When I actually went to the Sanlitun embassy area, the closest thing to a riot was a stout Western woman walking her poodle outside the German embassy. Otherwise, it was too hot for anyone to bother go outside and everything was sleepy. The week's worth of rioting on CNN was shot during one day in a well-organized riot properly supervised by the local security officials.
There is no doubt the Chinese were genuinely offended, officials and public alike, but they wouldn't let such a thing cause disorder even though CNN etc. needed the drama.
My personal favorite (heard in Beijing in the early 2000s) was the story that the Chinese military were monitoring the newly deployed American stealth fighters during the Belgrade bombing and had managed to get radar lock on one (or more) of the F-117As from their embassy. The Americans, the story goes, wanted no more of this and bombed the Chinese embassy.
According to The Font of all Knowledge  three Chinese "reporters" were killed in what the CIA admitted was its own bombing operation. It has long been common knowledge that the Chinese government uses the Xinhua news agency as a cover for clandestine operatives .
True or false, it'still an inventive rumor.
If the background unhappy chatter is close to actionable (or is in the mind of the classifying algorithms), then actionable chatter (eg, actually planning an attack) can only be distinguished from background chatter near when the plans become "active" in some sense, and likely too late to meaningfully respond to. (To use a physics analogy: if you try to predict cavitation in flowing water really close to boiling, it's harder.)
In many senses, simply embracing openly that we're very angry as a society, even in the face of constant scrutiny, prevents that same constant scrutiny from determining when we're planning something. It can only really tell that we're pissed off, in general.
So I wouldn't call it 'by mistake', more like 'by design'.
As for staying off the wires. Thanks to the network effect you need to have a large portion of your network do the same.
The difference was in the number of police man in the coastal cjties. They were non existant which suggests that the regime was fighting in the unrest locations at full capacity. It never happened before.
NGOs. [yet again with silent (dumb?) downvotes in the same comment chain that mentions "network effects".]
OP proposes that staying "off wires" is a remedy. Simple point made is that intelligence agencies have recourse to wide ranging sensory networks, including NGOs (whether complicit or simply surveilled.)
NGOs (even in the case where you're having their help by carrying scanners around for you) aren't within orders of magnitude of the information collected by the average person carrying a cell-phone and tapping the network. You would have to install expensive and complex monitoring equipment over the entire city and install the backend to process it to get even close -- a capability that the US government doesn't have to do everywhere. Which is why they made use of already deployed networks in the first place.
Stopping their passive surveillance strips them of 90% of their power, and NGOs (or other organizations) don't put even a tiny dent in that change.
Which is why many of us were looking for a little more argument than what was given: it's not clear, at all, why either you or the original person thought that NGOs have anywhere near the penetration in to everyday life or surveillance capability that cellphones have.
NGOs tend to have overlapping members and social circles as grassroots organizations. They don't need to gather cell phone signal intelligence, they can just ask their staffers "what do you think of these protests?"
Different threat vector entirely.
My point was exactly that it's a different threat to have them have to collect human intelligence from NGOs rather than have every text message, phone call, email, etc from and up-to-the-minute location data on every person they're looking for intel on.
I don't care if the CIA can call up every NGO on the globe and talk to 50 different people there to get 50,000 reports on the current civil unrest across the globe, collate them down in to usable intelligence, and present that to our leaders. That's literally their job. They should do that. Lots of that. All of it they can. (I would be shocked if the CIA didn't already heavily extract intelligence from NGOs.)
It's just a completely different scale from being about to know where every person is minute-by-minute, and everything they say, text, email, read online, etc. forever, to be looked up and cross-referenced whenever you need. Particularly because the conversations with NGOs have to focus on targets of interest, while they can literally just watch every phone and digital transaction. All of them. All the time.
So I'll be blunt: you guys are just wrong that them being able to get any kind of intelligence from NGOs, be it sigint or humint, that would make up for the firehose of digital exchanges being shut down or rendered useless.
Yet, we never seem to be too interested in understanding and resolving the issues we have created which led to these reactions.
My feeling is that there is some conflict of interest here when it comes to fixing societies' woes and people who manufacture tear gas and drones. A lot of money to be made in keeping the status quo, what do you get from fixing the world?
But go and download that new social app, citizen. It has new stickers.
An abundance of profound happiness which, for now, unfortunately remains too invisible for too many people. But I have a feeling that this is about to begin to change now.
You could say "end the CIA" but that's sticking one's head in the sand -- as long as there are people, there are going to be bad people and groups. Obviously the determination of what is 'bad' isn't so simple.
This is a complex issue and redistributing money doesn't solve it.
Strangely enough, this seems to be the point of view of all the people who have the money. Funny how that works.
CIA and its counterparts elsewhere will be here as long as there are nations. Event if every countries were on friendly terms, which won't happen, there would still be conflicts of interest, and hence the desire to gain the upper hand via intelligence.
> as long as there are people, there are going to be bad people and groups
Proper education reduces the numbers of "bad" people.
This is an unsolvable problem. From the policymaker's point of view saying "deep learning told me so" is exactly the same as saying "god told me so"
If you’ve gathered enough wealth and your services are so efficient that their values skyrocket, but there’s no money left for anyone to afford them, then you’ve fallen victim to the seductive power of siren servers."
what the fuck is this author talking about? this is so incoherent. CIA can predict black swan events now and the super computers can accumulate so much wealth that no one can afford it? what is this website?
is this satire?
Suck this CIA.
>Tensing, who was fired from the department, was released from jail after posting 10% of $1-million bond. The county prosecutor called the shooting a “senseless act.” Tensing is scheduled to face a jury starting Oct. 24.
>Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck in January recommended criminal charges be brought against Officer Clifford Proctor, who fatally shot an unarmed black man in the back.
>Proctor told investigators he saw Glenn’s hand on his partner’s holster. But an LAPD report that drew upon security footage from a nearby bar in Venice found Glenn’s hand was nowhere near the holster.
>Michael Slager faces up to 30 years in prison if convicted of murder in the shooting death of Scott, who was running away on foot from a traffic stop in North Charleston, S.C., in April 2015. Scott was unarmed.
>The shooting was captured on cellphone video by a passerby. Slager fired eight times at Scott before he was killed, reigniting the debate over how blacks are treated by law enforcement officers.
>Slager, 34, was fired by the North Charleston Police Department and stands trial in October. Previously held in solitary confinement, he has been free since January, when he was released on $500,000 bail and put under house arrest. Last fall, North Charleston approved a $6.5-million civil settlement with Scott’s family.
>Peter Liang, a rookie New York City police officer, was convicted Feb. 11 of manslaughter in the death of Gurley.
>Liang was patrolling a public housing high-rise with his gun drawn in 2014 when he fired and a bullet ricocheted off a wall, hitting Gurley. Liang said he had been holding his weapon safely when a sound jarred him and he accidentally fired.
>In April, a judge reduced the conviction to negligent homicide and sentenced Liang to five years’ probation and 800 hours of community service.
>Chicago Police Officer Jason Van Dyke is charged with first-degree murder in the 2014 shooting death of black teenager McDonald. Van Dyke was charged in November on the same day that the city, on the orders of a judge, released the explosive dash-cam video showing McDonald being shot 16 times.
>On the night of the shooting, Van Dyke and his partner trailed McDonald for nearly half a mile, from a trucking yard where he was said to have been breaking into vehicles. The officers radioed for a Taser in order to apprehend McDonald, who they said was carrying a knife in the middle of the road. According to the video, the officers arrived 10 minutes after the first call and, within 21 seconds, Van Dyke had emptied his 16-round handgun.
with that in mind, i would say that they still have a lot of false positives...
We come out OK at the end of it!
It's pretty clear by now that for instance the "color revolutions" were instigated in a large part by the US government; social media manipulation was a prominent attack vector.
Besides, I'm quite sure that this other initiative is producing far more actionable data, even if it's hardly breaking news: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juQcZO_WnsI (2011)
There's the problem of guys like Michael Morrell, who have no operational experience but go on Charlie Rose and advocate murdering Russian and Syrian officials. Not that I disagree but why publicly talk about it? Morrell's an economist. The agency being run by political bureaucrats I suppose is inevitable but it's unfortunate.
However, my experience on the science and technology side is also lacking. There's some super smart people who seem to lack any directive of strategy. I sometimes think, is this guy really this ridiculous or is he levelling me?
I love the CIA and am biased in their favor, but I can't think of any personal experience that makes me have confidence in them. Perhaps they are good at operational missions, but they are run by bureaucrats and the science side has the lack of socially smart, well rounded individuals.
The mystique and aura of powerfulness is seductive but the reality of the world is, everyone is much stupider than you can imagine. It's a wonder the world works at all.
So if it is unfortunate, what classification of people, in your opinion, should be running it?
What a weird comment you have posted... You love the CIA? are you a sadist?
I am serious about that question, as while I agree that all states need their intelligence services - the CIA has done some downright EVIL shit. And if you "love the CIA" and are unfamiliar with their history, then you're a fucking moron.
Now, its not to say that the US needs to, in their own best interest, remain as a world super-power... and we shall -- but its to focus on the fact that we can do so in a better fashion.
I take the words "I love the CIA" to mean that you're either a sadist, a child of an op, or young and stupid, and by stupid - I just mean not critically thinking about what you have said/what your understanding of the CIA has done/is.
Again, The US will be the predominant power in the world for the foreseeable future, but have some humanity -- something the actions of the CIA fucking lack.
And if you love the CIA so much, you'll realize that they own this country, and that is not necessarily a good thing, you sound naive.
The US for example threatens adversaries before it acts. And sometimes it will not act even though she says so. (bluffing like in a poker game) The benefits as I see them is being somewhat more transparent.
The Russians on the other hand will not threaten. They want to keep all their options hidden. But when they come out saying they will do something they very likely will and sometimes this can look like an extreme escalation coming out of nowhere.
In the end we're creating something that people want to use and giving people something like Instagram for free is all the reward they deserve. If you Instagram where to pay their users they'd go bankrupt. It's not a viable business plan.
I also feel like he's missing the whole point of open source. No one ever said it would distribute wealth. Bryan Cantrill said it best: "You should open source your project because you never know when a magical little pony is gonna come flying by and shit out a fucking rainbow right in front of you.".
That makes no sense. It's not even wrong, it's a bunch of words strung together that don't mean anything.
"What we’re trying to do within a unit of my directorate [for Digital Innovation] is ... leverage what is becoming the instrumentation of the globe," [Deputy Director for Digital Innovation Andrew] Hallman added.
Of course the reason what I say is unlikely is because actually building the system, functional or not, would justify an ever expanding budget.
I need to RTFA, but this sounds like it might have relations to Peter Turchin's work on cliodynamics.
So much so, that I doubt the authenticity and accuracy of the information that presented.
I felt like it read a little more like a paranoid fringe article.
I mean "Siren" in this case is named for the seductive nature of the power of the servers (greek myth reference) as opposed to a "warning siren" sounding the alarm of unrest.
It gets worse, rambling on about the danger (and inevitability) if/when this power falls into the hands of corporate america.
Jaron Lanier coined the term. He's not entirely dismissable, but also not exactly tightly tuned to the heartbeat of the intel community AFAIU.
If it has not clicked for you then advertising network is a behaviour control mechanism.
The question is not in this. The question is in the scale of the operation and actual spread of the influence.