Pentagon looks to social media as new battlefield

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Telegraph

Pentagon looks to social media as new battlefield
The Pentagon is asking scientists to figure out how to detect and counter propaganda on social media networks in the aftermath of Arab uprisings driven by Twitter and Facebook.
7:00AM BST 21 Jul 2011

The US military's high-tech research arm, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), has put out a request for experts to look at "a new science of social networks" that would attempt to get ahead of the curve of events unfolding on new media.

The program's goal was to track "purposeful or deceptive messaging and misinformation" in social networks and to pursue "counter messaging of detected adversary influence operations," according to DARPA's request for proposals issued on July 14.

The project echoes concerns among top military officers about the lightning pace of change in the Middle East, where social networks have served as an engine for protest against some longtime US allies.

Some senior officers have spoken privately of the need to better track unrest revealed in social networks and to look for ways to shape outcomes in the Arab world through Twitter, Facebook or YouTube.



Read more: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/social-media/8651284/Pentagon-looks-to-social-media-as-new-battlefield.html

[No Elephants]

1. Does that mean no more government posters on message boards, or will they multi-task?

[Warren Stupidity]

2. the military should stick to the art of blowing shit up

[No Elephants]

3. Meh, I'd rather they tweet.

[Warren Stupidity]

4. well yes but that is not one of the options.

[No Elephants]

6. ? OP says it is.

"how to detect and counter propaganda on social media networks"

and

"The program's goal was to track "purposeful or deceptive messaging and misinformation" in social networks and to pursue "counter messaging of detected adversary influence operations," according to DARPA's request for proposals issued on July 14."

and

"Some senior officers have spoken privately of the need to better track unrest revealed in social networks and to look for ways to shape outcomes in the Arab worlhrough Twitter, Facebook or YouTube."

One of the ways you counter "propaganda" (aka something you don't like) and "counter message" and try to "shape outcomes" on social media networks is to put your own message on them and disagree with the message of others.

It's been done on message boards by various depts. of government for a while now and I read the Obama administration hired someone a while back to be in charge of stepping that up on his behalf.

So, fine with me if the Pentagon stays busy posting and counter messaging on social media.

[Bragi]

5. Why not just propose unlimited "conversation" surveillance?

Given that social media is (kind of) a new way for people to converse with each other, this surveillance program would be the equivalent in earlier days of announcing that the Pentagon will be putting technology in place to monitor, analyse, and influence conversations between citizens in shopping malls, at sporting events and over their back fences.

I mean, what harm could come from that?

Other than people with stuff to hide, who could possibly object to having the Pentagon monitor conversations taking place among neighbors in public spaces, or want to deny the military the ability to just jump into discussions whenever they want to (anonymously) influence the discussion? I mean, other than terrorists, who would object?

[No Elephants]

7. We have that with phone conversations, emails, message boards and now

social media. And many places, public and private" have always been "bugged." Places like malls, if not bugged, at least have surveillance cameras and there is the global Google surveillance now, as well as some pretty universal outdoor surveillance in places like London. (Not here, of course, at least not that we admit to.)

Unlimited conversation surveillance is probably not all that far away. Just be patient.

[Bragi]

8. True, except they need warrants for phone taps

I basically agree with you. The public now blithely accepts as routine privacy intrusions that only a few decades back would have been seen as intolerable surveillance.

This shift in public attitude was not a natural evolution, of course, but has been carefully engineered by media and politicians in the service of building the new police state.

And yes, we need only be patient to witness the coming total elimination of anything vaguely resembling personal privacy.

[No Elephants]

9. Well, they used to, anyway. Now some technology has a way of finding certain words deemed

suspect and that leads to closer surveillance or something.

And phone carriers co-operated.

I think Candidate Obama voted for it in the Senate, vowing to fix it when he became President, then extended it. Or was that FEISA? Or do the two overlap?

Sorry. Hard to keep track anymore.

P.S. The warrants at the federal level are pretty much of a joke anyway. The instances in which a judge has refused are a miniscule number. Plus, they can be obtained retroactively, even though judges are available 24-7.

It's a brave new world.

[Bragi]

10. I think it's all still part of Bush's "Total Information Awareness" initiative

Though Bush's crazy TIA program was officially stopped by congress, it really just went underground and became a series of officially separate military surveillance projects.

There is no indication that Obama has done anything to rein in these privacy intrusions. His total silence on the matter suggests he has done nothing to stop police state operatives from intruding into what used to be called personal privacy.

The sad thing is that the job of selling the elimination of personal privacy has been so successful that most young people don't even understand what personal privacy is supposed to mean, let alone care that this right has all but disappeared.

[No Elephants]

11. We agree but I just wonder just how long after he has left office we can fairly blame Bush?

Obama is more than a passive player who failed to stop something. For example, he is the one who sent the Patriot Act under which we now operate to Congress.

[Bragi]

12. Sadly, we do agree

I'm not blaming Bush for the fact that Obama has done nothing evident to stop the further erosion of privacy rights, or just about any other civil right for that matter.

For me, Obama now owns each and every one of the Bush misgovernance policies that are still on the books.

[OnyxCollie]

13. Candidate Obama voted for cloture on the FISA debate.

He skipped out on the actual vote, however.

Like the Bush tax cuts, the FISA amendments were due to expire, and if the Democrats had done NOTHING, FISA would have returned to it's original pre-Bush form.

But no, they couldn't do that.

Included with the retroactive immunity for telecomms, blanket warrants were now part of the deal. So if Al Qaeda (or whomever) orders a pizza, everyone who had ordered a pizza is also subject to surveillance. This was what Dennis Kucinich had objected to.

It's not surprising it turned out this way. Hillary Clinton had received more than $150,000 from the telecommunication industry, and Rahm was the third largest recipient of campaign contributions from telecomms in the House.

[bemildred]

14. I must say it would be interesting to see such technology applied.

Astro-turf detection software could be a lot of fun. But the Pentagon better keep a tight grip on it or it will be turned against them.

[Downwinder]

15. They won't need tanks, missiles, planes, or ships.

Walla, budget crises solved.