4 ms·

The US has Operation Earnest Voice, and Britain has JTRIG. Whether they're inventing disasters is another matter. It's a sad reality that all major state actor

by dmpk2k 11y ago

The US has Operation Earnest Voice, and Britain has JTRIG. Whether they're inventing disasters is another matter. It's a sad reality that all major state actors have or will get involved in this, but not surprising. Warfare is changing in part due to massively increased connectivity, and the military and policy wonks have been aware of that for at least a decade. I personally recommend books by David Kilcullen if you're interested.

tptacek 11y ago
The Russian propaganda is aimed principally at the Russian people. That's illegal in the US, and technically when the US spreads propaganda overseas they're required to make English-language copies available to the US press.
- dmpk2k 11y ago
  You make a good point regarding Russia, although I think we both know that the US's record regarding covert operations and legality has been spotty.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    Then it should be especially easy to cite a source wherein the US sponsored a propaganda outfit that made up fake people who invited events out of whole cloth and posted them to sites for a US audience. Because that is what this story says is happening in Russia. So much so that when Adrian Chen went to Russia to interview people, the Russian propaganda factory set up him with an interview with a neo-Nazi and then ran stories about Chen's neo-Nazi sympathies. Think about that: a Russian news outlet had a neo-Nazi on the payroll to set Chen up with.
    - Mikhail_Edoshin 11y ago
      I'm 100% sure that the Nazi is on the payroll of FSB, and the news outlet is also one of their establishments. This kind of a set up is totally their style.
      - tptacek 11y ago
        I think about how conditioned to nonsense the Russian society must be for it to seem credible to anyone that an NYT reporter traveled to Russia to network with neo-Nazis. It's a spooky thing to consider.
        fit2rule 11y ago
        It is perhaps scary to consider, but a lot of the non-Western world consider the USA to be a land of fascists and nazi's, alas. And there is much that can said about just how "true" this observation may be ..
        reagency 11y ago
        Or for it to seem credible that Iraqis had WMDs and hijacked planes to crash the WTC.
        tptacek 11y ago
        What would be a convincing argument for people who don't believe 9/11 is a US government conspiracy? Edited for clarity.
        Mikhail_Edoshin 11y ago
        Well, it is. Or maybe not only that; there's a strong culture of saying the right thing even if you're not that convinced :( But most people will believe it. It's very sad.
    - dmpk2k 11y ago
      You misunderstood what I wrote. The statement that the US has a spotty record with the legality of its covert operations does not logically imply that the US has "sponsored a propaganda outfit that made up fake people who invited events out of whole cloth and posted them to sites for a US audience". I was pointing out that just because something is illegal in the US won't stop the government if it's so inclined. They'll either find some dubious legal justification (see how the Authorization to Use Military Force has been interpreted), or just do it anyway (I find the legal reasoning supporting PRISM beyond specious; it's risible). I thought my posts were pretty clear? I think you're mixing me up with the arguments of other posters.
      - tptacek 11y ago
        You find the legal reasoning behind an application that manages FISA court orders to be risible? Because that's what PRISM is.
        dmpk2k 11y ago
        I have no idea what you're referring to. I mean PRISM, the surveillance program: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program) (unless that's what you mean by "manages FISA court orders", in which case... I'm somewhat establishment militarist, but wow)
        tptacek 11y ago
        Second: I believe PRISM is what I said it was: a computer system that manages FISA 702 warrants. The link you cite actually backs me up on that. The specific issue of which NSA program is named "PRISM" and which other one isn't isn't especially important, except to the extent that when asked for evidence for an extraordinary claim, you produced evidence for a different claim, and that evidence doesn't even appear to be accurate.
        dmpk2k 11y ago
        Whoops, it seems I edited my post from out from under you; sorry. You also have my apologies for the earlier good-faith comment. Sadly, I don't have the hours necessary to debate this, because that's where this is going (legal analysis is something you research and write over days, not on HN), and wasn't even my point (aka, I like keeping my arguments limited in scope, not some meandering train wreck). We'll have to agree to disagree.
- marksc 11y ago
  >That's illegal in the US WAS illegal in the US.* Legalized with the enactment of the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012. The reform effectively nullifies the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948, which was amended in 1985 specifically to prohibit U.S. organizations from using information "to influence public opinion in the United States."[1] [1] http://www.businessinsider.com/us-domestic-propaganda-officially-aired-2013-7 http://www.businessinsider.com/us-domestic-propaganda-offici...
  - tptacek 11y ago
    The bill you're referring to is extraordinarily short. Its major section opens: (a) IN GENERAL.—No funds authorized to be appropriated to the Department of State or the Broadcasting Board of Governors shall be used to influence public opinion in the United States. Did you know that BBG, to which this act primarily pertains, is also one of the world's primary funding sources for security audits of open-source cryptography? That program is managed under the aegis of Radio Free Asia, and has put top-caliber researchers on virtually every open source cryptosystem you've ever heard of, and of course many you haven't. Something tells me that NSA and BBG aren't closely coordinating. Meanwhile, in Russia, which is what this article actually talks about, the country's largest social network was siezed and nationalized by the government. Personally, and I know everyone won't agree with me on this, but I think we should all stop pretending that what the Russian government is doing is comparable to what the US and UK governments are doing. In the industrialized world, Russia and China are one kind of state controlled media, and everyone else is another. We should stop pretending that Russia and China are OK, or casting a pox on everyone else's houses. You'd rather have German media, or even US media, than Russian. Full stop.
    - marksc 11y ago
      I did not know that about the BBG. That is quite interesting. I would have to agree that the level of media manipulation done by Russia and China is far beyond that done by the US. I think that's pretty clear. Frankly, I don't think any of it is "OK." But third-world propaganda doesn't excuse first-world media manipulation either. Or maybe it does. I think it's fair to say that we're squarely in the realm of opinion here.

by dmpk2k 11y ago

tptacek 11y ago

The Russian propaganda is aimed principally at the Russian people. That's illegal in the US, and technically when the US spreads propaganda overseas they're required to make English-language copies available to the US press.

dmpk2k 11y ago
You make a good point regarding Russia, although I think we both know that the US's record regarding covert operations and legality has been spotty.
- tptacek 11y ago
  Then it should be especially easy to cite a source wherein the US sponsored a propaganda outfit that made up fake people who invited events out of whole cloth and posted them to sites for a US audience. Because that is what this story says is happening in Russia. So much so that when Adrian Chen went to Russia to interview people, the Russian propaganda factory set up him with an interview with a neo-Nazi and then ran stories about Chen's neo-Nazi sympathies. Think about that: a Russian news outlet had a neo-Nazi on the payroll to set Chen up with.
  - Mikhail_Edoshin 11y ago
    I'm 100% sure that the Nazi is on the payroll of FSB, and the news outlet is also one of their establishments. This kind of a set up is totally their style.
    - tptacek 11y ago
      I think about how conditioned to nonsense the Russian society must be for it to seem credible to anyone that an NYT reporter traveled to Russia to network with neo-Nazis. It's a spooky thing to consider.
      - fit2rule 11y ago
        It is perhaps scary to consider, but a lot of the non-Western world consider the USA to be a land of fascists and nazi's, alas. And there is much that can said about just how "true" this observation may be ..
      - reagency 11y ago
        Or for it to seem credible that Iraqis had WMDs and hijacked planes to crash the WTC.
        tptacek 11y ago
        What would be a convincing argument for people who don't believe 9/11 is a US government conspiracy? Edited for clarity.
      - Mikhail_Edoshin 11y ago
        Well, it is. Or maybe not only that; there's a strong culture of saying the right thing even if you're not that convinced :( But most people will believe it. It's very sad.
  - dmpk2k 11y ago
    You misunderstood what I wrote. The statement that the US has a spotty record with the legality of its covert operations does not logically imply that the US has "sponsored a propaganda outfit that made up fake people who invited events out of whole cloth and posted them to sites for a US audience". I was pointing out that just because something is illegal in the US won't stop the government if it's so inclined. They'll either find some dubious legal justification (see how the Authorization to Use Military Force has been interpreted), or just do it anyway (I find the legal reasoning supporting PRISM beyond specious; it's risible). I thought my posts were pretty clear? I think you're mixing me up with the arguments of other posters.
    - tptacek 11y ago
      You find the legal reasoning behind an application that manages FISA court orders to be risible? Because that's what PRISM is.
      - dmpk2k 11y ago
        I have no idea what you're referring to. I mean PRISM, the surveillance program: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program) (unless that's what you mean by "manages FISA court orders", in which case... I'm somewhat establishment militarist, but wow)
        tptacek 11y ago
        Second: I believe PRISM is what I said it was: a computer system that manages FISA 702 warrants. The link you cite actually backs me up on that. The specific issue of which NSA program is named "PRISM" and which other one isn't isn't especially important, except to the extent that when asked for evidence for an extraordinary claim, you produced evidence for a different claim, and that evidence doesn't even appear to be accurate.
        dmpk2k 11y ago
        Whoops, it seems I edited my post from out from under you; sorry. You also have my apologies for the earlier good-faith comment. Sadly, I don't have the hours necessary to debate this, because that's where this is going (legal analysis is something you research and write over days, not on HN), and wasn't even my point (aka, I like keeping my arguments limited in scope, not some meandering train wreck). We'll have to agree to disagree.
marksc 11y ago
>That's illegal in the US WAS illegal in the US.* Legalized with the enactment of the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012. The reform effectively nullifies the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948, which was amended in 1985 specifically to prohibit U.S. organizations from using information "to influence public opinion in the United States."[1] [1] http://www.businessinsider.com/us-domestic-propaganda-officially-aired-2013-7 http://www.businessinsider.com/us-domestic-propaganda-offici...
- tptacek 11y ago
  The bill you're referring to is extraordinarily short. Its major section opens: (a) IN GENERAL.—No funds authorized to be appropriated to the Department of State or the Broadcasting Board of Governors shall be used to influence public opinion in the United States. Did you know that BBG, to which this act primarily pertains, is also one of the world's primary funding sources for security audits of open-source cryptography? That program is managed under the aegis of Radio Free Asia, and has put top-caliber researchers on virtually every open source cryptosystem you've ever heard of, and of course many you haven't. Something tells me that NSA and BBG aren't closely coordinating. Meanwhile, in Russia, which is what this article actually talks about, the country's largest social network was siezed and nationalized by the government. Personally, and I know everyone won't agree with me on this, but I think we should all stop pretending that what the Russian government is doing is comparable to what the US and UK governments are doing. In the industrialized world, Russia and China are one kind of state controlled media, and everyone else is another. We should stop pretending that Russia and China are OK, or casting a pox on everyone else's houses. You'd rather have German media, or even US media, than Russian. Full stop.
  - marksc 11y ago
    I did not know that about the BBG. That is quite interesting. I would have to agree that the level of media manipulation done by Russia and China is far beyond that done by the US. I think that's pretty clear. Frankly, I don't think any of it is "OK." But third-world propaganda doesn't excuse first-world media manipulation either. Or maybe it does. I think it's fair to say that we're squarely in the realm of opinion here.