Slashdot Log In
U.S. Plan To Fight The Internet Revealed
Posted by
Zonk
on Fri Jan 27, 2006 02:46 PM
from the keep-the-net-ditch-the-government dept.
from the keep-the-net-ditch-the-government dept.
geniese writes "The BBC is reporting on a recently declassified document that details the U.S. Military's intentions regarding warfare and the Internet." From the article: "Perhaps the most startling aspect of the roadmap is its acknowledgement that information put out as part of the military's psychological operations, or Psyops, is finding its way onto the computer and television screens of ordinary Americans. 'Information intended for foreign audiences, including public diplomacy and Psyops, is increasingly consumed by our domestic audience,' it reads."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Are you sure *I* didn't submit this? (Score:3, Interesting)
So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
-Erwos
Re:So what? (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:So what? (Score:5, Interesting)
The GOP did something similar a few years back for the presidental elections. Howard (the Scream) Dean had this supposed huge following by people on the internet. Suddenly, out of nowhere, hundreds of blogs showed up supporting Bush/Cheney. This would, under normal circumstances, seem nothing odd except for the fact that many of these blogs were owned by only a handful of "special interests" groups. Now why the hell, as an individual, would you want more than one blog? The GOP, unlike their Democrat rivals, also do not use the idea of the "cosistant message". This is a message that all senators, talk show hosts, and radio personnel who support the GOP have to say on a given day or event. By spreading a similar message it gives the appearance to common folk that a majority of people feel one way on a given topic.
Now, we must understand that this is not new for the DoD to be engaged in propoganda wars on its own people. This was done, what, like every war? I think it stinks and if weren't for Bush breaking the law with the wiretapping crap, I think this would be just water under the bridge. But I think people are really starting to wonder if our government is taking it just a little too far...
Parent
Re:So what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly. When I read the description of the article, my mind replied in a sarcastic tone, "There's a real shocker".
Seriously, if you don't know that our military (and to varying extents, other branches of government) interface through the public through very ruthless PR machines (both with external PR firms and internal work) that are willing to do almost anything if they think that it will help them with their current policy objectives, you've not been paying attention.
Parent
Wow, and update of the leaflet idea (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course I'm also reminded of, "You have no chance to survive make your time. Ha Ha Ha Ha" which makes me smile.
Re:Wow, and update of the leaflet idea (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wow, and update of the leaflet idea (Score:5, Insightful)
What, not to be confused with the thoughtful, even-handed coverage from Al Jazeera? Come on. Regardless, there are over 100 independent newspapers in Baghdad alone [bbc.co.uk], and people throughout that country get their news from all sorts of media outlets. If PR officers working in the country make a point of getting local journalists to also present the positive things that are going on, I can hardly find fault there. No one is suggesting that false news is being delivered, only that in a handful of outlets, there's incentive to also bother reporting on things like new electricity grid connections, newly built schools, newly graduated classes of police officers, newly built bridges, new water pumping stations, the vast influx of new personal vehicles and merchants, etc. Don't confuse it with propoganda, and don't forget the overwhelmingly negative spin that outlets like Al Jazeera employ to rile up (and keep) an audience... and which need the counterweight of some actual reporting on positive developments within the country.
But regardless, surely you're not suggesting that there was anything even remotely resembling a free press under Saddam? People were put through industrial shredders in front of their children for pointing out in a leaflet or simple conversation that Saddam's strapping young sons were doped-up, homicidal, mysoginistic rapists and thoroughly corrupt punks. Now, people can write about that all they want, they can print and distribute political cartoons all they want, and they can hop on the internet and blog to their heart's content about anything they want. The contrast is startling, and the 79% of the population that just ratified their new constitution (with far, far more of them voting per capita than in the US on any subject) spent the weeks leading up to that and other votes forming their opinions through the newly born local press as well as other channels.
Parent
Re:Wow, and update of the leaflet idea (Score:5, Informative)
Check out their web site [aljazeera.net] sometime, instead of taking FOX's word for everything.
Parent
Re:Wow, and update of the leaflet idea (Score:4, Interesting)
a) Al Jazeera.net is not the same as Al Jazeera broadcast.
b) Al Jazeera is popular in the states with corrupt govenments because it points thoose out.
c) Al Jazeera is not popular in Iraq. Iraqi's often complain that Al Jazeera encourages terrorists.
Parent
Re:Wow, and update of the leaflet idea (Score:5, Informative)
Aljazeera.net is the online version of the same Aljazeera. [aljazeera.net]
That's a quote from their "About" page.
Parent
Better than really bad is not the same as good. (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think that's the only alternative.
A network that treats the release of a new Bin Laden tape like some sort of surprise Super Bowl isn't entirely helping matters. They certainly don't want to chase away their Arab viewership, but calling every Palestinian that blows up a bus a "martyr" only makes matters worse, not better. So what if they host talk shows that provide equal access to all flavors of idealogy in the Arab world? Not all flavors are rational or would even tolerate Al Jazeera's existence on soil they would rule, given the chance. I'm all for allowing idiots to air their opinions, the better to examine their idiocy, but the celebration (through endless airplay loops, followed by masked readings of last words by the killers) of things like suicide attacks on children and police cadets is absurd, and can't be construed as "liberal" nor helping secularism.
That Al Jazeera is, by local cultural standards, independent-minded and "edgy" in their editorial policies does not make them supportive of those people that are actually striving to produce states in which freedom of expression is built into the constitution. Making heros out of people that wantonly and indiscriminantly kill the people working on such is BS. They can and should do better, if they truly want their Arab brothers and sisters to enjoy the independence and relative liberty that they, in their sponsored coziness in Qatar, already have.
Parent
Re:Wow, and update of the leaflet idea (Score:5, Interesting)
An upgrade of the leaflet idea is actually in the document. There is a requirement for a precision-guided leaflet canister. (That's easy to do. The "smart bomb" kit, the Joint Direct Attack Munition [boeing.com], is actually a strap-on unit for dumb bombs. All that's needed is a compatible leaflet can.)
"This message has been delivered by a precision-guided leaflet bomb aimed at you. If this had been a real bomb, you would now be dead. If you want to surrender, drop your weapons and walk east. Have a nice day."
Parent
Re:Wow, and update of the leaflet idea (Score:5, Interesting)
Disagree. We aren't short cicuiting anything. Every major enterprise in the world has a public relations function of some kind. The isn't just governments, that is large corporations, small buisnesses, and individuals. At least the ones that have any money to gain or lose based on popular opinion. They do these things called "Press Releases" that put the organization's spin on events. Why the refinery explosion isn't as bad as it seems, how the layoffs are going to help the economy, why discovering the tainted baby formula shows the system really works. The US government is no different in that respect at all.
The only "legs" in this story is that it somehow offends US media sensibility to find out that newsies in other countries accept money for stories. It wasn't so long ago in the US that newspapers and radio were radically and obviously partisan (W R Hearst anyone? How about Rupert Murdoch?). If you walk into some strugling paper in Iraq or elsewhere and plunk down $1000 and say "run this", most will bite. I suspect you can still do it in the US too, but the Gods of Media have decreed it to be impossible and immoral and therefore nonexistent.
Parent
Still are, and always were, biased. (Score:4, Informative)
It wasn't so long ago in the US that newspapers and radio were radically and obviously partisan (W R Hearst anyone? How about Rupert Murdoch?).
Papers were partisan then. Papers are still partisan. Papers were partisan centuries ago. Papers have been partisan since there were papers.
The constitutional mandate for a free press was installed by a group that included (at least) one publisher of a very partisan paper.
The benefit of a free press is that ANY partisin viewpoint can get published, rather than ONLY those that agree with the partisan position of a limited number of powerful people.
= = = =
As you point out, a free press isn't shortcircuited by buying placement for a story. (That actually increases it, both by getting another viewpoint out and supporting the publishers operation, reducing the risk it will fold.)
What WOULD shortcircuit the free press would be to pay (or intimidate) publishers to NOT run a competing story - or do it to enough of them that the story gets suppressed.
Parent
Re:Wow, and update of the leaflet idea (Score:3, Insightful)
Propaganda is apparently often more insidious than that [vho.org]. The British propaganda messages of WWI spectacularly backfired in WWII: if you lie in WWI about industrial production of glue from human bodies by the Germans, nobody will believe you if you tell them in WWII that the Germans are gassing the Jews and turning them into soap. The part about the soap is an untruth, btw, and one
Psyops and CNN. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: ex-CNN anchor: Yeah we lie - So what? (Score:4, Interesting)
http://www.palmbeachdailynews.com/news/content/ne
Parent
Re:Psyops and CNN. (Score:3, Interesting)
Protest. (Score:5, Interesting)
CNN is a news organization whose role is to disseminate fair and accurate news. As such their role as a neutral player means that they must or should present the news accurately and without bias. We the American Taxpayers turn to them to learn, among other things what it is our military is doing and how well they are doing it so that we may make informed decisions as voters.
They included, during wartime, people whose sole job is to present false or misleading information to support specific ends. Their specic role is to bolster public perception of the military in order to boost their ends. This is entirely orthagonal to the role of a news organization.
The U.S. Military is not, or should not be allowed to propagandize the American People. Restrictions were put in place following the revalations about lies that led to and sustained the Vietnam war (see the Pentagon Papers). Accurate information is necessary for democracy to function without it abuses of power cannot be recognized and checked. If the U.S. Military is lying to the American people then this represents a fundamental danger to our democracy and cannot be tolerated.
If CNN was biased or even gave the appearence of bias in any way then they have surrendered their status as an unbiased source of news. They cannot be trusted and should not.
Parent
Re:Protest. (Score:4, Interesting)
Any bias in the information, especially bias placed by those who should answer to me clearly is unacceptable.
Parent
The Internet Fights Back, World Totally Crippled (Score:4, Funny)
Why go through all the fuss of briefing journalists, thought manipulation and the destruction of networks when all they really need to do is just hire Magneto. [marveldirectory.com]
Overdone, but never more applicable (Score:4, Insightful)
Freedom Is Slavery
Ignorance Is Strength
Re:Overdone, but never more applicable (Score:5, Informative)
George W. Bush
June 18, 2002
Parent
Okay Sphinx (Score:3, Insightful)
Mr. Furious: Your rage will become your master? That's what you were going to say. Right? Right?
Damn straight! (Score:5, Funny)
It's just old tactics on new medium (Score:4, Insightful)
eh (Score:4, Interesting)
This makes more sense if you replace "every telephone" etc. with "specific devices in order to accomplish tactical objectives," and append "knock out" with "manipulate" or "eavesdrop upon."
Which is not to say that it's necessarily a good thing...but it's probably not even likely to happen. The US military establishment spends a lot of time talking about doing things like this, but rarely actually takes the proper steps to accomplish its goals.
Where's the news? (Score:5, Insightful)
Really, the only thing which is interesting is that the US national media seem to be picking up military propoganda more and more as it's distributed abroad, and then repackaging and redistributing it to the US market. So that's a sign that either the propoganda is very successful, or that the US media is rather poor on fact checking. Of course the media rebroadcast military propoganda quite a bit back in the World Wars, but I think it was common knowledge that it was being done. Today, the media does a very poor job of informing the public where or how it obtains its information.
That they are "targeting" the net should not be surprising either. It is their jobs to plan how to counter-attack any possible attack of the enemy. And frankly this should include what to do if the enemy manages to infiltrate the Internet as we know it. This planning should not be misinterpreted as thinking the US military wants to take down the Internet. Instead they want to be prepared if the enemy takes it down, or takes it over.
Re:Where's the news? (Score:3, Insightful)
Really, the only thing which is interesting is that the US national media seem to be picking up military propoganda more and more as it's distributed abroad, and then repackaging and redistributing it to the US market.
That's newsworthy in my book.
If the military is increasingly duping the organism that controls it, that's a problem. That means the military has more control than it's supposed to.
Further, our laws don't really have anything to stop this. (Suggesting action.)
Re:Where's the news? (Score:5, Insightful)
The US Government acknowledges that in the effort to misinform non-americans whom they disagree with, they are actually spreading misinformation to their own people. Since they can no longer apply psyops with precision, they will try to spread misinformation globally - across all media - to everyone, including to their own people. The enemy can't be targed, so they'll target everyone. If they target everyone who are they serving and protecting? Themselves and business, under the guise of "a way of life for us all". That's basically fascism. And that's news.
Parent
Why is anything news? (Score:3, Insightful)
You have very high standards for news. Look at todays headlines. Can you find anything that hasn't happened before? Crimes, wars, elections, earthquakes, all of these things have happened many times before, and should by your standards not be reported.
And now, the rest of the story... (Score:3, Insightful)
The document's authors acknowledge that American news media should not unwittingly broadcast military propaganda. "Specific boundaries should be established," they write.
It's not quite like the summary seems to imply.
Why is this a surprise to anybody? (Score:5, Interesting)
Truth be told, I would be worried if they *didn't* have plans for the Internet.
Re:Why is this a surprise to anybody? (Score:3, Funny)
In other news, Canada has announced the release of a new Terrance & Phillip movie...
Re:Why is this a surprise to anybody? (Score:3, Interesting)
The Military has battle plans for every single contingency. That is how they work.
I don't think it's the fact that the military has a plan for using the Internet, I think it's the plan itself of trying to prevent the militaries own propoganda from appearing in the US. That sounds a lot like government control of a free press, so it makes a lot of us who believe in democracy nervous.
Re:Why is this a surprise to anybody? (Score:4, Funny)
Assuming some sort of master plan developed by an act of genius fails when it hits political expediency. The US intelligence community looks like a complete joke internationally due to political expediency skewing any reality in favour for a useful fiction (WMD - Niger Uranium etc) and calling anything of merit into question as well. The propaganda backfires when absolutely cretinous things are done. In the first gulf war a news story was fabricated about nurses getting raped in a hospitial in kuwait - with the daughter of an ambassator working as the voice actress for the story. There were plenty of real stories of real atrocities without making something up and so making others doubt the real stories. It has gotten to the point where citizens of US allies and government agencies of US allies do not trust information that comes from the USA.
Just give horse judges and drug addicts a bit less power in these situations and you may see some decent plans.
Parent
Picture perfect (Score:5, Funny)
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41265000/jp
Introducing the billion dollar backhoe (Score:3, Funny)
Scarier and scarier (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Scarier and scarier (Score:5, Informative)
After all, the term was introduced by well known paranoid conspiracy theorist, one Dwight D. Eisenhower in his famous speech [yale.edu] of 1961:
: This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
Honestly, 45 years later reading this is giving me creeps. Isn't the Cold War and its aftermath just the Eisenhower's dark scenario embodied?
Parent
They think we need more propoganda? (Score:3, Insightful)
Given this situation the government feels it needs new outlets for propaganda? If nothing else, such programs would be an obvious waste of our tax dollars. American are subjected to enough propaganda as it is. If we want to send propaganda overseas, all we have to do is let them watch our major news outlets. After all, most Americans are already listening to either Rush Limbaugh or Fox News. What else could a right wing government that promotes torture, major polluters, and snooping on its citizens possibly want for its citizens and the citizens of other countries?
Backhoe (Score:3, Insightful)
Does this even make sense anymore? (Score:3, Insightful)
The document's authors acknowledge that American news media should not unwittingly broadcast military propaganda. "Specific boundaries should be established," they write.
Does this even make sense anymore? What about all the people who watch BBC news or Al-Jazerra on satelite TV / digital cable?
In this era of globalization, unless they totally block these channels (and international news websites like bbc.co.uk) out wholesale, it's kinda hard for the military to control all the information disseminated to the populace. Propeganda *is going to ge through*.
And if they *did* block them out, it'd be pretty obvious something was going on.
Looks like our government screwed up this time. (Score:3, Interesting)
1) Create a new inter networking protocol to allow our many disparate computer systems to seamlessly share data across a unified "internetwork". Check.
2) Ensure that the networking protocol is robust enough to withstand forseeable battlefield attacks while still providing seamless data access. Check.
3) Share the technology with the world, knowing that we can disable that technology when we need --
NO! DON'T SHARE THE TECHNOLOGY UNTIL AFTER WE KNOW HOW TO DISABLE IT!! Damn! I knew we missed something!
Witness the fact that when we invaded Iraq, our first target (as always) was the Command and Control infrastructure. Sure, we were able to knock their radio, television and telephonic communications down, but we were never able to fully disable their internet, which was used against us in that instance.
Now we have to deal with excessive blowback from Psyops. I'd be happy to help - d'you suppose they'd give me one of those fancy Psi-badges and let me wear gloves like the other Psi-cops? Oh, wait . . . wrong reality.
Distrubing Trends (Score:3, Insightful)
Ugh. And the BBC isn't propaganda. . ? (Score:3, Informative)
Thank you.
The BBC is also a psy-ops tool, so this article has a purpose and a design beyond telling the truth. --Because one of THE most important targets of a psyops war is your own population. It is essential to control the thinking of the masses if you want to keep those tax dollars flowing and your heads of state off the gallows.
-FL
Re:Overlords (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Translation... (Score:3, Interesting)
2. Having been in the military for many years, I'm not surprised that the document does not contain specifics. It's a strategic overview (and pretty high level since Rumsfeld signed off on it). The details are left to those who handle the implement
Re:Of truthtelling or run-of-the-mill sensationali (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent