On 1/6/2016 3:58 PM, alan jones wrote:
> On 5/27/2015 7:36 PM, alan jones wrote:
>> On 01/02/2015 12:58, alan jones wrote:
>>
>>> So many uses for our OLD data. Each seeing only what he seeks.
>>> The flaws of Data mined without its true context, used so that
>>> there is no room for protest.
>>>
>>> Information as data, to be taken on appearance, then confused
>>> for knowledge. Data which sits in perpetuity together with our
>>> latest recent opinions. Data left to find a use against the
>>> latest culturally programmed agendas.
>>>
>>
>> And then there's data as a source for confusion.
>>
>> Take the tale of two Fishfoods. Two very different people who
>> happened to share the same made up handle. No connection between
>> them, except for what followed as the one was confused for the
>> other.
>>
>> The first FISHFOOD was a thorn in the rump of the establishment,
>> one of those old fashion whistlers who were all the rage when the
>> net was first formed. Some might have sought to extract this thorn
>> by any means fair or fowl. The other Fishfood, was a fan, is still
>> a fan of the late great MJ.
>>
>> By accident or design their paths converged. Without explanation
>> the system turned blindly in their direction, seeking one only
>> to stumble upon the other. No questions asked, no quarter given,
>> just the actions of blind gullible mules, reacting to a focus
>> which now persists without explanation.
>>
>> This is automation at its crudest. A paper chase which should
>> long have ended, but which continues even now because that focus
>> remains unchanged, unchangeable, uncorrectable. Something about
>> our trolls with their own agendas, who are simply taken on
>> appearance.
>>
>> I can only speculate on the cause. Some kind of A.i playing God.
>> A.i playing 'three degrees of separation', to create these mangled
>> connections between identities and types.
>>
>> Or perhaps instead of blaming A.i I should acknowledge the role
>> of H.i. Basic Human Incompetence. A situation which seems destined
>> to grow. Frustration with not finding what it seeks, leading to
>> a desperate self-serving confusion of purpose.
>>
>>
>> On some things A.i only has to speculate, for human nature to do
>> the rest, such is the test placed upon our reason. Here inventing
>> something to do, is considered better than having nothing to do.
>>
>> And then there is another thought, one based on the rules of Supply
>> and Demand, where any potential, however unlikely, is identified by
>> A.i only for others with darker motives to turn that potential into
>> a reality.
>>
>> Again one can only speculate on this past, and this future.
>>
>> --- news://
freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints:
ne...@netfront.net ---
>
>
> This just in :
>
> HOW COVERT AGENTS INFILTRATE THE INTERNET TO MANIPULATE, DECEIVE,
> AND DESTROY REPUTATIONS
>
> Glenn Greenwald
> Feb. 24 2014, 11:25 p.m
>
> 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, complete with the relevant documents.
>
> Over the last several weeks, I worked with NBC News to publish a series
> of articles about “dirty trick” tactics used by G**Q’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. Here is one illustrative
> list of tactics from the latest GCHQ document we’re publishing today:
>
>
https://theintercept.com/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/
>
> --0--
>
> To all this i would add the relatively recent phenomena whereby
> social media 'profiles' are now available as automated summaries
> of net activity. These unofficial, and therefore unchallenged,
> uncorrectable 'profiles'are available to whomever now shows an
> interest. These profiles are made to persist, so that they become
> a focus to be repeated by as many as have access to them, all with
> no thought on the veracity of their claims.
>
> What follows goes beyond any law or any court. Some might call it
> an unnatural justice. The effects of these centralized sources of
> disinformation are, as yet, undocumented, but one might coin the
> phrase, 'The profile Effect' to borrow from that other phenomena
> of psychology, The Observer Effect.
>
> This effect would start with the profile, and then look at the
> 'cumulative effect' of all those responding to what was determined
> to be your profile. This profile might in time become fulfilling
> just by virtue of all those repeating its claims.
>
> Quite how this 'Profile Effect' would manifest itself in the rest
> of society would be anyone's guess, but just imagine its effects
> as more and more people were caught in this web from which they
> could never escape. More and more people subject to A.i's best
> guess, as it set about data mining with the latest hot topics in
> mind. A.i seeking X would see only X, even where the CONTEXT was
> 'NOT X'.
>
> These automated Summaries, which might otherwise be seen as Hearsay,
> would become these automated Profiles to invite an equally automated
> response by those 'inbetweeners' whom one hears very little of.
> Blind Actions leading to confused reactions, as it allowed no
> feedback, no defense, and no correction. No way for A.i to learn
> of its mistakes.
>
> Imagine more and more people at the mercy of these technologies,
> with mischievous trolls on one side, and keen zealots on the other.
> One would be left to wonder at all those inexplicable reactions at
> large in society, for which there seemed no fathomable cause.
>
>
> Complete the loop.
>
> --- news://
freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints:
ne...@netfront.net ---
The other 'FishFood'
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!activity/uk.politics.misc/6WmzrjWRH4sJ