Slashdot Mirror
Obama Appointee Sunstein Favors Infiltrating Online Groups
megamerican writes "President Barack Obama's appointee to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs advocated in a recent paper the 'cognitive infiltration' of groups that advocate 'conspiracy theories' like the ones surrounding 9/11 via 'chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine' those groups. Sunstein admits that 'some conspiracy theories, under our definition, have turned out to be true' Sunstein has also recently advocated banning websites which post 'right-wing rumors' and bringing back the Fairness Doctrine. You can find a PDF of his paper here. For decades (1956-1971), the FBI under COINTELPRO focused on disrupting, marginalizing and neutralizing political dissidents, most notably the Black Panthers. More recently CENTCOM announced it would be engaging bloggers 'who are posting inaccurate or untrue information, as well as bloggers who are posting incomplete information.' In January 2009 the USAF released a flow-chart for 'counter-bloggers' to 'counter the people out there in the blogosphere who have negative opinions about the US government and the Air Force.'"
Why fear Middle Eastern terrorists, when there are home-grown Americans so eager to utterly destroy freedom of expression...
What do you expect from the party of Barbara Streisand, than to institutionalize the "Streisand Effect"?
In before screeching about the Thought Police - who are apparently real. This sort of thing will only agitate paranoid netizens and make the rest of us even less trusting of the government (and information that appears to be supportive of it) than we already are.
Don't you merely confirm their conspiracy theories with this dunderheaded plan?
For decades (1956-1971), the FBI under COINTELPRO focused on disrupting, marginalizing and neutralizing political dissidents, most notably the Black Panthers. More recently CENTCOM announced it would be engaging bloggers 'who are posting inaccurate or untrue information, as well as bloggers who are posting incomplete information.' In January 2009 the USAF released a flow-chart for 'counter-bloggers' to 'counter the people out there in the blogosphere who have negative opinions about the U.S. government and the Air Force.'"
The information above is totally inaccurate and untrue. You are advised to retract your statements and apologize, otherwise legal action will be brought against you. Thank you.
Have a nice day.
What better way to prove that there isn't a conspiracy
THAN TO TRY AND STOP PEOPLE FROM SPREADING IT.
This would have been a good article to write one of my 5 or 6 paragraph conspiracy theories that I whip up out of thin air, but I already did one of those today, and my brain hurts.
-- More of the Same, AND EVEN WORSE!
However, there ARE people out there who practice irresponsible dissent, and their sole purpose is to disrupt the lives of everyone in order to make a point which most find irrational. I am all for these people getting shut down, so long as those who are responsible and do not infringe on the liberty of others are left in peace.
The question is, who gets to decide which is which? It would be very easy for a government engaged in an unjust war to label peace protesters as "irresponsible dissenters" and have them shut up.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
the Obama administration has become very concerned with the situation in Azeroth and plan to spend 10 billion in on-line gold to help the cause.
Who gets to determine the difference between responsible dissent and irresponsible dissent? A Conservative might claim that comparing George Bush to Hitler is "irresponsible", while a Liberal might say that claiming Obama is not a U.S. Citizen is "irresponsible."
It's best just to let people who are wrong keep talking, and simply ignore them. Shutting them up with the power of the government is a bad idea - because those same powers could be used against people trying to bring attention to government misdeeds, like the people in Boston who were arrested for recording what they saw as police brutality.
My blog
I agree, it's OK for the government to shut down people I disagree with as long as they leave the people I agree with alone.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
Lilly levered Democrats, the solution lies with cruise missiles.
The question is, who gets to decide which is which?
I dunno, who can yell the loudest? They usually win these days it seems.
Sent from your iPad.
By floating this, he's ensured that participants in these groups, who by definition are more suspicious than most, will now be paranoid that their peers are government infiltrators. They'll be less open with each other, and may quit altogether. And the Man doesn't even have to follow through to have this effect-- it's totally free! Well played, fascist.
...ah, I trust you guys.
Of course, social interaction may be the last thing holding some of the target audience from going lone gunman, but you can't make an omelette without killing a few people. At least, I can't. And the more incidents we have, the more funding the security apparatus gets. There is no downside!
Wait... should I post this?
What on earth do you consider irresponsible dissent? Publicly asking for a birth certificate from the president of the US on your TV show? Or do you consider it something more disruptive, like the sit-ins and freedom rides that happened during the civil rights movement?
I can think of a lot of inane things out there, from birthers to truthers to GNAA, but those people are just annoying. A good moderation system like slashdot's can fix all of them.
This isn't talking about a moderation system, this is talking about sponsoring bloggers to try to influence public perception. This is like what Nixon did, he had a letter-writing organization that would write tens of thousands of letters to news agencies trying to get them to change their programming. The ONLY time infiltrative deception is acceptable is if the organization is criminal, like the mafia. You shouldn't be trying to infiltrate tea-partier groups, even if you disagree with their politics.
The only thing I can think of that would be irresponsible dissent would be something like starting your own militia and invading your neighboring town, and even that in some cases would be morally acceptable. I mean, we have people who are literally trying to secede from the union, and that is alright. But if that isn't irresponsible, what is?
Qxe4
I'd probably consider myself right of center, but I also don't think World Net Daily is a very unbiased source.
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
Watch what you type friends, Big Brother O is watching.
Nonsense. Please stop spreading FUD.
First they came for the 9/11 truthers, and I said noth- well, actually, anything they can do to mess with *those* loons is OK by me. Can they eff up ther anti-vaxxers, too?
He ought to be fired for being stupid enough to think the government should waste even a penny dealing with conspiracy theorists. Just ignore them. It works just fine. Sure, they pop up now and then, but really, think about it: Of all the various theories about the Kennedy assassination, what do any of them matter in the long run? How does it really affect the government? It doesn't.
All the 9/11 conspiracy theorists have accomplished what? Pretty much nothing.
The more important question is: Who gets to decide who is the conspiracy theorists? That's where the real danger is. Hard to believe Obama would hire such an idiot. Sounds like a George Bush kinda guy.
Why not link in HuffingtonPost, FreeRepublic, and MichaelMoore.com while you're at it. ;)
For those who care about the actual paper rather than the right-wing spin of it:
--------
Abstract:
Many millions of people hold conspiracy theories; they believe that powerful people have worked together in order to withhold the truth about some important practice or some terrible event. A recent example is the belief, widespread in some parts of the world, that the attacks of 9/11 were carried out not by Al Qaeda, but by Israel or the United States. Those who subscribe to conspiracy theories may create serious risks, including risks of violence, and the existence of such theories raises significant challenges for policy and law. The first challenge is to understand the mechanisms by which conspiracy theories prosper; the second challenge is to understand how such theories might be undermined. Such theories typically spread as a result of identifiable cognitive blunders, operating in conjunction with informational and reputational influences. A distinctive feature of conspiracy theories is their self-sealing quality. Conspiracy theorists are not likely to be persuaded by an attempt to dispel their theories; they may even characterize that very attempt as further proof of the conspiracy. Because those who hold conspiracy theories typically suffer from a crippled epistemology, in accordance with which it is rational to hold such theories, the best response consists in cognitive infiltration of extremist groups. Various policy dilemmas, such as the question whether it is better for government to rebut conspiracy theories or to ignore them, are explored in this light.
------
Note how the Slashdot header linked to COINTELPRO, to imply that that's what's being talked about? Even in the *scenario* where infiltration is discussed, the paper explicitly states, "By this we do not mean 1960s-style infiltration with a view to surveillance and collecting information, possibly for use in future prosecutions." The paper is about how (or whether to) dispel conspiracy theories to prevent them from spreading, not to prosecute the individuals who promote them. Cognitive infiltration is discussed (again, in purely theoretical terms) in not just a covert manner, but also an overt manner. A lot (although not all) of the paper also is about overseas actions against muslim radical organizations, too, giving examples of tactics we're already employing to dispel conspiracy theories that help fuel terrorist organizations. Anyone who doesn't realize that our government actively employs propaganda even against non-conspiracy-theories isn't paying attention.
Now, all of that said, Sunstein does come across in the end as as supporting debunking conspiracy theories which can "create or fuel violence" by "rebutting more rather than fewer theories, by enlisting independent groups to supply rebuttals, and by cogitive infiltration designed to break up the crippled epistemology of conspiracy-minded groups and informationally isolated social networks." Which form of cognitive infiltration discussed -- covert or overt -- is not mentioned, nor is whether this is a reference to domestic, international, or both kinds of conspiracy theories.
I disagree, but it's not as radical of a paper as it's being made out to be.
I was watching this thing on TV about some guy named Hitler. Someone should stop him!
To me this reads like a complete admission that government has little or nothing to fear from standard media, which is something I've felt for a long time. And they think I should be giving them my money or that Google should be paying them for their worthless prattling of the establishment line.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
online groups?
Sarah Palin's Facebook followers? better off going to the circus.
E.L.F.? do they post their plans for world domination to their forums?
this is an appointee for Obama, but i have to wonder who actually proposed this person for Obama to nominate. someone left over from the Bush regime, like Gates? is he contracting work out to John Yoo? anyway, it's not like the C.I.A. or N.S.A. isn't already doing this.
"To stop the terrorists."
... and this is my Second Amendment Gun.
ANY QUESTIONS?
In Liberty, Rene
In the words of Noam Chomsky: "Goebbels was in favour of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're really in favor of free speech, then you're in favour of freedom of speech for precisely for views you despise. Otherwise, you're not in favour of free speech."
'If Christ had tweeted the sermon on the mount, it might have lasted until nightfall.' - John Perry Barlow
If you read the damn paper, you will learn that a banning of such sites is listed as one of many responses that could be taken, but the author pointedly did not suggest that actually be done. The bulk of the paper focuses on when and how the govt. should attempt to counter conspiracy theories.
As far as the govt. infiltrating groups that propound conspiracy theories: This is stated as a mechanism for the govt. to sow its own views into the groups, not as a law-enforcement mechanism. I view this as nothing more than speech. Just as citizens can speak, so can the government. If Joe Random Citizen can join a group and talk about random B.S., why can Joe Random PR-Flack not do the same?
SirWired
Post anything negative to a Twitter-aware company like Comcast, and they connect you with somebody from corporate who will set right whatever you're complaining about. What's the difference between that and the Air Force wanting to debate people spreading inaccurate information about them?
If you allow comments on your blog... that's something who disagree with you can use.
World Net Daily is a few fries short of a happy meal. This is the same news organization that claims that Obama worked to fund terrorists, that 9/11 was caused by the New Yorkers who had it coming, and that the Russian spy poisoned by the KGB using polonium was actually a muslim terrorist trying to sneak radioactive materials into the US. They are basically a forum for conspiracy theories wrapped up in nice packaging.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
I can't help but recall : http://xkcd.com/386/
Keep Doing Good.
Why is our tax money being used for this?
I mean, I don't care about people who think the moon landing is fake. Let them spend their time thinking that. It doesn't hurt me. What does hurt me is _my_ hard earned money being used for a useless cause.
It even states in TFA that "some conspiracy theories, under [their] definition, have turned out to be true." So why spend time and energy arguing potentially the wrong side?
"Intelligence has nothing to do with politics!"
-Londo Mollari
Don't let yourself get bent out of shape over this. Read the paper which is being quoted by the article before you start believing nonsense and posting your own. The Klein article misrepresents and quotes out of context. For example, here is the Cass Sunstein quote that Aaron Klein picks and edits to his liking:
"We can readily imagine a series of possible responses. (1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. (2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories."
Sounds really scary right? Okay, here is the full paragraph from Sunstein's paper, available online at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1084585 :
What can government do about conspiracy theories? Among the things it can do, what should it do? We can readily imagine a series of possible responses. (1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. (2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories. (3) Government might itself engage in counterspeech, marshaling arguments to discredit conspiracy theories. (4) Government might formally hire credible private parties to engage in counterspeech. (5) Government might engage in informal communication with such parties, encouraging them to help. Each instrument has a distinctive set of potential effects, or costs and benefits, and each will have a place under imaginable conditions. However, our main policy idea is that government should engage in cognitive infiltration of the groups that produce conspiracy theories, which involves a mix of (3), (4) and (5).
Note the last sentence. Sunstein leaves the 2 points quoted by Klein out of the recommendation. The paper itself is somewhat insightful and worth a skim. There are things to disagree with perhaps, but this isn't some civil liberty crushing maniac.
However, there ARE people out there who practice irresponsible dissent, and their sole purpose is to disrupt the lives of everyone in order to make a point which most find irrational.
You're absolutely right. If the Republicans win the next election, I hope they vote to silence irresponsible dissenters who say things like:
Any time you wish your buddies had a power, imagine what it would be like if the other team had that same ability.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Remember when the left-wingers merely suspected GWB of thinking about possibly doing something similar and how apeshit crazy they went over that slim possibility?
Where are those people now?
Now that someone is actually proposing these CHILLING suggestions, because they are against "right wing nutjobs" it is okay?
Hypocrites. It wasn't right then, it isn't right now. It doesn't matter what you "agree" with; that which needs protection is that which you DON'T agree with.
Obama Administrator is no friend of Liberty, and he is making GWB look angelic at this point. Don't get me wrong, the Republicans aren't any better, and I'm not defending them either.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
There's a reason for this, there's a reason education sucks, and it's the same reason it will never ever ever be fixed. It's never going to get any better. Don't look for it. Be happy with what you've got... because the owners of this country don't want that.
I'm talking about the real owners now... the real owners. The big wealthy business interests that control things and make all the important decisions. Forget the politicians. The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice. You don't. You have no choice. You have owners. They own you. They own everything. They own all the important land. They own and control the corporations. They've long since bought and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the state houses, the city halls. They got the judges in their back pockets and they own all the big media companies, so they control just about all of the news and information you get to hear.
They got you by the balls. They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying. Lobbying to get what they want. Well, we know what they want. They want more for themselves and less for everybody else, but I'll tell you what they don't want.
They don't want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking. They don't want well-informed, well-educated people capable of critical thinking. They're not interested in that. That doesn't help them. That's against their interests. That's right. They don't want people who are smart enough to sit around a kitchen table and think about how badly they're getting fucked by a system that threw them overboard 30 fuckin' years ago. They don't want that. You know what they want? They want obedient workers. Obedient workers, people who are just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork. And just dumb enough to passively accept all these increasingly shittier jobs with the lower pay, the longer hours, the reduced benefits, the end of overtime and vanishing pension that disappears the minute you go to collect it.
And now they're coming for your Social Security money. They want your fuckin' retirement money. They want it back so they can give it to their criminal friends on Wall Street. And you know something? They'll get it. They'll get it all from you sooner or later 'cause they own this fuckin' place. It's a big club and you ain't in it. You and I are not in the big club. By the way, it's the same big club they use to beat you over the head with all day long when they tell you what to believe. All day long beating you over the head with their media telling you what to believe, what to think and what to buy. The table has tilted, folks. The game is rigged and nobody seems to notice. Nobody seems to care. Good, honest, hard-working people: white collar, blue collar, it doesn't matter what color shirt you have on. Good, honest, hard-working people continue -- these are people of modest means -- continue to elect these rich cocksuckers who don't give a fuck about them.
They don't give a fuck about you. They don't give a fuck about you. They don't care about you at all! At all! At all! And nobody seems to notice. Nobody seems to care. That's what the owners count on. The fact that Americans will probably remain willfully ignorant of the big red, white and blue dick that's being jammed up their assholes every day, because the owners of this country know the truth. It's called the American Dream, 'cause you have to be asleep to believe it.
-- George Carlin
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
Other Airforce or Ex-Airforce, please jump in and share your experiences.
There will never be any parties other than the R's and D's until the current system is over turned. Thanks to the last few decades of "campaign finance reform" and Supreme Court rulings, all the power is in the hand of the large donor special interest groups and corporations. These groups give the national party huge amounts of money. It isn't just Republicans..do you think the Democrats get the hundreds of millions of dollars to run campaigns each year from little old ladies coin purses and the dulled copper pennies of the downtrodden? Unelected people control the parties, and decide who runs in each election. Nobody turns out for primary elections but the true-believers, who vote exactly as they are told. A constitutional amendment limiting donations ONLY to individual candidates, and limiting the amount annually is the only way people will have the power again. Neither the Republican nor the Democrat party will ever allow this to happen. Stop voting Republican. Stop voting Democrat. Take back your power.
Try shooting someone who's done nothing physical against you, even a provocateur, and we'll see how long you get to keep your "Second Amendment" Gun. BTW, Rene, are you making an implicit threat against some future government agent who might just want to talk?
Nothing physical? Like enter my home without a warrant through an unlocked door and refuse to leave when asked?
Your point might be that I might be deprived of my gun dare I use it to protect my liberty, and you might be right. In fact, I might even be deprived of my life before I get to fire off a shot. But, it's the whole "die on my feet instead of live on my knees" thing.
Until I act in a manner contrary to the constitution, don't tread on me.
In Liberty, Rene
I guess the whole infiltration thing will convince the conspiracy theorists that they were right all along, and anyone who questions their theories can now be dismissed as a government infiltrator :/
The authors explicitly acknowledge that:
In one variant, government agents would openly proclaim, or at least make no effort to conceal, their institutional affiliations. A recent newspaper story recounts that Arabic-speaking Muslim officials from the State Department have participated in dialogues at radical Islamist chat rooms and websites in order to ventilate arguments not usually heard among the groups that cluster around those sites, with some success.68 In another variant, government officials would participate anonymously or even with false identities. Each approach has distinct costs and benefits; the second is riskier but potentially brings higher returns. In the former case, where government officials participate openly as such, hard-core members of the relevant networks, communities and conspiracy-minded organizations may entirely discount what the officials say, right from the beginning. The risk with tactics of anonymous participation, conversely, is that if the tactic becomes known, any true member of the relevant groups who raises doubts may be suspected of government connections.
In answer to your question, it would probably be the Supreme Court. This sort of First Amendment issue has been explored fairly thoroughly, so the cases would likely be predictable with regard to the censure of a person related to their speech.
/.ers have heard of software companies doing this sort of thing to advance their products. /. boards), but the reasoning for why an individual's communications should be monitored is the place of real concern.
You're more likely to find the interesting bits surrounding the various press offices of government orginizations. They have a responsibility to engage and inform the people regarding their work and to clarify matters that are widely misunderstood. I'm not aware of any legal obstacle to an agent of the government logging on to a website under a nom-de-plume and posting the agency's party line. I'm sure
We expect our leaders and institutions to engage the public on matters of concern. They take polls, review focus groups and consult experts. The President is expected to speak on behalf of his policies and party, as are other political figures. I expect the Surgeon General to put forth informaiton on the latest health buzz.
The first difference in this case is that you could be speaking to an agent of the government online, and not be aware. This starts to get pretty creepy. You think it's bad not knowing if KittenPrincess22 is a dude or not, imagine wondering if she's actually an EPA plant. It's the sort of thing people mean when they talk about a "chilling effect on public discourse".
The second worrisome point is that an individual citizen or group could be targetted by federal agencies for their speech. Again, we expect the FBI to keep an ear to the ground when an orginization has violent history or current criminal connections, but those investigations should be driven by criminal concerns, not concerns of disruptive speech. Sending a federal employee to monitor someone's communications because they say something you don't like is not a good thing. It would be hard to prevent monitornig of communications in a public space (like
We want our government to be where we can see it. We want to be able to keep an eye on it. We want to know if it's keeping an eye on us as individuals.
Moderation : -1 Conservative Viewpoint
The U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, it does not qualify whether that speech is "responsible", "irresponsible" or any shade in between.
The courts are really confused on many free speech point. Yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater is apparently "irresponsible," and is therefore not covered under free speech. On the other hand, getting paid to lie while simultaneously calling your lies "news" is apparently protected free speech. Attempting to call attention to these lies, on the other hand, is apparently not free speech. Demonstrating outside of a designated "free speech" zone is apparently "irresponsible" and therefore is not protected speech. Handing your congressperson a pile of cash in an attempt to affect the legislative process, on the other hand, is protected free speech.
I'd just be happy if libel and slander laws applied equally to the government and those making accusations against the government.
For example, Mr. Asspimple Oxycontin was on the radio yesterday accusing people in the White House of diverting funds donated to the Haiti relief efforts towards the Obama campaign. That's a pretty serious accusation of a crime. I think Asspimple should be held responsible for making such an accusation of criminal activity, unless he can back it up.
Support SETI@home
"So. What would you call yourself in political terms?"
"I'm a Democratic Carlinist."
No wonder he was so bitter towards the end.
...criminalizing organizations. That's the biggest potential of such infiltration. Actually manufacturing unlawful dissent, in direct opposition to the official policy.
Because, as it clearly states, the goal is to place infiltrators in key positions of organization...meaning they effectively try to take it over.
And we know how that ends; few years ago German courts dismissed cases against neonazis because there was so much infiltration - the agents were basically the ones running the show!
It was similar in communist Poland, when SB (security agency) had many agents in Solidarity movement (I guess Stasi did so too), especially in very useful factions already lending towards radicalism.
When your agents start to influence the policy of given organization, it's not only easy to make sure the members aren't misinformed, but also to radicalize them. Manufacturing in this way convenient scapegoats.
One that hath name thou can not otter
I watched that entire 6 minute and 24 second youtube clip. Not once did he say or elude to that statement. What gives? Why did you make such a public and false statement here on Slashdot?
Care to explain yourself, or are you that much of a coward?
Life is not for the lazy.
advocated in a recent paper the 'cognitive infiltration' of groups that advocate 'conspiracy theories'[first link]... Sunstein has also recently advocated banning websites which post 'right-wing rumors' and bringing back the Fairness Doctrine.[second link]
What's interesting about these two bits of the summary is that both are based on the same article by Sunstein, summarized differently by different wingnut websites. I have to conclude that the submitter didn't read the article. At all. Hey, I can quote out of context as well as the next guy:
government may do best to ignore conspiracy theories and theorists even if it justifiably fears that they will have
harmful effects, because government action may make things worse.
Does that quote misrepresent the article? Yes, it does. But actually, less than the summary does, since Sunstein actually advocates 'ignore' in some circumstances. However - bans? If you read the article you'd see that banning is an option he explicitly rejects!! (clue: its option 1 of 5, where only 3, 4, 5 make the cut; its the only time the word 'ban' appears in the paper...). There might be something interesting to say about this article. But the stuff you've linked to in the summary, and the summary itself? That's just so far off target, its not even a decent starting point for a conversation.
Can we get back to the news for nerds, where someone claims Knuth advocates using O(n^2) algorithms, just because he mentions them (rolls eyes)
What happens when you conspire to infiltrate groups with conspiracy theories?
Call me gullible, but why is that concept so laughable? Sure, WND's article about is is really bad writing, but the idea that soy (which does have a lot of estrogen) being fed to babies affects them doesn't seem outlandish at all. When a man gets a "gender change," isn't estrogen the main ingredient to the prescriptions?
The government can't save you.
You mean the part where they accurately show his proposed ideas for how to deal with dissenters?
Just because people don't like how Obama is rapidly trying to turn the United States of American in the the Orwellian States of America doesn't mean that they are "hysterical" - that means that, unlike you, they give a damn about their rights, freedom, and about the principles this country was founded on.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
You all voted for this guy, so whose fault is it when he picks Sunstein etal. to expand the regulatory reach of government into areas you never though possible or desirable? He has never really hidden his beliefs, motives, or goals.
If you want it easier to digest for yourself, here's a nice link to get you started. I know, if you visit mediamatters.org, your head will explode. As a self-professed dittohead, you must have already written them off as irrelevant. But the clip is quite clear -- Rush did exactly what spun claimed he did.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai