Feds contracted software to create "fake people

[Jerry Biggers]

Is this for real? Or is it a scam? Rush Limbaugh reported a news item that the feds have issued a contract for software to create fake people (personas) that would give the illusion of multiple people posting when it is actually only one. SEE THIS ARTICLE OR GOOGLE ON THE SUBJECT:

http://thepartyofknow.com/2011/02/19/the-blazeu-s-gov%E2%80%98t-software-creates-%E2%80%99fake-people%E2%80%99-to-spread-message-via-social-networking/

I thought Limbaugh was b.s.ing, but there are now a lot of articles on the web about this. Concerns about the manipulation of creating a consensus for a targeted issue is one possibility. Web sites from both the left and right are commenting on this. If true, the implications of what such software in unscrupulous (e.g., government agencies or others wishing to manipulate, subvert, or otherwise neutralize "dangerous" ideas and/or the people spreading them) hands could do is,...enormous.

Although anyone can log on to various sites and misrepresent themselves (such as in "user opinions" about product reviews). However, the software described appears to be a lot more sophisticated in its manipulative techniques and also gives the user the ability to create ten or more "personas" and post them as if they all are separate individuals.

Edited February 26, 2011 by Jerry Biggers

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jerry,

This is quite real. It is also a very common practice in Internet marketing. So when the government does it, those fine folks who rule us are not doing anything new or out of the ordinary. (Why doesn't that make me feel good, though?)

As to the practice in IM, this is a gray area which is either good or bad, depending on how you do it. Obviously, there is nothing wrong with a pen name. Even "Ayn Rand" was one. And just look at the form membership.

The rationale for using personas by affiliate marketers, ones, for example, who make small targeted minisites for a host of different products, is that you cannot have a person selling a weight-loss program and ice cream at the same time. The lack of congruency will destroy the credibility enough to damage sales. So it is common for an Internet marketer to have a weight loss persona, a make money online persona, a six-pack abs persona, a dating advice persona, etc., all at the same time, each with its own set of sites.

It's easy to see how this can become abused. But so long as you are selling good stuff to people who normally buy it from people like your personas and you keep a healthy distance, I see it as OK. It's very near the same thing as a fictional TV ad characters. Not quite, but close.

But if you start developing strong relationships with customers, or do like those scam artists who targeted "work-at-home-moms" that the FTC came down on, it can get really sleazy.

There's one famous Internet marketer, Vishen Lakhiani, who even made a system out of this where he reveals himself to his public at the end--usually at the point where he has to decide whether to develop relationships or not. If he wants to become more involved (say, with a long-term autoresponder relationship), he simply lets people know the first "him" was a persona used to attract them. And they eat it up. Since he over-delivers on quality and quantity, they appreciate someone like that using a marketing tactic to cut through the noise to reach them. His massive success shows that his approach is a good one. (His market is New Agey stuff, but that is beside the point marketing-wise.)

This is something that is not going to go away. When the government does it, though, we need to keep an eye on it. The government can get sleazier than any scam artist out there.

Michael

[Jerry Biggers]

Jerry,

This is quite real. It is also a very common practice in Internet marketing. So when the government does it, those fine folks who rule us are not doing anything new or out of the ordinary. (Why doesn't that make me feel good, though?)

As to the practice in IM, this is a gray area which is either good or bad, depending on how you do it. Obviously, there is nothing wrong with a pen name. Even "Ayn Rand" was one. And just look at the form membership.

The rationale for using personas by affiliate marketers, ones, for example, who make small targeted minisites for a host of different products, is that you cannot have a person selling a weight-loss program and ice cream at the same time. The lack of congruency will destroy the credibility enough to damage sales. So it is common for an Internet marketer to have a weight loss persona, a make money online persona, a six-pack abs persona, a dating advice persona, etc., all at the same time, each with its own set of sites.

It's easy to see how this can become abused. But so long as you are selling good stuff to people who normally buy it from people like your personas and you keep a healthy distance, I see it as OK. It's very near the same thing as a fictional TV ad characters. Not quite, but close.

But if you start developing strong relationships with customers, or do like those scam artists who targeted "work-at-home-moms" that the FTC came down on, it can get really sleazy.

There's one famous Internet marketer, Vishen Lakhiani, who even made a system out of this where he reveals himself to his public at the end--usually at the point where he has to decide whether to develop relationships or not. If he wants to become more involved (say, with a long-term autoresponder relationship), he simply lets people know the first "him" was a persona used to attract them. And they eat it up. Since he over-delivers on quality and quantity, they appreciate someone like that using a marketing tactic to cut through the noise to reach them. His massive success shows that his approach is a good one. (His market is New Agey stuff, but that is beside the point marketing-wise.)

This is something that is not going to go away. When the government does it, though, we need to keep an eye on it. The government can get sleazier than any scam artist out there.

Michael

Michael,

Here is a slightly different version from something that calls itself "The Patriot Action Network" (Tea Partiers?) http://www.patriotactionnetwork.com/forum/topic/show?id=2600775%3ATopic%3A3237602&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_topic

Yeah, I know the internet marketers do it. C-Net (or one of their competitors) has had articles along the lines of , "How do you know that the users comments are from consumers and not from salesmen trying to promote the product reviewed or from their competitors?." If I am looking at user reviews of a software product on Amazon or other sites, and I see a whole bunch of comments divided roughly into two camps: "This is the greatest piece of software I have ever used! Buy it immediately," or "This is one of the worst pieces of shit that I have ever seen. It ruined my computer! Avoid at all costs!" then I generally dismiss both sides.

However, what this article is talking about is a lot more scarier than any marketing hype. They elaborate on the ramifications in some detail and others have voiced similar concerns. They are talking about the government (any government) or other entity (take your pick) using this technology to either manipulate by establishing a false consensus on an issue or, in the case of somebody's Facebook page, really messing it up by false entries, or otherwise rending it unusable.

I don't know how realistic these concerns are, but they sound feasible.

[DavidMcK]

This is also interesting in light of the news stories that the military attempted to use 'psi ops' for visitors to Afghanistan (which is illegal to use on American Citizens) as reported in Rolling Stone.

[syrakusos]

The story appeared in PC World here:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/220495/army_of_fake_social_media_friends_to_promote_propaganda.html

Army of Fake Social Media Friends to Promote Propaganda

Does a code of ethics still exist in Intelligence firms? Does it disappear behind closed doors, dirty deeds done in the dark and used against the American people who are supposed to be free to express themselves?

By Darlene Storm, Computerworld Feb 23, 2011 5:03 pm

It's recently been revealed that the U.S. government contracted HBGary Federal for the development of software which could create multiple fake social media profiles to manipulate and sway public opinion on controversial issues by promoting propaganda. It could also be used as surveillance to find public opinions with points of view the powers-that-be didn't like. It could then potentially have their "fake" people run smear campaigns against those "real" people. As disturbing as this is, it's not really new for U.S. intelligence or private intelligence firms to do the dirty work behind closed doors.

and they cite this Computerworld story from October 14, 2010

http://blogs.computerworld.com/17165/eff_warns_big_brother_wants_to_be_your_friend

which is based on this August 24, 2010 press release from the Electronic Frontier Foundation

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/08/government-finds-uses-social-networking-sites

[Jerry Biggers]

The story appeared in PC World here:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/220495/army_of_fake_social_media_friends_to_promote_propaganda.html

Army of Fake Social Media Friends to Promote Propaganda

Does a code of ethics still exist in Intelligence firms? Does it disappear behind closed doors, dirty deeds done in the dark and used against the American people who are supposed to be free to express themselves?

By Darlene Storm, Computerworld Feb 23, 2011 5:03 pm

It's recently been revealed that the U.S. government contracted HBGary Federal for the development of software which could create multiple fake social media profiles to manipulate and sway public opinion on controversial issues by promoting propaganda. It could also be used as surveillance to find public opinions with points of view the powers-that-be didn't like. It could then potentially have their "fake" people run smear campaigns against those "real" people. As disturbing as this is, it's not really new for U.S. intelligence or private intelligence firms to do the dirty work behind closed doors.

and they cite this Computerworld story from October 14, 2010

http://blogs.computerworld.com/17165/eff_warns_big_brother_wants_to_be_your_friend

which is based on this August 24, 2010 press release from the Electronic Frontier Foundation

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/08/government-finds-uses-social-networking-sites

Michael,

The stories in the additional three links that you listed contain additional material that is even more worrisome from a privacy standpoint. Among other items is a brief mention that confirms that the use of various "anonymizing" software to conceal your IP address when web surfing are clearly not anonymous and can be penetrated by some of the methods discussed.

The potential to use the Internet to tdentify and spy on any and all activities of users apparently wxists now. The extent to which it is actually being used by domestic and foreign governmental agencies is not clear. In fact, one of the more sinister aspects of all this surveillance is that the user may never know what he is revealing or how vulnerable he has made himself - until it is too late.

The danger of this creating a world to match or surpass that depicted in George Orwell's 1984 is frightening.

[Jerry Biggers]

,,,which brings the following question to mind,

How do I know that most of the other posters on this website are real people, and not personas created by a nefarious agency to lull me into a false sense of security, so that I reveal what I know about the correspondence and subsequent clandestine meetings between ...(well, I certainly can't mention here!).

[caroljane]

,,,which brings the following question to mind,

How do I know that most of the other posters on this website are real people, and not personas created by a nefarious agency to lull me into a false sense of security, so that I reveal what I know about the correspondence and subsequent clandestine meetings between ...(well, I certainly can't mention here!).

FRATERNAL ORDER OF THE SACRED IGLOO Local 13

RED ALERT

BUSTED in Sector 76! All agents HOME right now, I don't care how damn sunny it is down there.

I mean it

Nanook

[syrakusos]

The potential to use the Internet to tdentify and spy on any and all activities of users apparently wxists now. ... The danger of this creating a world to match or surpass that depicted in George Orwell's 1984 is frightening.

Myself, I take pictures. But some people don't like their picture being taken. I figure that you give up your privacy when you leave the house. I also understand that a virtual reality is still a reality: you leave your home, walk down the street, stop at the deli, get a haircut, meet a friend ... You turn on your computer, click the browser, pick a favorite, goto a website, read a post, post your reply ...

The private sector is different from the public in very many ways. Never in the business world have I met an agent provocateur: no one is specially empowered to test other peoples' loyalities by making disloyal statements to see who goes along. In a business, anyone who does not like it, leaves. (Sometimes you get buy-outs and reorganizations, but usually, people just leave.) In politics, "we the people" each think that we ought to be in charge and are far less likely to "vote with our feet." On both the political right and left you get extremism that is truly physically dangerous to other people. (You do not normally get that in business: We will block this restroom until the accounting department adds a line item for the depreciation of ink erasers!) But in politics, you also have agents who are specially empowered to test the loyalities of citizens. We had this about a month ago when Congresswoman Giffords was shot. Someone wanted to know the Objectivist position on assassination. Don't even reply. In fact, if this were my board, I would have closed that account and blocked that IP address.

Richard Hofstadter's The Paranoid Style in American Politics(1964) shows that this is classic, but I say, not limited to us. Despite the Alien and Sedition Acts, the Know-Nothing Party, and all that, right up to now, in truth ancient history shows that this can be found in Athens and Rome also.

Still, the facts remain as they are. During the George W. Bush administration years, the Earth Liberation Front was labeled America's worst domestic terrorist threat. But at that same time, extreme conservatives were engaged in firefights against law enforcement officers, which the greenies never were. Now the pendulum swings. The Missouri State Police were not alone in being told that libertarians were potential terrorists, to be wary when stopping cars with Ron Paul bumper stickers. Gratefully, after the Giffords shooting, President Obama made the same kinds of ameliorating statements that President Bush did after 9/11. So, the USA is not as politically stressed as other nations are showing themselves to be.

Still, the undercurrent continues. Those in power have broad and deep validations for doing whatever is necessary to maintain the status quo. That they have a strong faith in their righteousness is problematic on many levels. Thus, reality-based egocentric ethics looks to the bourgeois virtue of Benjamin Franklin whose designs for money included the motto "Mind your business."

[Reidy]

That would explain a lot about Nancy Pelosi. And I thought it was plastic surgery.