GCHQ leaks reveal programs to track targets, spread information and manipulate polls

[The Don]

Documents leaked by Edward Snowden reveal programs to track targets, spread information and manipulate online debates

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/7/14/1405362019914/GCHQ--011.jpg


The UK intelligence agency GCHQ has developed sophisticated tools to manipulate online polls, spam targets with SMS messages, track people by impersonating spammers and monitor social media postings, according to newly-published documents leaked by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden.

The documents – which were published on First Look Media with accompanying analysis from Glenn Greenwald – disclose a range of GCHQ "effects" programs aimed at tracking targets, spreading information, and manipulating online debates and statistics.

The disclosure comes the day before the UK parliament is due to begin up to three days' debate on emergency legislation governing British surveillance capabilities. With cross-party support the bill is expected to be voted through this week.

Among the programs revealed in the document are:

• GATEWAY: the "ability to artificially increase traffic to a website".

• CLEAN SWEEP which "masquerade[s] Facebook wall posts for individuals or entire countries".

• SCRAPHEAP CHALLENGE for "perfect spoofing of emails from BlackBerry targets".

• UNDERPASS to "change outcome of online polls".

• SPRING BISHOP to find "private photos of targets on Facebook".

The document also details a range of programs designed to collect and store public postings from Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and Google+, and to make automated postings on several of the social networks.

Capabilities to boost views of YouTube videos, or to boost the circulation of particular messages are also detailed.

GCHQ has also, the document suggests, developed capabilities to scan and geolocate the IPs of entire cities at a time.

The document does not detail the legal restrictions on using any of the programs, nor state how often any were deployed. Several of the programs, though, are described as being at "pilot" stage.

GCHQ declined to provide First Look Media with a detailed statement, but told the outlet all its programs were "in accordance with a strict legal and policy framework" with "rigorous oversight".

Greenwald characterised the GCHQ statement as "questionable" in his article.
source:http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jul/14/gchq-tools-manipulate-online-information-leak


There's literally no need for a government to want to control their population with the mass manipulation of online data. So ridiculous to think that not too long ago people would have been accused of being crazy or wearing a tinfoil hat if they dared to suggest the government is spying on its own people, and now we know that not only that is true with the recent NSA leaks, but now they are actively attempting to sway and control the masses. Obviously there has always been propaganda but this takes it to a whole new level. 1984 ring a bell, anyone?

[FlyingJesus]

Why would you call a program Spring Bishop

[-:Undertaker:-]

It's great to see you get riled by government interference with your laptop and computer forums when you're not in the slightest bit interested (indeed, you support it) when government gets involved as to whether I can light up in a pub, whether I can say what I want on the street, whether a business can pay below the minimum wage or not to underskilled school-leavers and so on and so forth. Everytime i've pushed back against more state interference, on every single thread you're one of the key posters who will post arguing for MORE state medding in whatever issue is at hand.

After all, doesn't government have a duty to take careeeee of us all as the likes of you always tell me? Suck it up mate is my answer.


http://cdn.pjmedia.com/tatler/files/2014/02/tragic-irony-poetic-justice.gif

[The Don]

It's great to see you get riled by government interference with your laptop and computer forums when you're not in the slightest bit interested (indeed, you support it) when government gets involved as to whether I can light up in a pub, whether I can say what I want on the street, whether a business can pay below the minimum wage or not to underskilled school-leavers and so on and so forth. Everytime i've pushed back against more state interference, on every single thread you're one of the key posters who will post arguing for MORE state medding in whatever issue is at hand.

After all, doesn't government have a duty to take careeeee of us all as the likes of you always tell me? Suck it up mate is my answer.


http://cdn.pjmedia.com/tatler/files/2014/02/tragic-irony-poetic-justice.gif

Ah yes, Dan once again linking everything back to a completely different subject to derail the thread. Bravo.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Ah yes, Dan once again linking everything back to a completely different subject to derail the thread. Bravo.

It's called principle. You cannot argue against state interference on the basis that it is wrong for the state to interfere in such personal matters as you advocate state action in other personal matters of your fellow subjects... all you can argue on is the merits of state action in this particular matter rather than whether state action is immoral to begin with in such personal matters.

And very strong arguments can be put forward for state control in regards to the internet/computers, so you're probably going to lose that one too. Infact, you are losing that one already as the same people in government who support ever increasing regulation on the topics I mentioned (like yourself) happen to believe in more state regulation and intervention when it comes to the online world too.

[The Don]

It's called principle. You cannot argue against state interference on the basis that it is wrong for the state to interfere in such personal matters as you advocate state action in other personal matters of your fellow subjects... all you can argue on is the merits of state action in this particular matter rather than whether state action is immoral to begin with in such personal matters.

And very strong arguments can be put forward for state control in regards to the internet/computers, so you're probably going to lose that one too.

You're comparing apples and oranges. Restrictions are not the same as spying on citizens and manipulating data to control the masses. I want the state to provide health care for everyone, that doesn't mean I then can't criticise the government if tomorrow they decide to ban all private media outlets and have a national one instead. By your logic I wouldn't be able to criticise the government in my example because I agree with state controlled healthcare, therefore I must agree with everything being state owned.

[FlyingJesus]

"If you agree with the existence of laws you therefore agree with being illegally tracked"

Not quite my favourite Dangument but it's pretty good. My favourite of course is still "if you give me proof that I'm wrong it proves me right"