Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Plan To Fight The Internet Revealed
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."
Who cares? Honestly, it's not like you can just "target the Internet" to only those people you want. That's what makes it such a powerful medium, in a way.
-Erwos
Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
This is like the old dropping the leaflets out of the planes with the "Surrender or you will be attacked" in different languages. Still, during the current conflict the US has been found to have been paying newspapers to print positive stories about the war to influence public opinion - but with more and more ppl getting news from the internet spreading it there makes sense too. I don't like it though, think about it, we're fighting for "Iraqi's freedom" yet we shortcircut their right to freedom of the press? I know that's probably not a popular opinion around here, but wouldn't it be nice if we could rely on positive stories that no one was forced to write? Perhaps I'm being nieve.
Of course I'm also reminded of, "You have no chance to survive make your time. Ha Ha Ha Ha" which makes me smile.
fak3r.com
War Is Peace
Freedom Is Slavery
Ignorance Is Strength
My government can beat up your Internet.
Game... blouses.
Why is this even news? Military propoganda is as old as military history. It is, or should be, a very important component of any successful military strategy. And if the US military wasn't doing that, then they weren't doing their jobs (for which we taxpayers are paying them to do).
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.
We have plans on how to invade and conquer Canada. The Military has battle plans for every single contingency. That is how they work.
Truth be told, I would be worried if they *didn't* have plans for the Internet.
I can't believe the perfect picture they have for this story of Rumsfeld! It's like he's in the middle of saying, "All your base..."
g /_41265260_rumsfeld_afp203.jpg
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41265000/jp
fak3r.com
CNN ANCHOR SAYS WHAT WE ALL KNOW - THE 'NEWS' IS A GAME THAT DOESN'T WANT SUBSTANCE
... "Truth no longer matters in the context of politics and, sadly, in the context of cable news," said Aaron Brown, whose four-year period as anchor of CNN's NewsNight ended in November, when network executives gave his job to Anderson Cooper in a bid to push the show's ratings closer to front-runner Fox News. Brown said he tried to give viewers a balanced diet of light and serious news with NewsNight. "But I always knew when I got to the Brussels sprouts, I was on thin ice," he said."... ..."Many Americans on the left and the right aren't interested in the truth, but simply want news that confirms their viewpoints, he said. "You'd think that it's no more complex than good vs. evil," he said"...
w s/brown0126.html
http://www.palmbeachdailynews.com/news/content/ne
For a long time I had dismissed the idea of the military-industrial complex as being a mythology of overly paranoid conspiracy theorists.
After all, the term was introduced by well known paranoid conspiracy theorist, one Dwight D. Eisenhower in his famous speech 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?
I think you underrate the significance of this. The NSA may or may not field interns to learn how telcos work. So long as they do not a) listen in on any calls, b) change any calls, and c) give bias in any way then this is different.
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.
The alternative is state-run religious content
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.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.