
Hackers post fake stories on real news sites 'to discredit NATO' - elorant
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-53594440
======
josh2600
Disinformatziya.

No document I have ever read covers this topic in more detail than this
briefing by Peter Pomerantsev, author of “Nothing is real and everything is
possible.”

[https://imrussia.org/media/pdf/Research/Michael_Weiss_and_Pe...](https://imrussia.org/media/pdf/Research/Michael_Weiss_and_Peter_Pomerantsev__The_Menace_of_Unreality.pdf)

This briefing, which is held in the library of Congress, is where I first
heard the term “fake news” in 2014. It’s a stunning contextualization of what
has been happening in the last decade.

~~~
gdy
Is it worth reading? Anything different from the CIA's PsyOps?

~~~
082349872349872
Unlikely to differ much, at least as of mid-twentieth century practice:

[http://www.gutenberg.org/files/48612/48612-h/48612-h.htm](http://www.gutenberg.org/files/48612/48612-h/48612-h.htm)

> "The lower down the echelon, the nearer the armies of the world came to
> standardizing psychological warfare organization. They did this for the same
> reason that they all organize into regiments instead of centuries, cohorts,
> or tribes. Modern war is a self-standardizing process if the enemy
> experience is to be copied, enemy techniques improved, allied assistance
> accepted, and military practice kept up to world standards. Psychological
> warfare units needed printing and radio sections; to service these sections
> they all needed intelligence and analysis offices; to distribute their
> materials they all needed agents and liaison. Black propaganda organization
> varied more than did white, but it was amazing to Americans, uncovering
> Japanese subversive-operations units, to see how much the Japanese
> organization resembled their own."

(White propaganda is material one admits one has written. Black propaganda is
material one claims someone else has written. Both go back to well before the
last century. Linebarger has historical notes, with examples going back
thousands of years. Having been one of the people who "lost china", Linebarger
also offers some opinions on why the communist propaganda was more effective
than the capitalist in that case.)

------
Zenst
Always irks me how the media use the term "hackers" as some usurped
terminology to describe criminal acts using technology. For me, it is like
calling burglars a locksmith - that don't happen and yet we see the word
"hacker" used by the media to describe criminal acts so far removed from the
words original meaning that it just pains me and i'm sure many others. More so
when the populus definition of that word now parallels what the media have
been putting out for years, it just creates whole generations that will never
know what a true hacker is.

~~~
toohotatopic
The meaning of all words changes. It would be ironic if the meaning of the
word hacker would be unchangeable, impenetrable.

~~~
Zenst
> The meaning of all words changes. It would be ironic if the meaning of the
> word hacker would be unchangeable, impenetrable.

Hats off, brilliantly put and the whole aspect that the word hackers got
hacked is one that I'll remember with a smile upon this subject. Thank you for
that perspective - I'll think better for it.

~~~
lioeters
Indeed, that was insightful - the word "hacker" has been hacked by mass media
to re/present a politicized and criminalized interpretation.

The predicament itself feels ironic, in that "hacker" culture reveled in the
amoral, going beyond conventional behavior, thinking outside the box, getting
around rules and systems, manipulating technology for fun and profit.

In a way, that dark side of the hacker attitude now pervades politics,
business, and the media. Public institutions and private organizations are
surveilling, cataloguing, identifying trends, and maniputing public opinion
and social behavior.

I suppose it was inevitable that "hacker culture" itself was infiltrated and
hacked, to serve an ulterior purpose.

A healthy reaction has been the rise of "maker culture". What is old is new
again!

------
umvi
USA itself is already souring on NATO, no hackers needed.

Many in the USA are tired of being criticized for being the "world police" yet
the same critics also scream when the USA starts pulling its military
personnel out of their country (like Germany, most recently).

I say Europe should use their own money to build their own Navy and Air Forces
to protect their own interests and make their own trade and travel routes
secure. Right now most EU countries are putting virtually none of their budget
into military because everything is taken care of by the USA (and they can
launder protection of interests through USA as well so USA takes all the heat
if something goes wrong).

Maybe people will complain less about the US military when they have to use
their own tax dollars to secure their own borders, shipping and air routes,
protect their own interests, etc.

~~~
hnarn
Unfortunately for you and the rest of Americans that feel this isolationist
tendency, your country will be a part of the world whether you like it or not.
A modern conflict that does not involve the US is not the same thing as a
modern conflict that does not affect the US.

Also, your opinion of Europe doesn’t seem founded in reality. Since when does
European nations not have their own standing armies, and since when are
American army resources used to protect European borders and shipping routes?
And from who?

The US needs the rest of the world as much as the rest of the world needs the
US. You seem to be under the influence that the US is somehow being fleeced by
the rest of the world while nobody but you (conveniently enough) contributes
anything.

~~~
umvi
Well, I'm sick and tired of being lambasted by the rest of the world 24/7 and
would like to go back to pre-WW2 isolationism.

EU can fend for itself. It doesn't need the US military. And the USA doesn't
need NATO. Our military is bigger than the rest of NATO combined.

> Since when does European nations not have their own standing armies

Europe spends very little on their military compared to USA, China, Russia,
etc.

> and since when are American army resources used to protect European borders
> and shipping routes?

US Navy protects merchant ships, oil tankers, cargo ships, fiber optic cables,
and more from damage, sabotage, seizure, piracy, and more. If you don't
recognize global trade and communications stability provided by US Navy, it's
time to be reminded. It's time you protect your own interests with your own
money. It's time you deal with Russia on your own without a US presence.

> The US needs the rest of the world as much as the rest of the world needs
> the US

You just said you don't need "American army resources" because the European
nations have their own "standing armies". I whole-heartedly agree. Let Europe
use its own military to protect its own interests.

> You seem to be under the influence that the US is somehow being fleeced by
> the rest of the world

It does seem like "biting the hand that feeds you".

From my perspective EU is like "Cool, USA is taking care of tons of stuff we
would normally have to pay for military-wise, so we can use that money instead
to provide more social services to our citizens! Also the USA sucks [insert
criticisms at every opportunity]"

~~~
lioeters
> would like to go back to pre-WW2 isolationism

And we all know how that turned out..

------
JohnTClark
In Romania, fake news try to say that NATO military bases run a prostitution
rings with underage girls. There was a case[1] where a criminal raped and
killed a girl in a city near a NATO military base and all the fake news
articles were trying to say that the criminal was providing underage girls for
the NATO soldiers.

[1] -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnapping_of_Alexandra_M%C4%8...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnapping_of_Alexandra_M%C4%83ce%C8%99anu)

------
seventytwo
Gee, I wonder what nation could possibly be behind this?

~~~
runarberg
Why are you sure it is a nation. NATO is by no means an uncontroversial
entity. Millions of peace activists—including my self—would love to see it
abolished.

Although I do admit, the content of the fake news articles seem a little crude
to be coming from peace activists. Personally I would post simple truthful
anti-NATO, anti-military, and anti-nuclear weapons propaganda if I had the
will to break into news web sites CMS.

EDIT: People are rallying against my anti-militarism. I don’t think there is a
point arguing that, and such an argument is blatantly out of topic. Here we
are discussing that I have a reason to doubt that a nation state is behind
these attacks.

~~~
jeswin
> Millions of peace activists—including my self—would love to see it
> abolished.

I wonder how Europe will respond when the next Crimea happens? Or if Taiwan
gets attacked. It's a real question, and I'd love to hear from a peace-
activist.

I'd bet Europe will do nothing. Merkel wouldn't even openly criticize China
for stripping away democracy from Hong Kong. European models work well in a
world without dictatorships. But as long as we have dictatorships, rigid
pacifism is just throwing militarily weaker democracies under the bus.
Irrespective of what one thinks about Trump, the US military a dependable ally
for (many) democracies. And perhaps the only one with the willingness to act.

(Not an American.)

~~~
runarberg
We are speaking very much out of topic. The fact that I’m personally against
NATO adds nothing in the debate on whether a nation state was behind these
attacks. But lets entertain this anyway[1].

Crimea was annexed by a militaristic nation from a smaller less—but still
quite—militaristic nation. Ukraine is neighbored to the west with supporting
European nation—some with a really big military, and even nuclear weapons.
None of those were able—or even willing—to stop the annexation. In this
instance these armies were useless.

China annexed Tibet in the 50s and it wasn’t stopped. What makes you think
Taiwan would be any different? China is a dictatorial power that is committing
a genocide against a religious minority in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous
Region. It is not stopped. What makes you think Hong Kong would be any
different?

Please note that invasions, and wars are not the only ways to act against
human rights violations. There is also sanctions and boycotts. This was
particularly effective to stop the South African apartheid. But alas, the
current world powers are unwilling to apply even that to try to stop China
from their human rights violations.

\---

1\. _Even though I’ve had this conversation dozens of times, and the idea of
military is so engraved into people that the idea that we don’t need it—or
worse is harmful—is too alien for people to even contemplate._

~~~
rumanator
> We are speaking very much out of topic.

You do understand we're talking about NATO and Russia, right? I mean, there is
no clearer example of why NATO was created and exists up to this day that
Russia's attack and invasion of Ukraine. The reason why Russia dedicates
itself to weaken NATO is precisely that as well. You cannot talk about NATO
without discussing Russia's historical aggression and expansionist agenda
towards all its neighbouring states.

Knowing that, and as you are a self described peace activists with an axe to
grind against NATO, why do you intentionally turn a blind eye to the very core
of the problem?

------
kryogen1c
why is the BBC calling NATO Nato? I had to internet search to figure out what
they were talking about

~~~
vngzs
[https://www.bbc.co.uk/academy/en/articles/art201307021121335...](https://www.bbc.co.uk/academy/en/articles/art20130702112133530)

> Use the abbreviated form of a title without explanation only if there is no
> chance of any misunderstanding (eg UN, Nato, IRA, BBC). Otherwise, spell it
> out in full at first reference, or introduce a label (eg the public sector
> union Unite).

>

> Where you would normally say the abbreviation as a string of letters - an
> initialism - use all capitals with no full stops or spaces (eg FA, UNHCR,
> NUT). However, our style is to use lower case with an initial cap for
> acronyms, where you would normally pronounce the set of letters as a word
> (eg Aids, Farc, Eta, Nafta, Nasa, Opec, Apec).

For the average reader, I would argue there is little chance of
misinterpretation, and BBC certainly agrees. Besides that, because "NATO" is
pronounced "nay-toh", they spell it with an initial cap.

~~~
zeristor
Shouldn't that "Bbc" which looks odd to me?

~~~
detaro
How do you pronounce "Bbc" as a word, not as spelled-out letters?

~~~
gre
Beece

------
bovermyer
Once the USA has a sane commander-in-chief again, it's going to need to
completely overhaul its approach to the Eastern European region, among other
things.

~~~
MatthiasP
A sane commander that starts useless wars in the Middle East to transfer
billions of tax payer money to his donators?

~~~
criley2
It's been like 17 years since the US started a war in the Middle East. Your
talking points are a little dusty.

~~~
jessaustin
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_2019_United_States_ai...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_2019_United_States_airstrikes_in_Iraq_and_Syria)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_Civil_War_(2011)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_Civil_War_\(2011\))

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_civil_war](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_civil_war)

~~~
adventured
While I'm an advocate of the US entirely removing itself militarily from the
Middle East, none of those properly qualify against the parent's point.

The parent referred to starting wars. The first one doesn't qualify at all.

The US and NATO have intervened in the two civil wars (along with numerous
other countries; with France recently pleading with the US to remain in
Syria). It's an overreach to claim the US started the Libyan Civil War or the
Syrian Civil War, neither is true. The US was opportunistic in trying to
squeeze Syria's dictator Bashar al-Assad out (with Russia on the other side,
trying to prop up the dictatorship). Those civil wars are the inevitable
result of decades of extreme oppression by dictatorship, which will always end
in armed revolution.

~~~
DenisM
> The US and NATO have intervened in the two civil wars

It might have been a civil war at the start, but after that it was a war of
the US against two sovereign states. Nothing civil about that.

------
alexc05
Other than Russia, does any other nation state have a major problem with NATO?

Is there any reason to be opposed to the existence of NATO other than: "I'd
really like to invade country X, but can't because it's mean retaliation by
x,y,z & n"

~~~
runarberg
Not just nation states, but plenty of citizens—in and out of NATO member
states—have plenty of reasons to have quite a few problems with NATO, and
other military alliances, and any military, and state supported violence in
general.

------
winter_blue
If the recent HN story of Apple taking 30% of refunded purchases is any
indication, fabricated stories have a frighteningly strong staying power.

What was especially sad was that a highly knowledgeable group of people (HN)
were misled and deceived by the Apple story (which could have been easy
verified). If HN is so easily misled, how much more likely is the general
population vulnerable to these foreign-government-orchestrated intentional
information war campaigns?

~~~
cbg0
> highly knowledgeable group of people (HN) were misled and deceived

Just because you work a high paying job and you're very good at it, that
doesn't mean you are impervious to deceit.

