DARPA is comming for YOU

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.

Think what you will, even ATS is a social network, every human on earth on the internet is going to be a target. The will be coming for you. The question is will you stand up and put an end to this madness?

Under the proposal, researchers would be expected to unearth and classify the "formation, development and spread of ideas and concepts (memes)" in social media.

The document cited a case in which authorities employed social media to head off a potential crisis, but did not specify details of the incident.

"For example, in one case rumors about the location of a certain individual began to spread in social media space and calls for storming the rumored location reached a fever pitch," it said.

"By chance, responsible authorities were monitoring the social media, detected the crisis building, sent out effective messaging to dispel the rumors and averted a physical attack on the rumored location."

DARPA planned to spend $42 million on the Social Media in Strategic Communication (SMISC) program, with prospective contractors asked to test algorithms through "experiments" with social media, it said.

You can't hide, nor should you, this gang of thugs known as government needs to be retired to the history books as a failed experiment in human slavery

www.physorg.com...

reply to post by NuroSlam


The military's job on the internet should be only protecting it. Not using it for misinformation wtf is this china?

"sent out effective messaging to dispel the rumors "

ie ...sent out disinfo

they are everywhere

Originally posted by stevooo
reply to post by NuroSlam

 

The military's job on the internet should be only protecting it. Not using it for misinformation wtf is this china?

must be or some bullcrappp

Wow, it's just another way for the Government to monitor the global population and further spread their lies and propaganda. These types of activities shouldn't be allowed. When will someone put a stop to this?

When looking at all the legislation broadly, it's pretty obvious that the general theme is to be able to quell dissent before it starts.

What the dissent is towards, or what the perspective (one's personal understanding), is inconsequential. All this is, is a new method to quell the uprising that is taking place on a global scale.

The masses will resist. The truth and freedom movement will not be stopped. In fact, the stampeding trample of truth will be felt by all who would try to use it as a guise for false pretenses.

People are inherently opposed to change but if you take enough of their freedoms away, by God, retribution is eventual and historically brutal.

Originally posted by Mr Objectivity
People are inherently opposed to change but if you take enough of their freedoms away, by God, retribution is eventual and historically brutal.

I wish it were not so, but I am afraid you are correct, those with power do not give up that power without bloodshed

reply to post by NuroSlam


Wouldn't surprise me, Goverments or the institutions within have to take social media seriously; it's not surprising that they take an interest in YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, MySpace etc.

www.google.com...

Like other technology and communications companies, Google regularly receives requests from government agencies and federal courts around the world to remove content from our services and hand over user data. Our Government Requests tool discloses the number of requests we receive from each government in six-month periods with certain limitations.

They probably have complex means of trending information (the zeitgeist of the world), they are slowly working out what makes us tick, how to influence us, how to send out subliminal messages, what's the fastest and most effective means at provoking a certain tye of reaction.

(it's coming not comming, sorry - had to mention it)

I'm going to break from the mold a bit, here.

In the Civil Service end of things, we walk a very fine line. We are expected to protect citizens from a range of different threats - threats that no longer come aboard amphibious assault vehicles or high altitude bombers. But, at the same time, everyone wants their rights and to be left alone by law enforcement.

It's two mutually incompatible demands.

America is a lamb to the sacrifice. So long as you -look- like you know what I'm doing - it's highly unlikely anyone will bother you (except for police - but if a police officer stops to talk to me while I'm out at all-hours - it's "intrusive government"). You can rob someone blind in broad daylight - so long as you look like you know what you are doing, it's rather unlikely anyone will question you. Just act like a moving company and you're packing their crap up.

So, when stuff like this comes along - it really doesn't bother me too much. It's what we've needed for a while. Now - I won't say that it doesn't come without the risk of abuse - nothing does, even the freedom we cherish here in America - people can abuse our freedom to plot against us (both "evil terrorists" and serial killers). But the ability to intercept plots to send a mob against someone/something and to quell that in its planning phases is -very- effective. It can help stop violent outbursts before the riot-police/SWAT team have to get involved.

Now, if you're worried about "ZOMG - they could try and distribute disinfo to keep us from being able to pick up our rifles and defend ourselves" - then you're pretty dumb and deserve to have your name on a quick-list of people to apprehend. You don't talk about that sort of thing - at least, not seriously - on non-secure forums and social media. There are many reasons not to... let's say you plan a contingency strike on a satellite communications relay - talking about that publicly just hands another want-to-be group a plan. It also discloses your motives, your capabilities, etc to intelligence networks.

What this is aimed against is: "Hey, let's go crash that town-hall meeting all of those tea-baggers are at! We'll show those old farts! Get your crew together!"

And the other stated examples.

Originally posted by Aim64C

What this is aimed against is: "Hey, let's go crash that town-hall meeting all of those tea-baggers are at! We'll show those old farts! Get your crew together!"

And the other stated examples.

And this is exactly the problem. IT WILL be used to curtail more freedoms. There is no crime in "swarming" a town hall meeting unless violence is used. There are so many different ways this WILL be used to stomp on people not just in America, but all over the world.

Take what is going on in places like keene, NH, now apply this to the peaceful protesting going on there and well, take it from there.

Originally posted by stevooo
reply to post by NuroSlam

 

The military's job on the internet should be only protecting it. Not using it for misinformation wtf is this china?

I agree, the UN should take over from the US on the internet name registeries.

reply to post by NuroSlam

And this is exactly the problem. IT WILL be used to curtail more freedoms. There is no crime in "swarming" a town hall meeting unless violence is used. There are so many different ways this WILL be used to stomp on people not just in America, but all over the world.

How is this curtailing freedoms? You can still go to the town hall meeting and start trouble if you want. Your more easily swayed would-be companions will just not be accompanying you.

Take what is going on in places like keene, NH, now apply this to the peaceful protesting going on there and well, take it from there.

I don't really see how this can be used to stop a protest. Or really even interfere with it. What it's aimed against is the 'grab your torch and pitch-forks' mentality that only gets exacerbated by the online culture - where we can threaten each other with death and posture on lethal force with the only consequence being the moderators sitting us in e-time-out. It's different when you get people riled up like that on the internet and then get them out on the streets.

I know the military and police community pretty well. It's like any other community - except there is a stronger selection for the self-motivated, pro-gun types. For the most part - they are pretty good. You have some bad apples in the bunch - but the overwhelming majority are in it to do what they can to protect the people.

I trust them to give people a lot of latitude and to use common sense. I won't turn a blind eye to it - like I don't turn a blind eye to the local police forces. I've been given arms training and am sure to pay attention to how an officer uses theirs - I pay attention to their conduct. If I find a fellow uniformed officer sufficiently unsat - I talk to the police department and recommend that officer has a refresher-course (calling an officer out at the time - unless a life-threatening situation is at stake - is just more than likely going to cause problems and make things worse).

reply to post by zookey

I agree, the UN should take over from the US on the internet name registeries.

.... You've got to be @$^#ing kidding me.

Really? This is a huge problem for you all that DARPA is doing this sort of thing.... yet you think the U.N. should be doing it?

I'm not sure if I should laugh at the irony or sigh in despair.

Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by NuroSlam

 

How is this curtailing freedoms? You can still go to the town hall meeting and start trouble if you want. Your more easily swayed would-be companions will just not be accompanying you.

When you have not only "agents" following but purposely spreading disinformation (incorrect times, venue changes etc you are defacto trampling on the right to assemble

I don't really see how this can be used to stop a protest. Or really even interfere with it. What it's aimed against is the 'grab your torch and pitch-forks' mentality that only gets exacerbated by the online culture - where we can threaten each other with death and posture on lethal force with the only consequence being the moderators sitting us in e-time-out. It's different when you get people riled up like that on the Internet and then get them out on the streets.

It is becoming more and more common for LEO "agents" to pose as protesters and initiate violence.

As far as trusting the military and police, well I do trust the military far more then I do the police, primarily because I don't believe the ones I served with would turn on the populace, but when I see things like the guard during Katrina, the military training LEO in urban warfare tactics used in Iraq or the marines involved in check points in the US and now the deployment of 20,000 troops to deal with civil unrest, that trust is just about gone as well.

As far as the Police, I have no trust of them, I know everyone says a few bad apples, but when you see a whole department involved in "unsavoury" actions, I just can't follow along with it.

reply to post by NuroSlam

When you have not only "agents" following but purposely spreading disinformation (incorrect times, venue changes etc you are defacto trampling on the right to assemble

And I thought I was paranoid.

Why would someone be following you? Why would your activities warrant the man-hours and resources to collect intelligence on you and spread disinfo?

It is becoming more and more common for LEO "agents" to pose as protesters and initiate violence.

I suppose you have some kind of evidence of this.... or do you just not believe that the general population has gungho douchebags in it?

As far as trusting the military and police, well I do trust the military far more then I do the police, primarily because I don't believe the ones I served with would turn on the populace, but when I see things like the guard during Katrina,

You didn't really see Katrina, did you?

Do you have any idea what this area was like (I'm down in Belle Chasse at the moment) following Katrina? Millions of abandoned residences with those who decided to stay behind (and survived) rapidly adopting a feudal system run by warlords (mostly a lot of the regional gangs). These groups would attack aid groups for their supplies (as well as other survivors).

That kind of environment requires a strategic deployment of tactical military forces with authorization to shoot-on-sight. You go through and break up the control of these war-lords by establishing secure supply routes and denying them resources (such as weapons and ammunition - one of the reasons there was an effort to collect firearms from abandoned buildings and from those who felt they couldn't secure them - as damning of an effort as it was).

the military training LEO in urban warfare tactics used in Iraq

This one is a bit tricky. In all honesty - to deal with the growing gang problems in cities, we need specialized groups trained as special forces operatives. At the same time - you don't need to use breaching charges to apprehend someone who didn't show up for their speeding ticket.

Now - I know I'll be given some scorns over this - but, honestly - a lot of the gang problem is directly related to all of the low-income areas breeding like rabbits with the succeeding generations not improving their way of life and similarly breeding like rabbits (or roaches - depending upon how vindictive you want to sound).

I'm simply saying... reduce the birth rate among the populations most susceptible to gang activity, and a lot of the gang activity will drop (among other criminal activity) - and with it so will a lot of this militarization of the police (although some of it will still remain to deal with the threat of terror attacks - but that's mostly an intel game rather than a tactical engagement). You'll probably also see a drop in social security and medicare spending disproportionate to population decreases among other demographics.

or the marines involved in check points in the US

Where at? This is a new one.

and now the deployment of 20,000 troops to deal with civil unrest, that trust is just about gone as well.

You'll have to explain this one. A 20K troop deployment is no small ordeal - so I imagine you must be talking about a contingency operation.

As far as the Police, I have no trust of them, I know everyone says a few bad apples, but when you see a whole department involved in "unsavoury" actions, I just can't follow along with it.

The real problem is when you have bad apples in the leadership. In the military - we rotate people through enough that our bad apples get weeded out as senior enlisted and officers rotate through commands (and junior enlisted rotate as well). When you have the same local police structure and membership for ten years or more - a bad apple can do a lot more damage - particularly at the upper levels.

I know quite a few reservists who serve in the police forces - especially rates like the MAs (makes sense - they are the Navy's police force). That's where a lot of my trust of police forces comes from - that, and I've known quite a few in my relatively short life span.

Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by NuroSlam

 

And I thought I was paranoid.

Why would someone be following you? Why would your activities warrant the man-hours and resources to collect intelligence on you and spread disinfo?

All it takes is for those with the power to decide for whatever reason.

I suppose you have some kind of evidence of this.... or do you just not believe that the general population has gungho douchebags in it?

Sure you have the WTO, the G8, the RNC in 2004. Granted these are large protests but the effect is the same. You have the

........from those who felt they couldn't secure them - as damning of an effort as it was).

I may be wrong on this but I believe is was suppose to be from everyone, not just those they arbitrarily decided was unable to defend themselves.

This one is a bit tricky. In all honesty - to deal with the growing gang problems in cities, we need specialized groups trained as special forces operatives. At the same time - you don't need to use breaching charges to apprehend someone who didn't show up for their speeding ticket.

Now - I know I'll be given some scorns over this - but, honestly - a lot of the gang problem is directly related to all of the low-income areas breeding like rabbits with the succeeding generations not improving their way of life and similarly breeding like rabbits (or roaches - depending upon how vindictive you want to sound).

I will argue that the primary reason for the gang problem is due to the war on drugs, yes low income does play a large part in it as those are the ones who see the black market profit of it appealing the most.

Where at? This is a new one.

CHPD Press Release

You'll have to explain this one. A 20K troop deployment is no small ordeal - so I imagine you must be talking about a contingency operation.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
The civil unrest is a result of this governments abuse of power.

The real problem is when you have bad apples in the leadership. In the military - we rotate people through enough that our bad apples get weeded out as senior enlisted and officers rotate through commands (and junior enlisted rotate as well). When you have the same local police structure and membership for ten years or more - a bad apple can do a lot more damage - particularly at the upper levels.

I know quite a few reservists who serve in the police forces - especially rates like the MAs (makes sense - they are the Navy's police force). That's where a lot of my trust of police forces comes from - that, and I've known quite a few in my relatively short life span.

Little to disagree with there.

reply to post by NuroSlam

All it takes is for those with the power to decide for whatever reason.

Those in power?

You mean the grunt operating the terminal and pouring over data? Or his commanding official, giving him a blatantly unlawful or morally compromising order?

I may be wrong on this but I believe is was suppose to be from everyone, not just those they arbitrarily decided was unable to defend themselves.

That was the hype. To my knowledge - it was not mandatory. Though exactly how some people went about conducting that is going to vary - you and I both know there are some dolts in uniform who like to take everything to the extremes.

I will argue that the primary reason for the gang problem is due to the war on drugs, yes low income does play a large part in it as those are the ones who see the black market profit of it appealing the most.

The war on drugs? Gangs are at war with each other over their territories - where they deal at. The problem is that you have a lot of these communities that grow up knowing nothing but this type of lifestyle. It's the same problem you see in many of the third and second world nations. If you want to put an end to it - you have to have a plan to go in and -kill- people with extreme prejudice and then an 'exit strategy' that builds those areas back up to self-sufficiency.

We often forget that we are a -massive- nation, geographically (and not too shabby in terms of population). If we don't get some of these areas under control - they will become effective third-world sub-nations... if they aren't already. They follow their own laws, have their own economies, and even their own nationalities with militias.

I would be all for allowing the establishment of free states - except for the fact that these groups tend to exist within our own populations and represent a lifestyle that is incompatible with our own. At which point - it's pointless to debate rights - their presence is inherently going to conflict with the rights we wish our populations to have - at which point the sentiment is mutual; the desire to remove the other.

The civil unrest is a result of this governments abuse of power.

It has more to do with the amount of stupidity being demonstrated by our representatives, I imagine.

The problem is that it's not as clear-cut as "the people versus the government" - there are quite a few who think it's completely senseless for us to not raise the debt ceiling or to not expand social programs.

America has populations that wish to have two different types of government. Normally, this would be resolved at the state level - but everyone has been conditioned to resolve everything at the highest authority, first (for whatever reason). So - it's not "civil unrest" against the government. It's people like me who don't like the idea of being told "You need to pay more to people who don't make as much as you" - and is resolved to tell those types of people to file all complaints to my gun barrel.

It's approaching the line for people like me. It's already way into my "zone of discomfort" - but it's rapidly approaching the line where, when the shooting starts - I'd have to have a pretty good reason to -not- join the party. And I realize where the problem is. It's not just with representatives. We could roast the lot of them - then we'd end up roasting each other, because that's where the disagreement is.