
How Covert Agents Infiltrate the Internet to Manipulate, Deceive - rdl
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/
======
ChuckFrank
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
> 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
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
> _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.

~~~
ChuckFrank
Perhaps it only appeared effective in shifting the center in support of the
war. It didn't have much effect on myself or those around me. But I think that
there has to be a social function to be able to call out the people who are
doing this work, or who are supporting this work. It's people who are doing
this - not some nameless bureaucracy or some autonomous machine. People are
responsible for this, and we need to find ways of holding them accountable.
Socially or otherwise.

------
a3n
> “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
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
> The actions taken against said targets by the NSA/GCHQ seem

> extrajudicial

That's why it's _secret_.

~~~
keyhole_downs


------
1457389
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.

------
lazyloop
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
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.

------
syntern
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
The question one day may devolve to: how can we use these techniques in
reverse?

~~~
dredmorbius
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!

------
DanielBMarkham
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.

------
NN88
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?

~~~
ttctciyf
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!

~~~
NN88
Frankly, even though this is clear proof of what ANY informed person SHOULD
HAVE ALREADY KNOWN...I want the REAL raw information.

I want the data on false flag stuff and covert James Bond missions.

Snowden needs to drop the REAL gems.

~~~
ttctciyf
I agree.

Hey, any GCHQ 'magicians' here? C'mon, the cat's out of the bag... Lighten up!
Strut your magic here and show us how it's done!

You know that story about the soccer match between the trenches.. This could
be that, right?

~~~
eru
The Christmas Truce is a fascinating subject. See eg
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_truce](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_truce)
(I can recommend [http://www.amazon.de/Der-kleine-Frieden-Gro%C3%9Fen-
Krieg/dp...](http://www.amazon.de/Der-kleine-Frieden-Gro%C3%9Fen-
Krieg/dp/3442153034) if you can read German.)

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

~~~
tptacek
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
It's tough being taken seriously for GCHQ when compared to the likes of NSA.

~~~
rdl
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
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.

~~~
1457389
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.

------
grkvlt
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
The net permits it to be done with unprecedented precision, scale, ease, and
deniability.

~~~
einhverfr
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.

------
securingsincity
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
"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)

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

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

------
MWil
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...

~~~
Crito
One would think that if the documents were fabrications, they would be
dismissed as such by the people and organizations that they indict.

I mean, I could fabricate documents that detail how the moon landing was
faked, but I would be called out on my fabrication immediately. In this case
however the only people floating the "the documents are fake" theory are third
parties with no unique insight into the allegations, notably _not_ the
accused.

~~~
MWil
That's not really true b/c even leaked to the public top secret documents
remain top secret in government circles. It's why government employees are
specifically told not to seek out wikileaks or snowden documents - you can't
gain "legitimate" access to those documents through the public.

Unless through all the noise I've missed where the govt. has said this or that
document in particular is in fact genuine. I'm not saying it hasn't happened
but I haven't seen it. Even acknowledgement of a program (PRISM, for example)
isn't acknowledgement of PRISM slide #4, although it does make it's
authenticity more likely than not.

~~~
Crito
Yeah, I'm not talking about random DoD employees calling out the documents as
fabrications on Reddit...

My point is that although the government has not officially declared the
documents to be authentic, their _failure_ to merely laugh them off as obvious
fakes created by a kook is _more_ than telling.

~~~
saraid216
> My point is that although the government has not officially declared the
> documents to be authentic, their failure to merely laugh them off as obvious
> fakes created by a kook is more than telling.

Um. It's ridiculously bad PR to respond to every such claim. The best possible
scenario is that a couple people will take your word for it. Most people will
instead just take such a response as a legitimization of the criticism. You
might be particularly credulous and accept the government's say-so, but I
wouldn't.

~~~
Crito
> _" Um. It's ridiculously bad PR to respond to every such claim."_

There have been responses, just no accusations of fabrication....

------
mkhpalm
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
Julian Assange should read these two slides:

[https://prod01-cdn02.cdn.firstlook.org/wp-
uploads/2014/02/de...](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)

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

------
3327
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.

~~~
intslack
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-d...](https://firstlook.org/theintercept/document/2014/02/24/art-
deception-training-new-generation-online-covert-operations/)

[https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1021...](https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1021430/the-
art-of-deception-training-for-a-new.pdf)

~~~
MWil
A slideshow does not an original document make.

------
metabunkshills
metabunk.org . nuff said

------
streetnigga
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)

~~~
FreakLegion
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
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
Palantir is not a branch of the NSA, they are backed by the CIA[0].

[0] [http://finance.yahoo.com/news/cia-backed-palantir-
technologi...](http://finance.yahoo.com/news/cia-backed-palantir-technologies-
raises-200921615.html)

~~~
tptacek
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
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/)

------
DelightfulScone
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/AAAAAAAAC6...](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-2LJZSZknE-I/TVpg4sNeUHI/AAAAAAAAC6Y/0wmuTWTDaZs/s1600/steckman.png)
Via street nigga's thread.

~~~
rhizome
Someone will be along shortly to tell us all that Palantir would rather
everybody just forget about their dalliance there.

~~~
tptacek
_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
Thwarting a journalist from reporting by targeting him and his career, not
actually unethical according to tptacek.

~~~
tptacek
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
I'm sorry but I am responding to this:

"believing that Glenn Greenwald should be thwarted is an opinion that, while
obviously objectionable on HN, not actually unethical."

Are you trying to say that an employee for NSA contractor Palantir discussing
targeting a journalist because of his work on a topic is separate from the
employee's beliefs, therefore is not actually unethical?

How exactly did the journalist, or his career get brought up in a conversation
between federal contractors about solicitation for work again? Was it to talk
about of the reports they liked from him?

~~~
tptacek
Here is a reason one might ethically believe Greenwald should be thwarted:
because they believe that Greenwald is deeply dishonest, making up details
about stories in order to fill in the gaps of his narrative and reporting them
as if they were facts, so that half the Internet now believes that Google, the
one big Internet company known to have actually invested real resources in
opposing dragnet surveillance, is instead in league with the NSA, and instead
of using Google Mail we should all support incompetent kooks like Ladar
Levison.

Now, some important caveats:

(1) It is _obviously_ possible to _unethically_ thwart any writer's agenda.
Publishing things you know to be untrue, even in the service of what you
believe is a higher truth, is unethical; it's exactly what someone might
accuse Greenwald of having done. For that matter, invading Greenwald's privacy
by, I don't know, stealing his bank records would also be deeply unethical.
But Palantir hasn't been accused of either of these, or, for that matter,
anything else unethical w/r/t Greenwald. Feel free to enlighten me here.

(2) If you can't tell, I'm not a major Greenwald fan. Having said that, I also
believe the best antidote for bad speech is good speech, so orchestrating a
campaign to suppress him doesn't seem like a good strategy to me. It
apparently sounded like a good idea to one of Palantir's SEs, which ended up
getting the guy fired.

~~~
absherwin
While many misinterpret the the facts, there's a kernel of truth in those
discussions that you gloss over.

GMail is not secure against the NSA or even a state judge's warrant. That has
numerous advantages for society but regardless it's not and never will be
secure against government orders. That's never been its design. Levinson's
service was secure against them for certain clients.

The reason the anti-NSA crowd is intrigued by him is the same reason sources
told their secrets to Bob Woodward. He proved willing to protect Deep Throat's
identity despite immense effort to out it. Similarly Levinson was willing to
risk his business and contempt proceedings to protect Snowden.

~~~
tptacek
Am I reading this comment correctly? Is this a comment that argues that
Lavabit, which "encrypted" mails serverside and didn't even have forward
secrecy enabled in its TLS configuration, was more secure than Google Mail?

~~~
absherwin
I'd assume not since your reply misses the point.

The government's wiretap order and the subsequent contempt proceedings
suggests that despite the technical problems of Lavabit, the government did
not get the data they sought. Had Snowden used GMail, do you believe the
government would have received the information they sought?

This isn't security in the sense you'd use it in an audit. It's just a design
decision. In the vernacular, designs that permit the release of private
information are sometimes called insecure.

~~~
mpyne
Lavabit was just as susceptible to a state warrant though. That's why Levison
had to shut it down (despite having no objection with complying with other
warrants previously).

------
vorg
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
You are working for the wrong companies.

