Invasive Federal tactics for Information Warfare on the Internet
- 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
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.
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.