Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Invasive Federal tactics for Information Warfare on the Internet

Expand Messages
  • savefreedom2005
    Federal tactics for Information Warfare http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FreedomOfSpeechNow/message/43 Invasive Federal tactics for Information Warfare on the
    Message 1 of 2 , Aug 6, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Federal tactics for Information Warfare

      Invasive Federal tactics for Information Warfare on the Internet
      (only a fed disinformer could object to this post.
      Pass this around a bit and see who squeals).
      This message triggers the CAPCHA censorship window,
      and might be diverted to the bulk mail folder.

      It is very simple:
      We learn who the most effective human rights activists are,
      by seeing who the government shills attack.
      We learn who the government shills are,
      by seeing who attacks the most effective human rights activists.


      Information Warfare on the Internet
      [I posted this to alt.mindcontrol in early December, 1997. The
      group had been flooded with posts for sex-related web sites, and
      included graphic jpeg images. While this post is mostly about Usenet
      news groups, much of it applies to email and web sites too. The term
      information warfare is, in many respects, just a new word for what
      used to be called propaganda.]

      The recent porn posts in alt.mindcontrol fit in as one of a variety
      of techniques for disrupting internet news groups. If you read about
      the basic cointelpro techniques, most such disruptions are
      variations on those themes. They are also deniable, and this
      uncertainty is cultivated and prized by harassers because it can
      lead to (justified) paranoia and false accusations that discredit
      the victim.

      Information techniques
      Distraction with irrelevant posts. What better example than the
      recent porn posts? Discussion is lost in the noise. (In this case,
      the posts may make the group "appealing" to a new audience, so a
      small silver lining is that new people can be informed about mind
      Distraction by voluminous postings with no information by blowhards
      and empty name-callers. (Can be hard to distinguish from genuine
      blowhards.) People who wallow in the mud do not need to outdebate
      you; they only need to drag you down there with them. Kill files can
      help if your newsreader has them.
      Planting of provocateurs (and sleeper agents, etc.). These people
      will vary from the posters who suddenly show up one day under an
      alias attacking regular posters, to people who seem like regular
      posters themselves. They may work in teams, supporting each other
      and giving the illusion of popular support on the net. (Remember,
      net IDs are basically free, and one person can have many.) As
      cointelpro showed, there is little that is more poisonous to an
      organization than to have it tear itself apart from the inside with
      accusations of moles. (The CIA knows all about this from its own
      mole hunts.) Moles love to accuse others of being moles; then again,
      there are real moles. You have to judge for yourself who to listen
      to or what to believe.
      Hardware techniques
      Spoofing. Forgeries and modified content. Does not need to be global
      over the whole internet, for example just your local news server can
      be modified. If they control your regular communication line like
      your phone line there is no end to the illusions that can be
      created. There is a danger that some forms of spoofing will be
      detected, though, and it is harder to do, so I think these
      techniques are used less widely than the others.
      Canceling posts. Posts disappear or only propagate in a limited
      region. This has deniability as just network problems, since
      sometimes there really are network problems. One technique is to
      secretly "localize" posts that are not approved by some censor or
      gatekeeper. Most people will not notice if their post only appears
      on their local news server, and will assume it has propagated
      worldwide. They will just think no one has replied (though spoof
      replies can be posted locally, too). I check to see that my posts
      show up at DejaNews. Hardly foolproof, but at least then I know
      people can read them there (at least until more sophisticated
      spoofing is available, perhaps tailored to domain names or user
      Delaying posts. By controlling when posts show up, the flow of the
      debate can be controlled. A heads-up warning can be given to the
      plants on the group to counter arguments ahead of time. They can
      also make the same arguments or statements themselves ahead of time
      to build their own "credibility" or to steal thunder.
      Controlling search engines. If no one can find it, it is not there.
      I do not have any evidence that this has happened. The real danger
      is the possibility of "voluntary" self-censorship like we have seen,
      for example, in the newspapers with regard to radiation experiments.
      Combined hardware/information techniques
      Feedback pathways. An important aspect of psychological warfare is
      to have a feedback path to the victim. (This is like a control
      signal in dynamical systems theory.) The feedback path may be used
      covertly to manipulate the victim, the victim may become aware of it
      on his or her own, or the victim may be purposely made aware of it.
      Harassers often want victims think their harassers have control over
      them. To know they are being watched. This can help induce
      psychological trauma and regression in the victim. [According to the
      KUBARK interrogation manual, "All coercive techniques are designed
      to induce regression."] A feedback path can alert the victim that he
      is being manipulated. This can be done by telephones ringing or fax
      machines. It can be done with sophisticated mind control methods. It
      could even be done in newspapers if some person or agency knew the
      newspapers the victim reads and could influence their content (e.g.
      the final cointelpro link below).

      But the internet is a fairly new medium that fits this bill
      perfectly if the subject reads newsgroups. In a simple example, you
      cancel a person's post and then post your own article hinting that
      you have done it. (Incidentally, psychological torturers can pretend
      to have caused anything they are aware of having happened.) The
      person gets angry, but they may not be sure, and if they accuse the
      tormentor they are ridiculed. (Always try to goad the victims into
      doing things in public that will discredit them.)

      When the hardware is expanded to include home surveillance and mind
      control techniques, the effects can be magnified immensely.


      Can anyone truly doubt that these techniques have been extensively
      studied and documented by our government? The stonewall of denial
      fights for every inch of ground, no matter how trivial. People will
      still deny obvious, documented (cointelpro) things like this to
      delay having to deny the next step of the chain ("Yes, maybe they
      studied it but they would never test it on Americans [they did], and
      they surely are not still doing it today [they are].")

      Secret agencies are still arms of the federal government.



      and at the last site, especially


      If a simple request for evidence gives rise to a vitriolic personal
      or an attempt to censor, rather than the addressing of the issue,
      then one can only assume that the attacker has no other way to
      Any time that a simple request for evidence gives rise to a
      vitriolic personal attack,
      you can be assured that you are dealing with a hoax.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.