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This discussion has been archived.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.
So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
-Erwos
Re:So what? (Score:4, Funny)
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...
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: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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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
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.
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
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: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.
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.
Picture perfect (Score:5, Funny)
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41265000/jp
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?