sock.puppet.mil

[m k]

US spy operation that manipulates social media

Critics are likely to complain that it will allow the US military to create a false consensus in online conversations, crowd out unwelcome opinions and smother commentaries or reports that do not correspond with its own objectives.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-operation-social-networks

What are the countermeasures?
(assuming that the current ones are not enough)

[Jack21222]

This makes me quite nervous, but compared to activities like killing Iraqi civilians, it's not as harmful.

It's worth noting that these will not (officially anyway) be used on US sites.

[m k]

compared to activities like killing Iraqi civilians, it's not as harmful.

Until it gets one pack killing another pack.

[nismaratwork]

Welcome to Pys-Ops.

There is some irony in the thread title that is not lost on anyone I hope.

[Amp1]

I've thought that was a distinct possibility for some many, many moons.

[apeiron]

An example here perhaps (not military, but of the kind of thing you are talking about)...

http://earlywarn.blogspot.com/2011/03/comment-moderation-turned-on.html

[BobG]

Things like this have been happening for years in one form or another, but conducted by private citizens.

You should have tried googling for information on Judge George Greer during the Terry Schiavo fiasco. Probably 99% of the first 10 pages were links to Judge Greer hate sites that were just duplicates of each other.

Google had to tweak their search algorithms to lessen the impact of that sort of effort, but "jammers" still manage to dirty up search pages at least a little.

Personally, I think "jamming" social networking sites is a poor use of resources. A more effective effort would be to track and identify certain users so they can be monitored and apprehended. (De-anonymizing social network users by using browser history to determine group membership (http://blog.tech-and-law.com/2010/02/de-anonymizing-social-network-users-by.html))

[jhae2.718]

I've always thought that the spooks must love these social networking sites.

[Proton Soup]

This makes me quite nervous, but compared to activities like killing Iraqi civilians, it's not as harmful.

It's worth noting that these will not (officially anyway) be used on US sites.

what exactly do you think the social media manipulation is intended to facilitate?

[Amp1]

Let me take a wild guess...could public opinion be manipulated via social media?

[Alfi]

Let me take a wild guess...could public opinion be manipulated via social media?

My ( I hope to think ) opinion, is not really manipulated via social media.
Since I'm 'public' and I still have my opinion, I think you have to make some backup to that statement before I will agree with it.

[nismaratwork]

Let me take a wild guess...could public opinion be manipulated via social media?

The largest and most successful "viral marketing" campaign use this:

1.) They succeed, but they're not exactly making converts.
2.) If manipulation of a social network is discovered, anger and distrust follows. See Yelp.com
3.) You can only influence people so much, and usually in the general direction they were headed anyway.

In a battlespace however, convincing an enemy or even your own population of something could be... useful, even sowing doubt. I don't see how this is bound to be more effective than dropping leaflets however. Anyway... a tool is only ever as good or bad as the ends to which it is used.

[Jack21222]

what exactly do you think the social media manipulation is intended to facilitate?

I doubt it's for killing Iraqi citizens. I honestly don't think the military WANTS to kill citizens when they go to war, it's just one of those things that happens. When you send tens of thousands of people somewhere with guns and a license to kill, statistically speaking there is bound to be a few sociopaths in the bunch who go on a killing spree for fun. My cousin who just got out of the army told me of a few guys like that.

So, compared to that level of evil, I'm having trouble getting riled up over this news.

[russ_watters]

You're missing the point. Whether killing civilians is done on purpose or not is irrelevant: it happens and it has a substantial impact on public opinion. The general purpose of the psy-ops (I'm not sure why they call it spying - it isn't) is to increase support for some military goal. That could include downplaying an accidental killing of a civilian (such as the Iraqi reporters that were killed and the video put on Wikileaks) to keep it from damaging the war effort.

[m k]

It's worth noting that these will not (officially anyway) be used on US sites.

Seems to be quite "officially anyway", if a senator is seen as a bigger issue than a group of unknown citizens.

Petraeus names officer in charge of "psy-ops" story investigation (http://www.stripes.com/petraeus-names-officer-in-charge-of-psy-ops-story-investigation-1.136924?localLinksEnabled=false)

Another Runaway General (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/another-runaway-general-army-deploys-psy-ops-on-u-s-senators-20110223)

[m k]

[edited by mod]

U.S. struggles to counter Taliban propaganda (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/01/AR2010100106644.html)
Quite hopeless, being social media operator and against state level infiltration, if above can be compared.
Partial solution is of cource meetings, photos and so on but analyzing one out using only online stuff feels very theoretical.

[nismaratwork]

[edited by mod]

Back to the topic, I'm still unclear how psy-ops on any group is new, or undesirable.

[m k]

Undesirable, both ways?

I think for example PF staff would at least partially disagree, or at least I would in their shoes.

[nismaratwork]

Undesirable, both ways?

I think for example PF staff would at least partially disagree, or at least I would in their shoes.

It depends on the kind of psy-op you want, and what your goal is. I don't think you can consider any given infiltration or bit of misinformation as being a "psy-op". I also tend to agree with BobG that simple jamming is a waste of resources, although I'd add it can still be useful over 24-36 hours (looking at Egypt for isntance).

The most successful psy-ops have been simple: dropping leaflets in the native language explaining what's happening, or causing some measure of fear through specific targeting mechanisms. One kind of psy-op would be what we've seen in Libya: two cruise missiles dropped directly on the same building in the heart of Ghaddailand (Al Aziziyah). That's not a practical strike, that's meant to be demoralizing, to disrupt C&C, and schisms in the ranks.

[m k]

The goal is effective countermeasures using only available online information.

[nismaratwork]

The goal is effective countermeasures using only available online information.

Those countermeasures already exist, but there is risk in employing them against your own government, especially if your regime will kill you for trying.

CoTDC has done quite a bit of work in this area for instance.

[Borg]

I had to laugh when I read what the title was referring to. I can picture the military naming the project Sock Puppet. I then started picturing generals at the Pentagon getting their daily Sock Puppet report. :rofl:

But seriously, what is surprising about this? A military or government spreading propaganda to benefit themselves? Or that they're using the latest technology to do it? As nismaratwork stated, simple operations can be very effective. The programming for this isn't that complex for a group of programmers who know what they're doing.

[Proton Soup]

i thought it sounded a bit sophomoric myself. so they're not doing this in-house, they're doing what? paying hollywood screenwriters to write up character descriptions? set up some proxies and bookmark a few forums? if you've got an actor juggling 10 different characters, just how much information do you think he can handle? probably not more than one sheet of well-spaced, large-type data sitting on a second screen.

[nismaratwork]

I had to laugh when I read what the title was referring to. I can picture the military naming the project Sock Puppet. I then started picturing generals at the Pentagon getting their daily Sock Puppet report. :rofl:

But seriously, what is surprising about this? A military or government spreading propaganda to benefit themselves? Or that they're using the latest technology to do it? As nismaratwork stated, simple operations can be very effective. The programming for this isn't that complex for a group of programmers who know what they're doing.

Oddysey Dawn... I can buy Sock Puppet. :rofl:

Hell, I wouldn't be shocked if that was a code-word at some point.

[nismaratwork]

i thought it sounded a bit sophomoric myself. so they're not doing this in-house, they're doing what? paying hollywood screenwriters to write up character descriptions? set up some proxies and bookmark a few forums? if you've got an actor juggling 10 different characters, just how much information do you think he can handle? probably not more than one sheet of well-spaced, large-type data sitting on a second screen.

Maybe they're working with MS' viral advertisers for Halo? :wink:

Mountain Dew, enriched with love for Uncle Sam! :rofl:

[m k]

But seriously, what is surprising about this?

Nothing, and that's why I thougt people will rush in en masse with their wild ideas.

I've also tried to find good example links but I just don't speak google that well.

[BobG]

Impersonating existing users via bugs in forum software (vBulletin bug for example (http://www.vbulletin.com/forum/showthread.php/361933-Issue-with-the-ability-to-quot-impersonate-quot-a-user)) would be more effective - especially if a popular user receives private messages. The impersonator could have the option of discrediting a forum 'leader' via bogus posts or of gaining access to the user's closest associates via PMs.

This would be more consistent with articles saying the military would only do this on foreign language websites, since impersonating a person, whether in real life or on the internet, is illegal in the US.

[Proton Soup]

Impersonating existing users via bugs in forum software (vBulletin bug for example (http://www.vbulletin.com/forum/showthread.php/361933-Issue-with-the-ability-to-quot-impersonate-quot-a-user)) would be more effective - especially if a popular user receives private messages. The impersonator could have the option of discrediting a forum 'leader' via bogus posts or of gaining access to the user's closest associates via PMs.

This would be more consistent with articles saying the military would only do this on foreign language websites, since impersonating a person, whether in real life or on the internet, is illegal in the US.

yeah, i can already see your friends list, so i know who you choose to openly associate with, even if i can't read private messages.

funny thing about PMs, i tend to avoid them like the plague. i prefer to keep dialog in the open whenever possible. also, communicating in the open forum feels less "compelled" to me than PMs.

[BobG]

yeah, i can already see your friends list, so i know who you choose to openly associate with, even if i can't read private messages.



The countermeasure to having people see your friends list is friend farming - bulking up your friends list to incredibly high levels by not only friending everyone you know, but friending everyone your friends know. Plus, it makes you look incredibly popular to have so many friends on Facebook.

[nismaratwork]

The countermeasure to having people see your friends list is friend farming - bulking up your friends list to incredibly high levels by not only friending everyone you know, but friending everyone your friends know. Plus, it makes you look incredibly popular to have so many friends on Facebook.

A quick check on activity between such friends is telling however, and absurdly easy to track in a forum or other online venue.

[Proton Soup]

so apparently, there is this guy named Cass Sunstein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cass_Sunstein) who works for Obama.

sock puppets as a way to mold public opinion just may be his baby, as he's proposed it before:
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/15/sunstein
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1084585

his homepage is currently 404'd: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/regulatory_affairs/default/

from wiki, he has some particularly disturbing views on free speech. apparently, he's a little put out that his views aren't getting the attention they deserve. maybe more attention is exactly what Sunstein needs. they say sunlight is the best disinfectant, so i will do my wee part here to put him under the magnifying glass.
First Amendment

In his book Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech Sunstein says there is a need to reformulate First Amendment law. He thinks that the current formulation, based on Justice Holmes' conception of free speech as a marketplace “disserves the aspirations of those who wrote America’s founding document.”[14] The purpose of this reformulation would be to “reinvigorate processes of democratic deliberation, by ensuring greater attention to public issues and greater diversity of views.”[15] He is concerned by the present “situation in which like-minded people speak or listen mostly to one another,”[16] and thinks that in “light of astonishing economic and technological changes, we must doubt whether, as interpreted, the constitutional guarantee of free speech is adequately serving democratic goals.”[17] He proposes a “New Deal for speech [that] would draw on Justice Brandeis' insistence on the role of free speech in promoting political deliberation and citizenship.”[15]

and apparently, covert propaganda isn't even legal in the US.
http://www.prwatch.org/node/7261

[WhoWee]

Don't forget the Mrs. (Cass Sunstein) ->>> Samantha Power.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/16/magazine/16Sunstein-t.html

[Proton Soup]

Don't forget the Mrs. (Cass Sunstein) ->>> Samantha Power.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/16/magazine/16Sunstein-t.html

yeah, i have her book (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Problem_from_Hell). still waiting to see how she turns out. whether marginally better than the old school, or just more of the same. so far tho, our intervention policy does not seem to deviate from the american interests only routine.