Re: How Covert Agents Infiltrate the Internet to Manipulate, Deceive, and Destroy Reputations

On 9/30/2021 3:07 PM, Dhruv wrote:
> On Thursday, September 30, 2021 at 9:38:49 AM UTC-7, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> 
> -squawk-
> 
> Please note how "covert agent" FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer is
> trying to manipulate, "DECEIVE" and DESTROY the reputation
> of the gentleman Went Kills.
> 
> https://groups.google.com/search/conversations?q=FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer%20Kent%20Wills
> 




WHITE FILTH like you are an EVIL VIRUS which should be MERCILESSLY 
MASSACRED to make human species BETTER.

Dumb whites like John Hall and Richard Dixon and the rest on this 
newsgroup don't have EVEN the basic logic and common sense to understand 
that YOU with email id [email protected] are a CIA NSA MI6 MI5 ASIS ASIO 
Psychopath which SECRETLY CHIPPED them and millions of humans and 
operating them like fucking PUPPETS.

They are SO DUMB, they don't understand that "What you are doing here" 
is EXACTLY what Greenwald and Snowden REVEALED about you.

That's HOW DUMB they are.



KENT WILLS is ONE of the Secret Society Psychopaths who DON'T WANT to 
file a police case against me BECAUSE it will HARM HIM and the REST of 
the SHADOW GOVT which will GET EXPOSED.


ALL OF YOU SHOULD DOWNLOAD this PSYCHOPATH "Kent Wills" PICTURE and FILE 
A COMPLAINT with FBI and POLICE
https://groups.google.com/g/uk.sport.cricket/c/TppCJLl1JOw/m/_eL7mH8DAgAJ




Western Whites DON'T UNDERSTAND the mentality, DNA and Modus Operandi of 
their "fellow whites".

=======================================================================

https://theintercept.com/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/

How Covert Agents Infiltrate the Internet to Manipulate, Deceive, and 
Destroy Reputations

One of the many pressing stories that remains to be told from the 
Snowden archive is how western intelligence agencies are attempting to 
manipulate and control online discourse with "extreme tactics of 
deception and reputation-destruction."

Glenn Greenwald



One of the many pressing stories that remains to be told from the 
Snowden archive is how western intelligence agencies are attempting to 
manipulate and control online discourse with extreme tactics of 
deception and reputation-destruction. It’s time to tell a chunk of that 
story, complete with the relevant documents.

Over the last several weeks, I worked with NBC News to publish a series 
of articles about “dirty trick” tactics used by GCHQ’s previously secret 
unit, JTRIG (Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group). These were based 
on four classified GCHQ documents presented to the NSA and the other 
three partners in the English-speaking “Five Eyes” alliance. Today, we 
at the Intercept are publishing another new JTRIG document, in full, 
entitled “The Art of Deception: Training for Online Covert Operations.”

By publishing these stories one by one, our NBC reporting highlighted 
some of the key, discrete revelations: the monitoring of YouTube and 
Blogger, the targeting of Anonymous with the very same DDoS attacks they 
accuse “hacktivists” of using, the use of “honey traps” (luring people 
into compromising situations using sex) and destructive viruses. But, 
here, I want to focus and elaborate on the overarching point revealed by 
all of these documents: namely, that these agencies are attempting to 
control, infiltrate, manipulate, and warp online discourse, and in doing 
so, are compromising the integrity of the internet itself.

Among the core self-identified purposes of JTRIG are two tactics: (1) to 
inject all sorts of false material onto the internet in order to destroy 
the reputation of its targets; and (2) to use social sciences and other 
techniques to manipulate online discourse and activism to generate 
outcomes it considers desirable. To see how extremist these programs 
are, just consider the tactics they boast of using to achieve those 
ends: “false flag operations” (posting material to the internet and 
falsely attributing it to someone else), fake victim blog posts 
(pretending to be a victim of the individual whose reputation they want 
to destroy), and posting “negative information” on various forums. Here 
is one illustrative list of tactics from the latest GCHQ document we’re 
publishing today:

Other tactics aimed at individuals are listed here, under the revealing 
title “discredit a target”:

Then there are the tactics used to destroy companies the agency targets:


GCHQ describes the purpose of JTRIG in starkly clear terms: “using 
online techniques to make something happen in the real or cyber world,” 
including “information ops (influence or disruption).”

Critically, the “targets” for this deceit and reputation-destruction 
extend far beyond the customary roster of normal spycraft: hostile 
nations and their leaders, military agencies, and intelligence services. 
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”, meaning those who use online protest 
activity for political ends.

The title page of one of these documents reflects the agency’s own 
awareness that it is “pushing the boundaries” by using “cyber offensive” 
techniques against people who have nothing to do with terrorism or 
national security threats, and indeed, centrally involves law 
enforcement agents who investigate ordinary crimes:

No matter your views on Anonymous, “hacktivists” or garden-variety 
criminals, it is not difficult to see how dangerous it is to have secret 
government agencies being able to target any individuals they want – who 
have never been charged with, let alone convicted of, any crimes – with 
these sorts of online, deception-based tactics of reputation destruction 
and disruption. There is a strong argument to make, as Jay Leiderman 
demonstrated in the Guardian in the context of the Paypal 14 hacktivist 
persecution, that the “denial of service” tactics used by hacktivists 
result in (at most) trivial damage (far less than the cyber-warfare 
tactics favored by the US and UK) and are far more akin to the type of 
political protest protected by the First Amendment.

The broader point is that, far beyond hacktivists, these surveillance 
agencies have vested themselves with the power to deliberately ruin 
people’s reputations and disrupt their online political activity even 
though they’ve been charged with no crimes, and even though their 
actions have no conceivable connection to terrorism or even national 
security threats. As Anonymous expert Gabriella Coleman of McGill 
University told me, “targeting Anonymous and hacktivists amounts to 
targeting citizens for expressing their political beliefs, resulting in 
the stifling of legitimate dissent.” Pointing to this study she 
published, Professor Coleman vehemently contested the assertion that 
“there is anything terrorist/violent in their actions.”

Government plans to monitor and influence internet communications, and 
covertly infiltrate online communities in order to sow dissension and 
disseminate false information, have long been the source of speculation. 
Harvard Law Professor Cass Sunstein, a close Obama adviser and the White 
House’s former head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 
wrote a controversial paper in 2008 proposing that the US government 
employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-”independent” advocates to 
“cognitively infiltrate” online groups and websites, as well as other 
activist groups.

Sunstein also proposed sending covert agents into “chat rooms, online 
social networks, or even real-space groups” which spread what he views 
as false and damaging “conspiracy theories” about the government. 
Ironically, the very same Sunstein was recently named by Obama to serve 
as a member of the NSA review panel created by the White House, one that 
– while disputing key NSA claims – proceeded to propose many cosmetic 
reforms to the agency’s powers (most of which were ignored by the 
President who appointed them).

But these GCHQ documents are the first to prove that a major western 
government is using some of the most controversial techniques to 
disseminate deception online and harm the reputations of targets. Under 
the tactics they use, the state is deliberately spreading lies on the 
internet about whichever individuals it targets, including the use of 
what GCHQ itself calls “false flag operations” and emails to people’s 
families and friends. Who would possibly trust a government to exercise 
these powers at all, let alone do so in secret, with virtually no 
oversight, and outside of any cognizable legal framework?

Then there is the use of psychology and other social sciences to not 
only understand, but shape and control, how online activism and 
discourse unfolds. Today’s newly published document touts the work of 
GCHQ’s “Human Science Operations Cell,” devoted to “online human 
intelligence” and “strategic influence and disruption”:

We submitted numerous questions to GCHQ, including: (1) Does GCHQ in 
fact engage in “false flag operations” where material is posted to the 
Internet and falsely attributed to someone else?; (2) Does GCHQ engage 
in efforts to influence or manipulate political discourse online?; and 
(3) Does GCHQ’s mandate include targeting common criminals (such as 
boiler room operators), or only foreign threats?

As usual, they ignored those questions and opted instead to send their 
vague and nonresponsive boilerplate: “It is a longstanding policy that 
we do not comment on intelligence matters. Furthermore, all of GCHQ’s 
work is carried out in accordance with a strict legal and policy 
framework which ensures that our activities are authorised, necessary 
and proportionate, and that there is rigorous oversight, including from 
the Secretary of State, the Interception and Intelligence Services 
Commissioners and the Parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee. 
All our operational processes rigorously support this position.”

These agencies’ refusal to “comment on intelligence matters” – meaning: 
talk at all about anything and everything they do – is precisely why 
whistleblowing is so urgent, the journalism that supports it so clearly 
in the public interest, and the increasingly unhinged attacks by these 
agencies so easy to understand. Claims that government agencies are 
infiltrating online communities and engaging in “false flag operations” 
to discredit targets are often dismissed as conspiracy theories, but 
these documents leave no doubt they are doing precisely that.

Whatever else is true, no government should be able to engage in these 
tactics: what justification is there for having government agencies 
target people – who have been charged with no crime – for 
reputation-destruction, infiltrate online political communities, and 
develop techniques for manipulating online discourse? But to allow those 
actions with no public knowledge or accountability is particularly 
unjustifiable.