioned in this article against political dissidents, look no further than the HB Gary email leak of years back. I referenced such works here[0] after Obama's announcement of NSA 'reforms' that hinted at offloading more sensitive data to private companies. I would like to bring the attention of people who read this article back to the tactics such as the real-time spying on Wikileaks viewers. Tactics discussed by the likes of HB Gary's Aaron Barr like going after activists by their families and careers, or the US Chamber of Commerce's interest in such work. There is a profound amount of moral hazards here that companies are wading deep into for cash and possible immunity such as what AT&T was granted. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7078402 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7078402

tptacek 13y ago
23 skidoo!
- streetnigga 13y ago
  Why did you make like light of Michael Hasting's death then denigrate Barrett Brown[0] after irrelevantly bringing up Monsanto and Nickelback[1] in that thread 36 days ago instead of discussing the topic (or not engaging) like a reasonable person? You could of had the advantage of people not knowing more about this type of work enlisted by governments/carried out by for-profit concerns, instead you choose to be highly corrosive in an attempt to elicit some reaction. But by golly here you are again doing the same. So while your attention is clearly engaged upon me, could you answer the question above? [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7084938 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7084938 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7082094 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7082094
  - tptacek 13y ago
    Because Michael Hastings was killed for his unpublished work on chemtrails, not the reporting he'd done on CIA, and Barrett Brown is no hero: he's out to immanentize the eschaton! Hail Eris! If you're going to write a conspiracy theory for us, "streetnigga", at least do it with some style. Throw an "Ewige Blumenkraft" or two in there.
    - rdl 13y ago
      How many drinks have you had this evening?
      - tptacek 13y ago
        Zero, but thanks for putting the idea in my head. :) I have a very hard time taking people who believe in the Michael Hastings conspiracy seriously, and that's just one of the goofy conspiracy theories the parent commenter has promoted on HN.
        rdl 13y ago
        Happy to help. This is Free Liquor Week (aka RSA), but you're probably wise enough to avoid it. I agree the most likely situation with Hastings was he had personal issues, but maybe got spooked by someone calling him or otherwise being threatening, and crashed his car. After writing some pretty good articles. And Barrett Brown has some serious issues as well, although (like aaronsw and weev, and manning's pre-trial detention conditions) the way the legal system is being used is itself unconscionable. I still think "punch up" applies.
        tptacek 13y ago
        I would rather eat a live wriggling cockroach than attend RSA or, for that matter, be in the same city as RSA. I don't understand where you're even coming from regarding Hastings. He had a history of abusing drugs and alcohol. His car crashed. A bunch of Internet conspiracy theorists decided that crashed cars don't burst into flames the way video showed Hastings car had, even as other Internet people, including (here on HN) an EMT, pointed out that they actually do exactly that surprisingly often; some even presented videos. The LA Coroner released a report that pointed out Hastings had amphetamines and cannabis in his system when his car crashed. From where, exactly, do you get the notion that he received a threatening phone call? Is there any evidence anywhere at all that that ever happened, or does it just make for a good story?
FreakLegion 13y ago
Do note that those emails were all talk. Other than the failed attempt to expose the "leadership" of Anonymous, none of Barr's big plans were even tried, let alone successfully carried out. His own employees (all two of them) mocked him and refused to participate. Aaron Barr was one guy, dealing with a failed marriage and a failing company, and he just lost the plot there for a bit.
- tptacek 13y ago
  Since this appears to be the basis of the notion that Palantir is a branch of the NSA: the one Palantir person known to have been involved was a 27 year old sales engineer who was subsequently terminated from the company and rehired after the legal investigation Palantir launched on itself for coming within a mile of Aaron Barr cleared him. (This is based on reporting of what happened, not any kind of firsthand knowledge about Palantir, of which I have none).
  - streetnigga 13y ago
    Palantir is not a branch of the NSA, they are backed by the CIA[0]. [0] http://finance.yahoo.com/news/cia-backed-palantir-technologies-raises-200921615.html http://finance.yahoo.com/news/cia-backed-palantir-technologi...
    - tptacek 13y ago
      So was Decru. I suppose storage encryption is also a CIA plot. So was FireEye. I suppose killing zero-day is also a CIA plot. So was Inktomi. I suppose caching web traffic, &c &c. I could go on, if you like. In-Q-Tel has backed a lot of stuff.
      - ChrisAntaki 13y ago
        In-Q-Tel is an interesting company. They've invested in Google (OSINT), and Keyhole (GEOINT/IMINT). Google went on to acquire Keyhole, to create Google Earth [1]. [1] http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/07/exclusive-google-cia/ http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/07/exclusive-google-cia...
aspensmonster 13y ago
Nice to tptacek is still alive and kicking. I kinda missed him.

DelightfulScone 13y ago

One wonders if Glenn's persistence in reporting this issue is due to being targeted by NSA contractors like Palantir, regarding Palantir's work against US activists. A "Spotlight" as the email says: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-2LJZSZknE-I/TVpg4sNeUHI/AAAAAAAAC6Y/0wmuTWTDaZs/s1600/steckman.png http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-2LJZSZknE-I/TVpg4sNeUHI/AAAAAAAAC6... Via street nigga's thread.

rhizome 13y ago
Someone will be along shortly to tell us all that Palantir would rather everybody just forget about their dalliance there.
- tptacek 13y ago
  Exactly what is Palantir --- specifically Palantir, not nutball HBGaryFederal head Aaron Barr --- accused of doing unlawfully or unethically in this "dalliance"? Collecting public information for law firms isn't unethical. Having one of your 27-year-old SEs eagerly working alongside Barr to move a deal forward has bad optics. But believing that Glenn Greenwald should be thwarted is an opinion that, while obviously objectionable on HN, not actually unethical.
  - DelightfulScone 13y ago
    Thwarting a journalist from reporting by targeting him and his career, not actually unethical according to tptacek.
    - tptacek 13y ago
      Could you explain exactly how Palantir is accused of attempting to unethically damage Glenn Greenwald's career? In more detail than "one of their SEs was in an email thread with Aaron Barr"? Because what you just wrote is a straw-man version of my comment.
      - DelightfulScone 13y ago

api 13y ago

More foil hat nutter stuff that is turning out to be quite real...

billspreston 13y ago
If you RTFA, calling out someone was a tin foil hatter is one of their techniques.

grkvlt 13y ago

Is this not just what spies and covert agents have been doing for centuries? But now with extra * INTERNET !!! * added, which somehow makes it worse? I would be more worried if our spy agencies and intelligence organisations did not have this sort of capability, and could only manipulate and deceive using TV, newspapers, talking, joining societies, clubs and associations, following people and so on.

api 13y ago
The net permits it to be done with unprecedented precision, scale, ease, and deniability.
- mpyne 13y ago
  Computers do. Networks too, but the NSA and military have had networks far longer than the rest of us. The only thing that has really "scaled" here is the people themselves, and I don't find it strange that all the normal real-life problems have followed people as they migrated online.
- einhverfr 13y ago
  It isn't just the net though. It's also deep pockets of the defence industry. If we really want reform, the uncomfortable truth is that the only way to reform the system is to reduce the amount of money flowing to defence contractors. Unfortunately I think, aside from a total economic collapse, pigs will sooner evolve wings.
tippytop 13y ago
And now thanks to Mr. Greenwald's reporting, citizens & elected officials, policy wonks & pundits, scholars & laymen alike, can all discuss actual facts instead of relying on grkvit's assumptions about how government spy programs operate.
higherpurpose 13y ago
In the 20th century CIA could assassinate people...and in the 21st century the same CIA can assassinate 1000x more people with drones. So what's the big deal? It's "the same". And it's their job. See the fallacy of your logic there? > 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.

MWil 13y ago

Honest question: is it poor logic or not that I tend to believe these slides are truly from the government they are supposed to be from based solely on how large of an eyesore the design is? However, surely by now people like Glen Greenwald have heard such feedback so if someone from the other side of the aisle wanted to reverse false flag they would just use atrocious designs. However, now the govt. has read THIS, so I clearly cannot choose the cup in front of me...

rdl 13y ago
I assume he is depending on the provenance marker that these are part of a big pile of documents provided by Snowden.
- MWil 13y ago
  just so we're clear, what is the provenance marker specifically in these slides? I'm seeing .pngs when I click the slides where, if I was thinking there's a proveable origin, it would be a digitally signed pdf or something like what the GPO (government printing office) uses, but for secret things of course...
  - rdl 13y ago
    That Snowden handed it to you is the provenance marker. He claims to have jacked a whole bunch of shit from NSA, and has given no one particular reason to doubt him. If this is one file on media which he handed GG back in May 2013, GG has good reason to believe it was in fact jacked from NSA by Snowden. Falsification would be a lot more likely if anyone handed you docs after Snowden went public, but before it was public, it was either a set up (by Snowden), or pretty strongly authenticated. The arrow of time cannot be defeated.
    - MWil 13y ago
      I'm talking about from MY or YOUR perspective. Let's first set up the stage: -Snowden hands you paper/digital files, possibly with no trail that you can verify (besides govt. acknowledgment of any specific document) - You (likely) immediately make (many) digital copies, this is a trail others can verify later - like with an md5 sum or something (not my forte, obviously). - Before you assist with releasing the whole cache and risk another wikileaks-style attack for not being more sensitive to the content in each document, you start the long process of reviewing each document. - You find acceptable publications - You publish the documents from step 2 (which have a digital trail to verify they were handed to GG from Snowden at the time they say they were) That last step hasn't happened as far as I know, we're getting pictures of documents...

NN88 13y ago

Not sure how I feel about this. 1. If you're stupid enough to get caught up doing illegal crap online in PUBLIC domains then...yeah...I mean do you think they're NOT looking? 2. this is actual spy-craft and when applied abroad, I have NO qualms about using it to the USA's advantage 3. How is any of this new information? After Operation Mockingbird, how is anyone surprised?

AnimalMuppet 13y ago
About your point 2: You say it's fine if it's applied abroad. But assume that someone abroad is applying it to what is to them "abroad", that is, what to us is domestically. But it's a foreign operation trying to influence domestic policy. That is, to apply this against foreign operators, it may well need to be applied domestically. Now, the gotcha: I see the need. But do I trust the NSA/CIA/FBI/whoever to apply it only against foreign-controlled domestic operations? No, I don't.
DennisP 13y ago
The whole point is that the targets of this activity have not been caught "doing illegal crap online." If they had been caught, the government would actually charge them with a crime. Also note that the article is about the GCHQ, so anyone in the U.S. is "abroad" to them.
ttctciyf 13y ago
Since the source document is from GCHQ (Britain's NSA, if you like) it seems valid to ask whether similar workarounds by internationalisation are in place for disinfo (which this manifestly is about, right?) as seem to be in place for collection. Which is to say that US netizens are quite likely among the prime targets here. The practices alluded to - a battery of psychological techniques designed to influence group dynamics of, and disrupt the sharing of information by, online communities - seem at least as suitable for controlling dissent as for action against overtly illegal activities. How does destroying the reputation of a company help with the latter, for example? I'll tell you what though, fascinating though this is, I wish we had got the 'real poop' - materials which must surely exist for the training alluded to, fleshing out the practical details, with illustrative examples!

a3n 13y ago

> “using online techniques to make something happen in the real or cyber world” This isn't just an attack on the internet, as Greenwald portrays it, it's an attack on people and free will. It's intended to get people to do or say something that they might have done differently otherwise, in response to the "crime" of being a pain in the ass, or even a threat, to the powerful. > In fact, the discussion of many of these techniques occurs in the context of using them in lieu of “traditional law enforcement” against people suspected (but not charged or convicted) of ordinary crimes or, more broadly still, “hacktivism”, ... Is this the best we can do with this civilization, to wear away and destroy people because they're inconvenient to the powerful?

spenvo 13y ago
To me, the scariest part of JTRIG is how targets are "determined." The actions taken against said targets by the NSA/GCHQ seem extrajudicial yet they can ruin these peoples' lives. The word “hacktivism” is itself a moving target, which gives these opaque agencies unimaginable power.
- a3n 13y ago
  > The actions taken against said targets by the NSA/GCHQ seem > extrajudicial That's why it's secret.
  - keyhole_downs 13y ago
grecy 13y ago
> This isn't just an attack on the internet, as Greenwald portrays it, it's an attack on people and free will. It's intended to get people to do or say something that they might have done differently otherwise, in response to the "crime" of being a pain in the ass, or even a threat, to the powerful.* Isn't that a good definition for terrorism?
- 13y ago

gojomo 13y ago

You could make an 'Illuminati' card-game expansion set out of a few of these slides.

tptacek 13y ago
Is it just me or do these slides make GCHQ look like a bunch of frustrated PUAs? Jump forward to the slide following the text "The documents lay out theories of how humans interact" to see what I mean.
- eru 13y ago
  It's tough being taken seriously for GCHQ when compared to the likes of NSA.
  - rdl 13y ago
    Everything in (press coverage about) the docs so far makes it seem pretty clear GCHQ punches way above their weight class (in terms of budget, and general UK military strength) compared to NSA.
    - tptacek 13y ago
      They also seem more brazen than NSA. GCHQ scares me more than NSA does. NSA is existentially terrified over losing budget. GCHQ doesn't act like they're worried about anything at all.
      - rdl 13y ago
        I wonder if their internal cryptonym for themselves is "Honey Badger".
      - 1457389 13y ago
        NSA is bankrolling GCHQ and in most respects the latter seems incredibly subservient to the former. In light of that, your position doesn't make much sense to me.

ChuckFrank 13y ago

What was suspected about government abuse of power turns out to have been nothing compared to the scope of it. Here are some of my suggestions in response: 1. Stand up on mass, digitally and in person, for what you believe in - don't shy from people sneering or judging that you are distrustful of the existing structures of powers. 2. Exclude the people who support this type of spookery, from investment bankers, to hawking politicians, from polite company. Whether you meet them at a party, or a plane, shun and shame them. 3. Crank up the noise. Write, make, do what you can to get more stuff out there. 4. Don't be singular. Be the complexity. 5. Never believe again. Demand evidence, oversight, & review processes. Demand transparency. 6. Commit to fixing what's broken. Fix the drug wars, fix the election system, fix the income inequalities, fix the racial divide. etc. 7. ? what else? ps. Any obligatory comments about the obligatory NSA jokes?

dfc 13y ago
> 2. Exclude the people who support this type of spookery, from investment bankers, to hawking politicians, from polite company. Whether you meet them at a party, or a plane, shun and shame them. This is a remarkably effective method to alienate people who are "on the fence." These are precisely the people that you need for suggestion #1 to be effective.
- ChuckFrank 13y ago
  I guess I wasn't talking about people on the fence, I was thinking more about those that either participating by proxy, or participating directly. However, I may disagree with your claim that social pressure would alienate people on the fence. Bush's 'you are either with us or against us', was surprisingly effective politics at the time.
  - dfc 13y ago
    > Bush's 'you are either with us or against us', was surprisingly effective politics at the time. I am curious how you came to this conclusion? Maybe this is more of a personal observations and is colored by your political leanings and those that you are surrounded by? I know a lot of people that were not turned on by the "with us or against us" line. I also think that it did not go over well in the international political arena.

syntern 13y ago

Ruining someone's reputation is not something only a government could do. Companies with enough money and a few (black-hat) SEO experts might be able to pull a large-scale reputation-kill to anyone who is an upcoming competitor or a pain-in-the-ass person. Small-scale reputation hacks happen all the time. What the heck, there is an industry where you can pump your own reputation up legally. So the question is: how can we protect ourselves from any of these efforts (may or may not be coming from a government)?

a3n 13y ago
The question one day may devolve to: how can we use these techniques in reverse?
- dredmorbius 13y ago
  1. Get a government contracting job with a high-level security clearance and broad levels of access. 2. Assimilate significant quantities of incriminating information. 3. Disseminate this to the world via a leaking portal or sympathetic journalist. 4. Profit!
mpyne 13y ago
> So the question is: how can we protect ourselves from any of these efforts (may or may not be coming from a government)? What's been working for me so far is just being pretty boring. Although I guess I could be even more boring (e.g. less arguing online ;).
dredmorbius 13y ago
how can we protect ourselves from any of these efforts Good question. One is to live as honestly as possible. Including making others aware of attacks on your character. This may mean admitting your own faults or deviations, which can be painful, but it deprives your opponents of a lever or fulcrum against you. Reading the FBI blackmail letter to Martin Luther King recently, I was struck by how similar the language was to that of many modern-day trolls. Some tactics simply don't change. I'm looking for some good guides, though I'm not aware of any in particular (and the Albert Einstein Institution seems oddly silent on this point). This page has some good bits (under "WHAT CAN WE DO ABOUT IT?"): http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?action=printpage;topic=97573.0 http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?action=printpage;top...

DanielBMarkham 13y ago

Once again, let's not go overboard. This is real, but so is companies just having people online who naturally do these things. God knows you can't poke Google around too much without a Googler making an impassioned plea for them. Same goes for Facebook, or any of the other large SV employers. And then there's just fans. Seems like I remember Amazon coming to the conclusion, after digging through spurious bad reviews of products, that many of them were just from people who had other brands and didn't like that one. So they made up fake reviews. That's not some mysterious spy agency; that's the guy who runs the garage down the street. And that's why these things are so effective -- they blend into the noise that is the crap that is the internet at large. I'm concerned about this in general, but I need more information about how this is being used as part of an extra-judicial punishment before I start bouncing off the walls.

3327 13y ago

There is no source or link to the actual slides. They might be authentic but this site might also be doing the very thing they claim the agencies are doing. Its essentially a blog with some slides with "top secret" written all over it with damning information. No source, no link, nothing.

MWil 13y ago
Please see my discussion below b/c I agree. We deserve more than .pngs of these slides.
intslack 13y ago
It's linked under 'Documents' at the top of the page: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/documents/ https://firstlook.org/theintercept/documents/ https://firstlook.org/theintercept/document/2014/02/24/art-deception-training-new-generation-online-covert-operations/ https://firstlook.org/theintercept/document/2014/02/24/art-d... https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1021430/the-art-of-deception-training-for-a-new.pdf https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1021...
- MWil 13y ago
  A slideshow does not an original document make.

lazyloop 13y ago

The Stasi has done the exact same thing, it's called "Zersetzung". http://www.ddr-wissen.de/wiki/ddr.pl?MfS-Richtlinie_1-76 http://www.ddr-wissen.de/wiki/ddr.pl?MfS-Richtlinie_1-76

wavefunction 13y ago
Is this a good thing or a bad thing that the Stasi has pursued a similar course of action? Personally, I am disgusted by not surprised that the same authoritarianism can be found all over the world, even in a nominal democracy like the US.

securingsincity 13y ago

The "Five Eyes Alliance" bothers me. What lines in the sand are drawn in each country? Are there some that the NSA isn't allowed to cross but GCHQ can? Is it a matter of saying "Hey GCHQ we have a guy who is in the US who we can't do these things to but he's related to this guy over here in foreign country ?" Wouldn't traditionally that example include the CIA/FBI instead? Or for less oversight would it make more sense to use one of the Five Eyes Alliance nations. I think that in that example that's troublesome in that it undermines what for better or worse where bureaucracy protects the citizenry of the US. Edit to include the CIA

arca_vorago 13y ago
"What lines in the sand are drawn in each country?" The line is drawn officially at the point they can use legalese verbiage to avoid any problems. So that line was supposed to be, at least for the NSA and CIA, "Never spy on American's without a warrant." (according to William Binney, Thomas Drake, et al) The real line though, is whatever they can get away with. The USUK (five eyes) was setup in 1947, and has been used as a giant loophole of sharing ever since. The real issue though, the one everyone likes to ignore, is the origins of the US and British intelligence world in the first place, as a covert arm for banker elites in Wall Street and in The City (London). These are entities and groups of entities who have very little allegiance to a single nation (British aristocratic royalists as the rare exception) and use nation against nation as if they were simply pieces on what Zbigniew Brzezinski calls the "Grand Chessboard'. I am continually awaiting the day that everyone realizes the NSA/CIA/DIA/DoD...etc violations of privacy are simply a small part of a larger issue, namely, that the supranational corporate elite realized that technology has finally gotten to the point where if they make a power play now, they or their grandchildren can be "gods" among the proletariat masses. Our entire American government system of checks and balances is utterly corrupt, including all three branches and the fourth estate. I used to be part of their action arm (USMC combat vet), and it took many years of study since I got out to come to these conclusions. What really frustrates me though, is that, just like the NSA issues before Snowden, no one is going to realize or admit these things until they stare them in the face. The irony is that the main reason people won't is because of the much larger than realized mass propaganda efforts (including the efforts described in this latest documentation) which keep a large enough of percentage of the populous distracted, apathetic, afraid, or even complicit enough to render any real opposition power null and void. The main issue I have been debating for the past few years is: "Should we be going underground subversive now, or should we make one last stand?" Either way, I fear freedom will be a long lost memory until the days that people can travel in space freely, if we don't destroy the planet and the species by then. As cliched as it is, the rabbit hole is not only deeper than most realize, but it's actually really uncomfortable to explore. (especially when you have a hand in the game, like many on HN)

1457389 13y ago

Wherefore art thou tptacek? I can't wait to hear how this is totally not surprising at all and how this is absolutely what spies have been doing since forever and therefore no action need be taken. I'm also missing my daily dose of his irrelevant ad hominem FUD against Greenwald, Barret Brown, Snowden et al.

metabunkshills 13y ago

metabunk.org . nuff said

vorg 13y ago

Decoys, diversions, repetition, statistics, mimic, story fragments, baiting, ruses, exploits, feigned incompetence, gaming rankings, creating bottlenecks, disruption, infiltration, plausible denials, leaks, honey traps, spoofing, fake victim, fake rescue, competitor surveillance... All of these are standard practise in business. Any business that doesn't do them get demolished or taken over by one that does. And any person who doesn't do them gets knifed by one who does, not only in business but also in open source software so I've found out. Perhaps the NSA/GCHQ have simply been taken over by business people.

wavefunction 13y ago
You are working for the wrong companies.

mkhpalm 13y ago

I think we should make a new list of laws. Basically, a list of laws that still apply to the US Government. The "does not apply" list is getting a little top-heavy.

junto 13y ago

Julian Assange should read these two slides: https://prod01-cdn02.cdn.firstlook.org/wp-uploads/2014/02/deception_p48.png https://prod01-cdn02.cdn.firstlook.org/wp-uploads/2014/02/de... https://prod01-cdn02.cdn.firstlook.org/wp-uploads/2014/02/deception_p24.png https://prod01-cdn02.cdn.firstlook.org/wp-uploads/2014/02/de...

olifante 13y ago

So, besides tptacek who are the other astroturf accounts used to infiltrate and manipulate HN?