portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reporting united states

government | police / legal

DOD Psyops Targets Websites

Department of Defense targets Internet and other communications using the electromagnetic spectrum. Their goal is to change the believes of the public by spreading propaganda. The operations include a surprising range of military activities: public affairs officers who brief journalists, psychological operations troops who try to manipulate the thoughts and beliefs of an enemy, computer network attack specialists who seek to destroy enemy networks.
A newly declassified document gives a fascinating glimpse into the US military's plans for "information operations" - from psychological operations, to attacks on hostile computer networks
As the world turns networked, the Pentagon is calculating the military opportunities that computer networks, wireless technologies and the modern media offer.
From influencing public opinion through new media to designing "computer network attack" weapons, the US military is learning to fight an electronic war.
The declassified document is called "Information Operations Roadmap". It was obtained by the National Security Archive at George Washington University using the Freedom of Information Act.
Officials in the Pentagon wrote it in 2003. The Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, signed it.
The "roadmap" calls for a far-reaching overhaul of the military's ability to conduct information operations and electronic warfare. And, in some detail, it makes recommendations for how the US armed forces should think about this new, virtual warfare.
The document says that information is "critical to military success". Computer and telecommunications networks are of vital operational importance.
The operations described in the document include a surprising range of military activities: public affairs officers who brief journalists, psychological operations troops who try to manipulate the thoughts and beliefs of an enemy, computer network attack specialists who seek to destroy enemy networks.

All these are engaged in information operations.

Perhaps the most startling aspect of the roadmap is its acknowledgement that information put out as part of the military's psychological operations, or Psyops, is finding its way onto the computer and television screens of ordinary Americans.
"Information intended for foreign audiences, including public diplomacy and Psyops, is increasingly consumed by our domestic audience," it reads.
"Psyops messages will often be replayed by the news media for much larger audiences, including the American public," it goes on.
The document's authors acknowledge that American news media should not unwittingly broadcast military propaganda. "Specific boundaries should be established," they write. But they don't seem to explain how.
"In this day and age it is impossible to prevent stories that are fed abroad as part of psychological operations propaganda from blowing back into the United States - even though they were directed abroad," says Kristin Adair of the National Security Archive.

Credibility problem

Public awareness of the US military's information operations is low, but it's growing - thanks to some operational clumsiness.
Late last year, it emerged that the Pentagon had paid a private company, the Lincoln Group, to plant hundreds of stories in Iraqi newspapers. The stories - all supportive of US policy - were written by military personnel and then placed in Iraqi publications.
And websites that appeared to be information sites on the politics of Africa and the Balkans were found to be run by the Pentagon.
But the true extent of the Pentagon's information operations, how they work, who they're aimed at, and at what point they turn from informing the public to influencing populations, is far from clear.
The roadmap, however, gives a flavour of what the US military is up to - and the grand scale on which it's thinking.
It reveals that Psyops personnel "support" the American government's international broadcasting. It singles out TV Marti - a station which broadcasts to Cuba - as receiving such support.
It recommends that a global website be established that supports America's strategic objectives. But no American diplomats here, thank you. The website would use content from "third parties with greater credibility to foreign audiences than US officials".
It also recommends that Psyops personnel should consider a range of technologies to disseminate propaganda in enemy territory: unmanned aerial vehicles, "miniaturized, scatterable public address systems", wireless devices, cellular phones and the internet.

'Fight the net'

When it describes plans for electronic warfare, or EW, the document takes on an extraordinary tone.
It seems to see the internet as being equivalent to an enemy weapons system.
"Strategy should be based on the premise that the Department [of Defense] will 'fight the net' as it would an enemy weapons system," it reads.
The slogan "fight the net" appears several times throughout the roadmap.
The authors warn that US networks are very vulnerable to attack by hackers, enemies seeking to disable them, or spies looking for intelligence.

"Networks are growing faster than we can defend them... Attack sophistication is increasing... Number of events is increasing."

US digital ambition

And, in a grand finale, the document recommends that the United States should seek the ability to "provide maximum control of the entire electromagnetic spectrum".
US forces should be able to "disrupt or destroy the full spectrum of globally emerging communications systems, sensors, and weapons systems dependent on the electromagnetic spectrum".

Consider that for a moment.

The US military seeks the capability to knock out every telephone, every networked computer, every radar system on the planet.
Are these plans the pipe dreams of self-aggrandising bureaucrats? Or are they real?
The fact that the "Information Operations Roadmap" is approved by the Secretary of Defense suggests that these plans are taken very seriously indeed in the Pentagon.
And that the scale and grandeur of the digital revolution is matched only by the US military's ambitions for it.
Who does DOD define as enemies? 28.Jan.2006 10:44

student

Who are the enemies?

Is it a free press? If they want to control the information a free press might be a problem.

Is it anti-war protesters and people who believe in nonviolence? They might compete with the propaganda or information control.

Is it the Constitution? The constitution would block or impede some of the propaganda efforts.


It seems to me the prime target would be the free will of the American public.

Call it what it is. 28.Jan.2006 11:27

evilkneevers evilknee@yahoo.com

This is just another atypical action from our fascist government. Where I live we have a new proposed local ordinance that will allow police to arrest groups of three or more people loitering in public. It is being sold as a anti gang policy, but the loose definition of eco or political dissidents as terrorists or gang bangers will also be used to justify future mass arrests.

The proposed laws to prosecute annoying speech on the web is also another bold step down the sliding floor towards a more harsh and violent fascist government.

This is class warfare. It is conducted against us by rich people, hiding behind corporate charters and fraudulent elections. Totalitarian regimes never go lightly into the night. This one won't either. I suggest concentrating on the validation of our voting systems as a good focus for our time. Exit polls, and exit polling organizations give us forensic evidence of the epidemic of corruption that is allowing these leaders to maintain their defiant and criminal activities.

Please check out the fine work of  http://www.uscountvotes.org/. The smoking gun is still smoking. Distribute this information widely!

I've lost information from numerous system crashes, as have many progressive and dissident active web sites and publishers. That our government is at fault for these digital attacks has never been a question. This article confirms what I've already experienced. It's pretty useless to think you can be anonymous on line. Use your name, and fight back legally. The curtain has been pulled back, and the criminals are now in the light. Now let's pull their pants down. I also subscribe to more Eastern belief, that violence only begets violence. Anyone who suggest violence or property crimes should be shunned. Guerillas act quick, alone and don't brag. Those who ask too many questions have a timetable that you should suspect.

IMPEACH, INDICT, IMPRISON!

Keep yer head up and your media dry.
Paul

Check this out! 28.Jan.2006 11:49

Back to the Future

Devoy put this petition online back on Dec 19 2004 calling for an investigation into this DoD program. Devoy had inside knowledge based on his previous employment. The petition was trashed with fake signatures and most IMCs considered it "paranoia mongering." It turns out Devoy was right:

"To: U.S. Congress

We, the undersigned, hereby request a congressional investigation into online harassment and cyber warfare conducted by the Department of Defense against Americans.

Shortly after the attacks of 9/1/2001, various defense contractors were approached by an intelligence agency, believed to be the Defense Intelligence Agency, to wage cyber warfare upon domestic "enemies of the state." Shortly thereafter began an extended online campaign to shut down Islamic, Arab and Progressive websites within the United States of America through online harassment, threats, intimidation, and hacking. Dozens of Islamic, Arab and Anarchist websites have been shut down through this illegal process.

We request a full investigation into cyber warfare conducted by the United States Department of Defense against Americans. We demand a suspension in all U.S. Government funding to contractors alleged to be involved in the aforementioned cyber warfare program until and if they are cleared by the requested investigation.

Sincerely,

The Undersigned"

Here's the URL:  http://www.petitiononline.com/dodcw1/petition.html


related article 30.Jan.2006 19:51

by Wayne Madsen

Choking the Internet
How much longer will your favorite sites be on line?

by Wayne Madsen
 link to educate-yourself.org
December 12, 2005

Forward courtesy of Jon Logan < jon7@pacificcoast.net>
www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=MAD20051212&articleId=1448

Internet censorship. It did not happen overnight but slowly came to America's shores from testing grounds in China and the Middle East.

Progressive and investigative journalist web site administrators are beginning to talk to each other about it, e-mail users are beginning to understand why their e-mail is being disrupted by it, major search engines appear to be complying with it, and the low to equal signal-to-noise ratio of legitimate e-mail and spam appears to be perpetuated by it.

In this case, "it," is what privacy and computer experts have long warned about: massive censorship of the web on a nationwide and global scale. For many years, the web has been heavily censored in countries around the world. That censorship continues at this very moment. Now it is happening right here in America. The agreement by the Congress to extend an enhanced Patriot Act for another four years will permit the political enforcers of the Bush administration, who use law enforcement as their proxies, to further clamp censorship controls on the web.

Internet Censorship: The Warning Signs Were Not Hidden

The warning signs for the crackdown on the web have been with us for over a decade. The Clipper chip controversy of the 90s, John Poindexter's Total Information Awareness (TIA) system pushed in the aftermath of 9-11, backroom deals between the Federal government and the Internet service industry, and the Patriot Act have ushered in a new era of Internet censorship, something just half a decade ago computer programmers averred was impossible given the nature of the web. They were wrong, dead wrong.

Take for example of what recently occurred when two journalists were taking on the phone about a story that appeared on Google News. The story was about a Christian fundamentalist move in Congress to use U.S. military force in Sudan to end genocide in Darfur. The story appeared on the English Google News site in Qatar. But the very same Google News site when accessed simultaneously in Washington, DC failed to show the article. This censorship is accomplished by geolocation filtering: the restriction or modifying of web content based on the geographical region of the user. In addition to countries, such filtering can now be implemented for states, cities, and even individual IP addresses.

With reports in the Swedish newspaper Svensa Dagbladet today that the United States has transmitted a Homeland Security Department "no fly" list of 80,000 suspected terrorists to airport authorities around the world, it is not unreasonable that a "no [or restricted] surfing/emailing" list has been transmitted to Internet Service Providers around the world. The systematic disruptions of web sites and email strongly suggests that such a list exists.

News reports on CIA prisoner flights and secret prisons are disappearing from Google and other search engines like Alltheweb as fast as they appear. Here now, gone tomorrow is the name of the game.

Google is systematically failing to list and link to articles that contain explosive information about the Bush administration, the war in Iraq, Al Qaeda, and U.S. political scandals. But Google is not alone in working closely to stifle Internet discourse. America On Line, Microsoft, Yahoo and others are slowly turning the Internet into an information superhighway dominated by barricades, toll booths, off-ramps that lead to dead ends, choke points, and security checks.

America On Line (AOL) is the most egregious is stifling Internet freedom. A former AOL employee noted how AOL and other Internet Service Providers cooperate with the Bush administration in censoring email. The Patriot Act gave federal agencies the power to review information to the packet level and AOL was directed by agencies like the FBI to do more than sniff the subject line. The AOL term of service (TOS) has gradually been expanded to grant AOL virtually universal power regarding information. Many AOL users are likely unaware of the elastic clause, which says they will be bound by the current TOS and any TOS revisions which AOL may elect at any time in the future. Essentially, AOL users once agreed to allow the censorship and non-delivery of their email.

Microsoft has similar requirements for Hotmail as do Yahoo and Google for their respective e-mail services.

There are also many cases of Google's search engine failing to list and link to certain information. According to a number of web site administrators who carry anti-Bush political content, this situation has become more pronounced in the last month. In addition, many web site administrators are reporting a dramatic drop-off in hits to their sites, according to their web statistic analyzers. Adding to their woes is the frequency at which spam viruses are being spoofed as coming from their web site addresses.

Government disruption of the political side of the web can easily be hidden amid hyped mainstream news media reports of the latest "boutique" viruses and worms, reports that have more to do with the sales of anti-virus software and services than actual long-term disruption of banks, utilities, or airlines.

Internet Censorship in the US: No Longer a Prediction

Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, and Cisco Systems have honed their skills at Internet censorship for years in places like China, Jordan, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Vietnam, and other countries. They have learned well. They will be the last to admit they have imported their censorship skills into the United States at the behest of the Bush regime. Last year, the Bush-Cheney campaign blocked international access to its web site -- www.georgewbush.com -- for unspecified "security reasons."

Only those in the Federal bureaucracy and the companies involved are in a position to know what deals have been made and how extensive Internet censorship has become. They owe full disclosure to their customers and their fellow citizens.

Wayne Madsen

 http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/