How Covert Agents use the Internet to Manipulate, Deceive, and Destroy Reputations

Search form

How Covert Agents use the Internet to Manipulate, Deceive, and Destroy Reputations

How Covert Agents use the Internet to Manipulate, Deceive, and Destroy Reputations
Fri, 2/28/2014 - by Glenn Greenwald
This article originally appeared on The Intercept

One of the many pressing stories that remains to be told from the Snowden archive is how western intelligence agencies are attempting to manipulate and control online discourse with extreme tactics of deception and reputation-destruction. It’s time to tell a chunk of that story.

Over the last several weeks, I worked with NBC News to publish a series of articles about “dirty trick” tactics used by GCHQ’s previously secret unit, JTRIG (Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group). These were based on four classified GCHQ documents presented to the NSA and the other three partners in the English-speaking “Five Eyes” alliance. Today, we at the Intercept are publishing another new JTRIG document, in full, entitled “The Art of Deception: Training for Online Covert Operations.”

By publishing these stories one by one, our NBC reporting highlighted some of the key, discrete revelations: the monitoring of YouTube and Blogger, the targeting of Anonymous with the very same DDoS attacks they accuse “hacktivists” of using, the use of “honey traps” (luring people into compromising situations using sex) and destructive viruses. But, here, I want to focus and elaborate on the overarching point revealed by all of these documents: namely, that these agencies are attempting to control, infiltrate, manipulate, and warp online discourse, and in doing so, are compromising the integrity of the internet itself.

Among the core self-identified purposes of JTRIG are two tactics: (1) to inject all sorts of false material onto the internet in order to destroy the reputation of its targets; and (2) to use social sciences and other techniques to manipulate online discourse and activism to generate outcomes it considers desirable. To see how extremist these programs are, just consider the tactics they boast of using to achieve those ends: “false flag operations” (posting material to the internet and falsely attributing it to someone else), fake victim blog posts (pretending to be a victim of the individual whose reputation they want to destroy), and posting “negative information” on various forums.

No matter your views on Anonymous, “hacktivists” or garden-variety criminals, it is not difficult to see how dangerous it is to have secret government agencies being able to target any individuals they want – who have never been charged with, let alone convicted of, any crimes – with these sorts of online, deception-based tactics of reputation destruction and disruption. There is a strong argument to make, as Jay Leiderman demonstrated in the Guardian in the context of the Paypal 14 hacktivist persecution, that the “denial of service” tactics used by hacktivists result in (at most) trivial damage (far less than the cyber-warfare tactics favored by the U.S. and U.K.) and are far more akin to the type of political protest protected by the First Amendment.

The broader point is that, far beyond hacktivists, these surveillance agencies have vested themselves with the power to deliberately ruin people’s reputations and disrupt their online political activity even though they’ve been charged with no crimes, and even though their actions have no conceivable connection to terrorism or even national security threats. As Anonymous expert Gabriella Coleman of McGill University told me, “targeting Anonymous and hacktivists amounts to targeting citizens for expressing their political beliefs, resulting in the stifling of legitimate dissent.” Pointing to this study she published, Professor Coleman vehemently contested the assertion that “there is anything terrorist/violent in their actions.”

Government plans to monitor and influence internet communications, and covertly infiltrate online communities in order to sow dissension and disseminate false information, have long been the source of speculation. Harvard Law Professor Cass Sunstein, a close Obama adviser and the White House’s former head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, wrote a controversial paper in 2008 proposing that the US government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-”independent” advocates to “cognitively infiltrate” online groups and websites, as well as other activist groups.

Sunstein also proposed sending covert agents into “chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups” which spread what he views as false and damaging “conspiracy theories” about the government. Ironically, the very same Sunstein was recently named by Obama to serve as a member of the NSA review panel created by the White House, one that – while disputing key NSA claims – proceeded to propose many cosmetic reforms to the agency’s powers (most of which were ignored by the President who appointed them).

But these GCHQ documents are the first to prove that a major western government is using some of the most controversial techniques to disseminate deception online and harm the reputations of targets. Under the tactics they use, the state is deliberately spreading lies on the internet about whichever individuals it targets, including the use of what GCHQ itself calls “false flag operations” and emails to people’s families and friends. Who would possibly trust a government to exercise these powers at all, let alone do so in secret, with virtually no oversight, and outside of any cognizable legal framework?

We submitted numerous questions to GCHQ, including: (1) Does GCHQ in fact engage in “false flag operations” where material is posted to the Internet and falsely attributed to someone else?; (2) Does GCHQ engage in efforts to influence or manipulate political discourse online?; and (3) Does GCHQ’s mandate include targeting common criminals (such as boiler room operators), or only foreign threats?

As usual, they ignored those questions and opted instead to send their vague and nonresponsive boilerplate: “It is a longstanding policy that we do not comment on intelligence matters. Furthermore, all of GCHQ’s work is carried out in accordance with a strict legal and policy framework which ensures that our activities are authorised, necessary and proportionate, and that there is rigorous oversight, including from the Secretary of State, the Interception and Intelligence Services Commissioners and the Parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee. All our operational processes rigorously support this position.”

These agencies’ refusal to “comment on intelligence matters” – meaning: talk at all about anything and everything they do – is precisely why whistleblowing is so urgent, the journalism that supports it so clearly in the public interest, and the increasingly unhinged attacks by these agencies so easy to understand. Claims that government agencies are infiltrating online communities and engaging in “false flag operations” to discredit targets are often dismissed as conspiracy theories, but these documents leave no doubt they are doing precisely that.

Whatever else is true, no government should be able to engage in these tactics: what justification is there for having government agencies target people – who have been charged with no crime – for reputation-destruction, infiltrate online political communities, and develop techniques for manipulating online discourse? But to allow those actions with no public knowledge or accountability is particularly unjustifiable.

Originally published by The Intercept

Article Tabs

According to new research, the richest one-hundredth of one percent of Americans now hold over 11 percent of the nation’s total wealth – a higher share than the top .01 percent held in 1929 before the Great Crash.

It's been over a month since 18-year-old Vonderrit Myers, Jr. was killed by a St. Louis police officer.

Instead of loaning students money, the federal government could just pay for the tuition without causing any significant economic problems. There is no fiscal reason why the student debt crisis should exist.

With a $150 million World Bank loan, the Ugandan government plans to construct roads to service oil companies, provide scholarships for oil workers and fund an oil institute. But what about helping its own people?

The Nordic nation of 5.6 million has been at the forefront of wind power innovation since the 1890s, when one of its leading scientists, Poul la Cour, began testing turbines.

Paying fees to attend university turns students into consumers and universities into privatized businesses – as the purpose of learning changes from a broad social good to become [one] based on creating profits.”

Posted 6 days 12 hours ago

A new pamphlet, released today, is an attempt to answer this question – and the case we make is, yes, it not only makes sense to think of planetary control in these terms, but it is essential.

Posted 2 days 11 hours ago

350.org founder Bill McKibben breaks down this week's announcement from President Obama and Premier Xi – which he calls a sign that public pressure is working, and that we need to apply much more.

Posted 6 days 12 hours ago
money in politics, dark money, Patriot Majority USA, Super PACs, campaign funding, National Education Association, AFL-CIO, Laborers National Headquarters, International Union of Operating Engineers, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, VoteVets.org Action Fund, Ame

Not all dark money is the same – meaning the imbalance of disclosure requirements give corporations and wealthy individuals greater secrecy in elections than organized labor.

Posted 6 days 12 hours ago

With animal agriculture as the leading cause of species extinction, water pollution, ocean dead zones and habitat destruction, becoming vegan is the most important and direct change we can immediately make.

Posted 6 days 12 hours ago

They meet behind closed doors, at five-star hotels, away from the prying eyes of the public.

progressive tax, tax the rich, taxing wealth, income inequality, wealth inequality, tax reform, millionaire's tax, financial transaction tax

Americans want what 21st century politics has so far not delivered: real options for challenging concentrated wealth.

Consumer watchdog groups, payday borrowers and victims of payday theft need to come together to end the practice that creates a never-ending cycle of debt.

A new pamphlet, released today, is an attempt to answer this question – and the case we make is, yes, it not only makes sense to think of planetary control in these terms, but it is essential.

Boeing, Chevron, Citigroup, Ford, Verizon, JPMorgan Chase and General Motors declared more than $74 billion in combined U.S. pre-tax profits in 2013 – and paid their CEOs on average $17.3 million each.

Sign Up