Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
- In Arkansas, Exxon Is Threatening to Arrest Reporters But Otherwise Telling Nobody Nothing
- It’s Official: A Democratic President Proposes to Cut Social Security
- The Corporate Betrayal of America
- Why Would Anyone Celebrate the Death of Margaret Thatcher? Ask a Chilean
- The Elephant in the Room: Militarism
Popular content
Today's Top News
Revealed: US Spy Operation That Manipulates Social Media
Exclusive: Military's 'sock puppet' software creates fake online identities to spread pro-American propaganda
The US military is developing software that will let it secretly manipulate social media using fake online personas designed to influence internet conversations and spread pro-American propaganda.
General David Petraeus has said US efforts to spy on social media are aimed at 'countering extremist ideology and propaganda'. (Cliff Owen/AP) A Californian corporation has been awarded a contract with the US Central Command (Centcom) to develop what is described as an "online persona management service" that will allow one serviceman or woman to control up to 10 separate identities at once.
The contract stipulates each persona must have a convincing background, history and supporting details, and that up to 50 controllers must be able to operate false identities from their workstations "without fear of being discovered by sophisticated adversaries".
The project has been likened by web experts to China's attempts to control and restrict free speech on the internet.
Centcom's contract requires the provision of one "virtual private server" in the United States and eight appearing to be outside the US to give the impression the fake personas are real people located in different parts of the world. It calls for "traffic mixing", blending the persona controllers' internet usage with the usage of people outside Centcom in a manner that must offer "excellent cover and powerful deniability".
Once developed the software could allow US service personnel, working around the clock in one location, to respond to emerging online conversations with a host of co-ordinated blogposts, tweets, retweets, chatroom posts and other interventions. Details of the contract suggest this location would be MacDill air force base near Tampa, Florida, home of US Special Operations Command.
Centcom spokesman Commander Bill Speaks said: "The technology supports classified blogging activities on foreign-language websites to enable Centcom to counter violent extremist and enemy propaganda outside the US."
He said none of the interventions was in English, as it would be unlawful to "address US audiences" with such technology, and any English-language use of social media by Centcom was always clearly attributed. The languages in which the interventions are conducted include Arabic, Farsi, Urdu and Pashto.
The multiple persona contract is thought to have been awarded as part of a programme called Operation Earnest Voice (OEV), which was first developed in Iraq as an psychological weapon against the online presence of al-Qaida supporters and others ranged against coalition forces. Since then OEV is reported to have expanded into a $200m programme and is thought to have been used against jihadists across Pakistan, Afghanistan and the Middle East.
OEV is seen by senior US commanders as a vital counter-terrorism and counter-radicalisation programme. In evidence to the US Senate's armed services committee last year, General David Petraeus, then commander of Centcom, described the operation as an effort to "counter extremist ideology and propaganda and to ensure that credible voices in the region are heard". He said the US military's objective was to be "first with the truth".
This month Petraeus's successor, General James Mattis, told the same committee that OEV "supports all activities associated with degrading the enemy narrative, including web engagement and web-based product distribution capabilities".
The discovery that the US military is developing false online personalities – known to users of social media as "sock puppets" – could encourage other governments, private companies and non-government organisations to do the same.
Critics are likely to complain that it will allow the US military to create a false consensus in online conversations, crowd out unwelcome opinions and smother commentaries or reports that do not correspond with its own objectives.
Centcom confirmed that the $2.76m contract was awarded to Ntrepid, a newly formed corporation registered in Los Angeles. It would not disclose whether the multiple persona project is in operation or discuss any related contracts.
Nobody was available for comment at Ntrepid.
In his evidence to the Senate committee, Gen Mattis said: "OEV seeks to disrupt recruitment and training of suicide bombers; deny safe havens for our adversaries; and counter extremist ideology and propaganda." Centcom was working with "our coalition partners" to develop new techniques and tactics that the US could use "to counter the adversary in the cyber domain".
According to a report by the inspector general of the US defence department in Iraq,, OEV was managed by the multinational forces rather than Centcom.
Asked whether any UK military personnel had been involved in OEV, Britain's Ministry of Defence said it could find "no evidence". The MoD refused to say whether it had been involved in the development of persona management programmes, however, saying: "We don't comment on cyber capability."
OEV was discussed last year at a gathering of electronic warfare specialists in Washington DC, where a senior Centcom officer told delegates that its purpose was to "communicate critical messages and to counter the propaganda of our adversaries".
Persona management by the US military would face legal challenges if it were turned against citizens of the US, where a number of people engaged in sock puppetry have faced prosecution.
Last year a New York lawyer who impersonated a scholar was sentenced to jail after being convicted of "criminal impersonation" and identity theft.
It is unclear whether a persona management programme would contravene UK law. Legal experts say it could fall foul of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981, which states that "a person is guilty of forgery if he makes a false instrument, with the intention that he or another shall use it to induce somebody to accept it as genuine, and by reason of so accepting it to do or not to do some act to his own or any other person's prejudice". However, this would apply only if a website or social network could be shown to have suffered "prejudice" as a result.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
190 Comments so far
Show AllWe have many military actions going on in other sovereign nations, illegally, and bitches like patreaus are hiring americans to 'rattle' people on social networks to 'highlight' potential customers for the u.s. military. What a plate of grease and a load of crap. Only under direct orders and even then I just cannot believe the people that get in the military that would do this kind of thing. Especially if it goes to antagonizing bloggers into being labels as activist or even subversives.
Why don't petreaus just hire illegal aliens to so his dirty work.
Well, as Orwell stated it, we'll protect amerika by spying and antagonizing the citizens.
"Why don't petreaus just hire illegal aliens to so his dirty work."
If I think about it, that would seem to be, in the long run, precisely what is already being done.
"The discovery that the US military is developing false online personalities – known to users of social media as "sock puppets" – could encourage other governments, private companies and non-government organisations to do the same."
I wonder if the author of the article was able to write this sentence with a straight face. US Corporations were way ahead of the military in the use of counterposters.
q
tell us more
Monsanto has done this sort of thing.
Check out "The world according to Monsanto."
Indeed quickstepper. 15 years ago a friend of mine took a job where he sat in a room and monitored news wire services, other people monitored TV news and basically any other media available. The company he worked for was paid by different corporations to monitor the media for any mention of them or their products. It isn't a big leap to assume that once the corporations were able to interact with the media (through MBs, blogs, etc...) that they would.
They've become so good at playing us like strings on a fiddle most of us don't even notice we're vibrating anymore.
The ruling elite rely heavily upon Deception to hide their insanely greedy & heartless objectives. The truth is their greatest enemy. It will set us free. It is like manure in the sense that it is of little use unless it is spread around widely. Support alternative/radical media!
Recently discovered this. They have great material much of the time - with some shows produced in Washington,DC between 4-11pm Eastern time. Funded by the Russian Gov't. CIO! http://rt.com/on-air/rt-america-air/
“I swear by the God of my parents, I swear by my nation, I swear by my honor that I will not allow my soul to rest, nor my arm to relax until I have broken the chains that oppress my people through the will of the powerful. Free elections, free land and free men, horror to the oligarchy.” Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez
Roho_halcon777, RT is ok, but it too may have an agenda. I noticed that the coverage of the US is ok (which is probably what matters to most), but its coverage of Russia is more like Soviet-time propaganda. And RT clearly seems to have a bias against action on climate change - once again, reflecting the Russian elite agenda.
Establishment journalists are military-industrial-organized crime marionettes avoiding real issues, truth and totalitarian MIC activities day after day in the electronic media as well as print. Sock puppets are an obvious accompaniment to marionettes.
As one poster suggested, online sock puppet technology is already available to the marionettes. That's why there is the MIC. That's why we should never forget the MIC. The ubiquitous MIC conspiracy is the constant totalitarian oppressor, while the different technologies come and go. The system is evil, not the technology itself.
posted under Roho_halcon777's comment.
I don't mind hearing the U.S. position about things, but I DO mind hearing it from people who are pretending to be someone they're not, or who don't actually believe what they're saying. If that's what the U.S. is doing, it's wrong -- reprehensible, in fact.
Perhaps the biggest danger, however, is the likelihood of sting operations like those of James O'Keefe organized and carried out by the government. All of us need to be on guard against such operations, and expose them, Wikileaks style, whenever we can.
Happily, I hope, it has been discovered that o'keefe did some serious editing on his little witch hunt.
As reported at truthdig:
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/npr_controversy_fueled_
by_dishonest_editing_20110314/
So if this is true, hopefully the discredit will hang around o'keefe's neck. And as mentioned elsewhere on this article, deceptions are the rule for the hiding of 'elite' agendas, along with obfuscation, razzle-dazzle and balderdash(all different versions of lies).
One consequence of this is visible here on Common Dreams. Everyone who does not agree with one persons position will be labeled a troll while at the same time there will be a number of trolls.
The purpose is not necessarily to "sell a pro-american message".It is to make the people with an alternative message suspect everyone. The genesis of new ideas then halts thus strengthening the status quo.
Paulk mentions that this could well create even more anti-american activists. He might well be correct but how effective will they be if none of them trust one another?
If you want to make a group of anti-government radicals ineffective, let leak that they have been infiltrated by pro government supporters who spy upon them. (They are being rather open about what they are doing here even as they insist it will not be used against American citizens (wink wink nudge nudge). Sprinkle that group with true agents that get "outed" and are obvious and then add to the mix people that insists that all that groups leaders are "working for the government".
I expect much the same tactics will be used to manipulate the Social Media. Research has been ongoing for years into Computer software programs that would simulate intelligence ever since it was suggested by Turing some 50 years ago. A fundamental weakness to this has been the "patterns" such programs exhibit. The citizen will have to be able to take a much broader picture picture of a given social media website in order to divine those patterns. While it appears the approach being used by the MIC is not the Independent computer software one but one directed by human controllers there will still be patterns.Objective reason as opposed to subjective reason will play a critical role.
It is going to happen. It is happening already. There will be no stopping it as long as the current power structure remains in place. Given its inevitably how do the people best ensure they will not be manipulated by it even if in subtle ways?
Thanks for the excellent explanation of how the tried and true COINTELPRO tactic works. It worked in 1970 and it wroks even better in the internet environemnt.
Shame that it has to be explained to us by a Canuck.
Well SaboCat, that doesn't mean Canucks are immune to similar tactics :)
"Feds eyeing online forums to correct 'misinformation'":
www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/QPeriod/20100523/government-online-forums-100523
>>GwNorth wrote: "There will be no stopping it as long as the current power structure remains in place. Given its inevitability how do the people best ensure they will not be manipulated by it even if in subtle ways?"<<
That really is a serious question, GwNorth. The only way I can think of is for more and more people to truly awaken, and become aware of not just attempts at manipulation from outside, but even of their own biases and blind-spots. Especially of their own biases and blind-spots. It is possible, but it takes work. Constant work, and regular tuning out of noise. Some people here pooh-pooh certain ideas as they seem to believe them as a hindrance to collective action. On the contrary, I am convinced that awakened "individuals", to the extent that they are free from an ego-driven mindset, will be able to better look at the big picture and find common ground with good people everywhere.
GwNorth....I think a good way (and actually we are being forced to) would be to crystalize our beliefs, focus on positive change, believe in the rightness of our own actions, and just hold steady. Doubt and paranoia will be our enemy. Also, seek support from like minded people.
To me, this is why a belief system is imperative. I'm not talking about a "religion." I'm talking about a whole worldview. I am a spiritually oriented, holistic person, and I think globally....if the end result of an action does not coincide with my belief system, I will reject it. "Be not deceived. In the last days, the very elect will be deceived."
Great post, GwNorth.
There is a well-known term that originated in the computer hardware industry and is now used by the public relations, marketing, sales and propaganda folks. It is termed F.U.D. -- Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. It is a subtle way to undermine an idea or a belief. The troll doesn't even need to argue to the end or 'win' the argument... all that is required is planting the seed of uncertainty and doubt in the readers mind.
The real test isn't spotting the obvious idiots (like Horace, or Shawn Berry) it's spotting the more subtle poster who poses as 'one of us'.
The other thing - which most of the astute people of CD already might know - is that with the advent of globalization the nation-states aren't the only ones fighting different types of wars (financial wars, information wars, etc). Globalization is beginning to alter or dispel the interest boundaries of which nation-states defend. The emergence of trans-national corporations, non-national interests, no longer are bound by the rules that were once set in place by nation-states - global capital now roams freely throughout the world with virtually no rules. And with this advent these major power blocs will inevitably collide and fight against each other. For example: an information war could be started by a major media corp, like Fox, to fight against a different power bloc (George Soros). The spread of disinformation - by both parties - will then reverberate throughout the country... and trolls from both parties will come to the internet forums to defend or attack these power blocs.
eventually, the question becomes who one truly knows, which reflective thought reveals to be no one but, hopefully, oneself...
I say Hopefully intentionally, as I do not know how to further another's interest or effort toward self-knowledge...
I know many have common interests, but do not see self-exploration among those...
there is no way to assemble for this fight...
the fight will be localized to the communities we each inhabit, or to which we travel in the near future...
the prize will not be a job, or a mortgage...
the prize will be the right to share and defend local resources with one's neighbors, without fear of abduction, enslavement or murder...
this will require a new level of both self-awareness and individual engagement...
gotta go...
I suggest September 22, 2012 as Global Start Day...
"He said none of the interventions was in English, as it would be unlawful to "address US audiences" with such technology, and any English-language use of social media by Centcom was always clearly attributed. "
So they'll do the same thing they did to monitor U.S. phone conversations before the 'Patriot' act: They'll perform the service for the Brits (and other friendlies) who can't legally do it internally, and they'll do the same for us. Quid pro quo.
So Brit sock puppets will disseminate U.S. propaganda in the U.S. and U.S. sock puppets will do the same in the U.K.
Thus is the rule of law maintained.
*WELL*-analysed! Take the curse off illegality by hiring out.
Hell, I don't think the AmeriKKKan CIA will go to all that trouble to work out a quid pro quo with the British intelligence agency. The CIA (or some other nefarious outfit in the government) will just initiate the propaganda schemes and deny that they are doing anything illegal. Just like they did in the example you mentioned about monitoring phone conversations of AmeriKKKan citizens.
Not so complicated -- they just do it secretly and lie. They lie about everything. It's easy to catch them lying -- what is strange is that so many people will see them about 100 things and then think the 101st is true.
For the oligarchy and fascists language is just a way to manipulate people and get more power or money -- not to communicate. We need to break away from our dependency on language as a reliable mode of thought and perception and use it simply as one input to augment what we see happening, and help consider the motives involved.
When an alcoholic tells you he can handle it and drinking is not affecting him, and he can stop at any time, etc. what that should tell you is not that he can handle it but that he is still addicted, because you already know he is an alcoholic. When you know someone is a fascist or authoritarian you already know what his motivations and addictions are, and should not take what he says literally, but as what he wants to believe, and/or what he wants others to believe.
More illegal, unethical behavior by our government. We know they don't care about the law. We know they are already doing this in the English language, whether with a program or individual sock puppets, because we see their shills here and in many other forums. It is a measure of the government's total moral bankruptcy that it has to constantly seek to propagandize the world that it stands for peace and freedom when the truth is constantly revealed to everyone as the exact opposite. If its policies really promoted freedom and democracy there would be no need to resort to this propagandizing.
As for "sock puppets," Osama Bin Laden is their biggest sock puppet. And look at what he has done for the Pentagon, for Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics and the rest of the Military Industrial Complex!
A Trylon History Review
FDR asked General "Wild Bill" Donovan to create and run something called the Office of Strategic Services. Launched in June 1942, the initial special services were behind-the-lines spying. But the OSS vacuumed academic Psychologists into its ranks, and so was born the phenomenon of Psychological Warfare. Note well that these two important words are missing from the article, hence this comment.
In 1949 PsyWar became a major tool of the CIA - and was used upon the soil of other nations. BUT - as the French Expeditionary Forces approached defeat in Viet Nam, and experienced defeat at Dien Bien Phu, CIA dickheads decided it was necessary to wage Psychological Warfare upon the population of the United States of America. The opening salvo was a book called =Deliver Us From Evil= ostensibly written by Catholic hero, Thomas A. Dooley, MD. There followed a period of six years in which hack writers turned out myriad books and not a few movies for the CIA, propagandizing the domino theory and warning Americans to poke under their beds with a broom handle at bedtime, a wise check for Communists, because they are EVERYWHERE.
This incredible PsyWar operation during the McCarthy Era was among the astonishing things that was painfully disclosed by the =Church Committee Hearings=.
If this article is based upon provable information, the military participants in this phenomenon - no matter their rank - are multitudes of orders more traitorous than Bradley Manning could ever be. If they are ever exposed, they may need to watch their Six the rest of their lives.
Trylon
Good points. This article merely points to a new twist on something very old. With Operation Mockingbird the CIA was infiltrating the mass media to propagandize the US populace. There is no evidence that ever stopped either. And it is certainly unconstitutional and illegal.
From Kirkus Reviews - of "Dr. America: The Lives of Thomas A. Dooley, 1927-1961 (Culture, Politics, and the Cold War)" - ISBN-13: 978-1558491540.
An accomplished biography of an almost forgotten, but important, player in American Vietnam War policymaking in the mid- and late 1950s. A handful of Americans, most of them intelligence operatives, were present at the creation of the Republic of (South) Vietnam in 1954. One of them was Dr. Thomas A. Dooley, the until-then unremarkable son of a prominent St. Louis family. Dooley went to North Vietnam in 1954 as a US Navy doctor to administer to refugees who wished to flee south before the Communist takeover. The next year the self-promoting, flamboyant physician became ``the symbol of Vietnamese-American friendship in the ongoing struggle to promote the first democracy in Southeast Asia,'' notes Fisher (Humanities/St. Louis Univ.) in this myth-breaking biography. Fisher presents a deeply researched and highly critical study of a man who in the late 1950s was ``America's first celebrity-saint'' by virtue of his seemingly selfless medical work in Vietnam and Laos and his loudly professed Roman Catholic beliefs. However, according to Fisher's convincing work, Dooley actually was an abrasive, arrogant, self-aggrandizing egotist who was also ``naive to the point of self-delusion.'' It appears that he did truly care about helping destitute Vietnamese and Lao citizens. But Dooley, who died of cancer in 1961, allowed himself to be used shamelessly by the CIA and by the so-called Vietnam Lobby to put an idealistic face on the growing American involvement in Vietnam. One of the ``lives'' Fisher's subtitle refers to was Dooley's secret homosexual persona. Dooley's homosexuality shadowed every facet of his life in the homophobic era in which he lived, especially after it led to his embarrassing dismissal from the Navy. Fisher's examination of that part of Dooley's life is, like the rest of the book, insightful and enlightening.
Having read the book, including footnotes & references, my subsequent correspondence with Dr. Fisher shook the crap out of him. I had a source that he didn't - a CIA contemporary with Dooley in Vietnam, Notre Dame grad..
Tom Dooley was no =unwilling shill= of the Vietnam Lobby, formed =after= Operation Passage to Freedom. Fisher cannot explain why Dooley went to the Sorbonne to study Tropical Diseases. Damn few of them are found in St. Louis. He was a horse's ass at medical school and never should have received an MD sheepskin, but the wealthy Dooley family was a $$ donor.
The use of the term =persona= is interesting. My conclusion, after studying Tom Dooley several years, was that he was MPD. One of his alters had a phenomenal sense of smell, and he would detect when a woman was menstruating. If this woman happened to be his waitress in a restaurant, he would wrinkle his nose and tell her to go change her napkin. No lie. This happened more than once in the presence of male friends.
As a teenager I watched the 1960 television episodes sponsored by the American Cancer Society, where they wanted to use Dr. Tom Dooley to propagandize =Cancer can be beaten=. The audience listened to an interview with TD before the gurney was wheeled into the operating room. But cancer beat the American Cancer Society, which was left with medical egg on its face and a bill for the TV program.
Although the last rites administered to Tom Dooley were by a hospital chaplain, Cardinal Spellman visited him two hours before death. Spellman was not just the organizer of the Vietnam Lobby. He was a mover and shaker from the day the French Expeditionary Forces returned to Vietnam in 1946. My gut hunch is Spelly had something to do with Dooley's recruitment, and dispatch to the Sorbonne. Mastery of French would be important in Indochina.
I could go on, because Thomas A. Dooley is a fascinating American, but I'll stop here.
Trylon
FOOTNOTE
Nota Bene: Francis Cardinal Spellman was not allowed to poop at St. Patrick's Cathedral without the express approval of Eugenio Pacelli, Pope Pius XII. So whatever Spelly did from 1946 to 1958 to drive the USA into the quagmire of Vietnam was probably the design of Pius XII. History is fascinating - and scary.
TNX a lot, Trylon - very, very interesting. And fascinating. May I repost yr posting - or most of it - under "Deliver us from evil", Tom Dooley, at Amazon, pls?
After Sy Hersh's lecture at Doha, Quatar, recently, on the "intelligence" (sic.) embroilment of charities with neo-cons and "The Knights of Malta", I web-reseached (which is research light, if that) "The knights of Malta" - and was absolutely flabbergasted at what could be found: not only do they still exist - since about CE 1050 (!) - but they have observer-status at the UN, diplomatic relations with 104 countries, and passports for some 100,000 members and supporters for a "country" that has no land (except real estate properties, lots) - and houses at the Vatican. Fiction has nothing on this! As you say: "History is fascinating - and scary". Seconded.
I find myself wondering how the members of the military industrial complex perceive themselves/itself. Most of us utilize and benefit from technologies that have evolved from military research - such as computers. This in the most essential sense is neither good nor bad. I wonder about a totalizing perspective that holds that if you benefit from something, you owe unquestioning allegiance. The war on terror steroids sets up a self-referential loop of rationalization. Sort of an economic/political version of being told one is on the Titanic while being told 'America love it or leave it'. A non-sequitur, a mixing of metaphors, a schizoid conflation under the name of democracy.
Focus and dedication have evolved into dangerously narrow tunnel vision. A broad swath of the middle-class is conditioned to 'externalize' sacrifice of conscience and awareness onto the common good, resource balances, innovation, and in perpetuation of their own anxiety about financial security because the sound track on the locomotive of diminishing returns is on the other side of the set of blinders.
Intellectual property rights, copyright, licensing was something Mark Twain (speaking of nome de plume) addressed and pressed the envelope on in his own way. At one level it is reasonable, even from a perspective of barter, to underwrite innovation costs. Fear of loss of profit/greed does however skew benefits beyond recognition. There have always been people who found tremendous joy simply in contributing to the bounty of human existence.
The corporate practice of purchasing and shelving of innovation to grow private market share, and increasingly, delusions of empire, is its own bubble with diminishing surfactant. It is a practice that would seem to lead to debt financing (the above instance being an intellectual and ethical form of debt financing/bankruptcy) besides once again 'externalizing' retrogression, A decade (more?) of legislation extending copyright parameters should probably be factored into analysis of fiscal responsibility.
Makes me want to study string theory or spend time in a walkable labyrinth..
Sorry about the constant use of 'externalization' - it just seems to be too important in too many dimensions.
Nice post, one (more or less off topic) comment:
"Most of us utilize and benefit from technologies that have evolved from military research - such as computers. This in the most essential sense is neither good nor bad."
In fact, a lot of more complex technologies, and especially the way they are applied, do in fact have "built in" value systems. The typically American engineering/management based approach to organisation and technology development is absolutely NOT valueless as a whole. It's NOT neutral. A lot of science is, as much as possible, although social sciences, psychology and a lot of pedagogy, as they exist in society, are becoming more and more distorted by authoritarian ideologies; but modern technology itself is not. A lot of the strategic decisions that determined the development directions of high technologies are very much based in ideologies and direct needs of managers, very often explicitly *sacrificing efficiency for centralised control*. Engineers, after all, don't start as and usually have no clue about (not now and not historically) "low level" factory workers but young people from universities. They're often imposed from the outside upon organisations that would work pretty well (often ever better than in the current system) under direct worker control - not to help with production, but to subjugate it. Anyway, this is off topic, but my point is that technology development is absolutely not value neutral. The technological basis of the current system of monopoly capitalism is not in any way unavoidable and unchangeable. It is in a lot of ways a reflection of values, preferences and even conscious plans. The question of "what would managers be needed for if workers could organise production themselves at least as efficiently as centralised management" was often even explicitly behind technological decisions. The other direction would have lead to a smaller grained, more distributed, less centralised form of organisation of production - in which patents and other forms of intellectual "property" rights, or rather, temporary monopoly rights would actually make a lot more sense btw, because right now, actual inventors and original content producers in general get less and less from their own work.
thanks for the expansion on the theme - right 'on topic'.
I'd agree on the horizontal organization model. For me the model of the mycological 'world' also expands on the dynamic of innovation and transformation - especially in regard to any and all forms of 'toxicity', of re-imagining structural organization to address the horrific conditions of mountains and seas of waste. The economic opportunities are essentially limitless - in terms of 'caring for the home (planet) - and I'm not being facetious. We need a mycological model of deconstruction of 'planned obsolescence'.
I find Paul Stammets a downright inspiration.
Hehe I know nothing about this :-) But we can still learn so much. Living nature is still here. We're still rich, in the real sense. Of course we are wasting things too fast but we could still do anything.
Atomsk, let me push it further off-topic, as I found your post interesting. I agree with your point about "sacrificing efficiency for centralised control". You could also substitute "profit" for "centralized control" and "capitalists" for "managers".
I agree, somewhat, about the " American engineering/management based approach to organisation and technology development", but I object to a conflating of the roles of engineers and managers. The latter would likely share more of the "values" of their capitalist masters. I also object to a distinction between "workers" and "engineers", as I see it as ideologically based. Engineers are also workers, but with different roles.
Also, it is somewhat pointless to talk about "engineers" and "workers" because the specific job of the "engineer" would depend on the particular discipline - such as civil, mechanical, materials, electrical, etc. And then on the particular field of application - such as roads and bridges, buildings, railways, etc. or automobile manufacturing, industrial equipment mfg, etc. And then on the role of continuing R&D in their everyday job. And, most importantly, their employer and the system that is prevalent.
Although engineers too are workers, IMO, they do spend time learning certain things at a more fundamental level compared to a typical worker on the production line. Any institution or any company that relies on engineering knowledge also has to invest in continuous improvement through R&D, and a well-managed set up will ensure a natural flow of information and feedback between those in production, design, testing and so on.
Capitalist greed often distorts and sabotages continuous innovation. It is capitalist greed that introduces obscenities such as "planned obsolescence" and makes products that cannot be easily repaired and whose life cannot be extended by simple replacement of certain parts. To the extent that engineers go along with such practices, they are guilty. But that is NOT what engineers typically learn at engineering school - that is something they are forced to do at the workplace or learn in an MBA program. Typical engineering programs teach students to build things that last, and about factors that could impair life and safety and how to build in margins of safety. Professional groups and academies compile codes and standards that also focus on safety and longevity of structures. Given a chance, engineers would work to make sure what they build is safe and long-lasting and function as efficiently as possible.
"Efficiency" is an integral part of engineering education. Once again, some people conflate "efficiency" with "profits". Efficiency, in engineering, is simply the ratio of output to its corresponding input, and improving efficiency simply means reducing losses - such as leakage, friction, unrecovered heat, etc.
I frequently encounter some needless bashing of engineers. Not saying that you did that in your post, but I wanted to respond to your point about engineers vs. workers.
I'm sorry to say that I have to disagree with you. I suggest you read the incredible America by Design by David Noble about the engineering/management culture and its development. http://www.amazon.com/America-Design-Technology-Corporate-Capitalism/dp/0195026187/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1300386230&sr=8-1 Sorry about the amazon link, buy it from some proper bookstore if you can. It's an incredible book and it explained lots of things to me, even about my own thoughts and preferences and how I designed stuff and why I did it that way :-)
Thing is, engineering and management are often two sides of the same coin. Of course there are "pure" engineers, and engineers in general are much more in contact with reality, but as you rise in rank in a corporation as engineer, you're becoming more and more of a manager in most companies. You're much closer in the organisational structure to managers than to workers. That this is a problem is shown by for example the fact that Microsoft tried to create separate career paths for engineers and managers. I don't think engineers are traditionally a bastion of left-wing egalitarian thinking :-) Basically, the systems of selection (how you rise on the corporate ladder) and pedagogy (what you learn in school and in your workplace) both push in this direction. Of course there are lots of engineers who're appalled at seemingly idiotic management decisions - but they never rise in rank unless they understand and accept the logic behind them. Even if they see the problems, they don't usually mix with workers or support them. In addition to this, both engineering and especially actual shopfloor work are being centralised and deskilled, so traditional engineering design is concentrated more and more in large companies creating "intellectual property" where engineers have no actual contact with workers, and workers can have less and less control over production. This approach also reinforces the "class divide" between engineers and workers.
That engineers are very closely connected to the manager mentality is imo also reflected in how we like to develop and design stuff, the choices we make, and how we prefer centralisation of control. Engineers are part of the controller class and trained from university up to be part of the controller class and do not like to ally with workers in general, I'm sorry to say. I'm not bashing engineers btw. It's just that "divide and conquer" works. I'm really sad to say but engineering as it is now is very much in line with authoritative, right-wing, hierarchical thinking. I think we have to realise and accept this first if we want to do anything about it, mainly because engineering knowledge is actual, real, important power and engineers can more easily effect changes on society than other groups of people. You can't change stuff without real power, and economic power is taken away bit by bit from people and actual workers especially, through deskilling and automation and the "flexible labour market", and statistically engineers are accomplices in this.
I still sense a bit of conflating of the roles of engineers and managers, although you've explained corporate reality as it exists in the USA. Also, the subtitle of the book you mentioned - "America by Design" is "Science, Technology, and the Rise of Corporate Capitalism" - which, I believe, once again proves MY point :) I will check it out, but having read a bit of Thorstein Veblen, I think engineers recognized this creeping phenomenon 100+ years ago. But that still does not change what it means to be an engineer, notwithstanding what they become in a capitalist system. By the same logic, even workers in a capitalist system will have to share a lot of the blame, too. Especially workers who do not give a damn about the environment or when working for a company like Monsanto or at a factory manufacturing monstrosities such as the Hummer, etc. This is why I object to a distinction between engineers and workers - because both are powerless and both are culpable, although to varying degrees. I will check out the book, though :)
P.S. Having said all this, I admit - that a vast majority of the engineering faculty, despite their knowledge, experience, expertise and all that, are way behind when it comes to urgency for action on climate change, compared to even some of the students. That IS a worrisome aspect. Perhaps it's a result of having internalized a different set of values? Or maybe as a result of having comfortable jobs and too much compartmentalization? But if you pose the problem as one of optimizing the system as a whole (and not maximizing the profit of any one corporation), and impose the constraints of sustainability, then I'm sure there will be enough engineers who will be willing to take up the challenge. Maybe I need to be more open-minded about this issue. Hmm...
TBH I don't really care about whom to blame and what pure engineers, those that were only engineers and not employees or managers of corporations would look like, but I think it's pretty clear that as things stand now, engineers are much much closer to management and much more integrated with it than with workers; and that they have a lot bigger effect on decision making is I think undeniable - they're not nearly as powerless as workers. And I can't really leave your Monsanto comment alone - I don't think the engineer who creates a Roundup resistant GMO, or the software engineer that designs a "persona management system" for that matter, is comparable to the worker who works in a car factory. They're *not* equally culpable, *not* equally powerless, *not* in the same position morally. In my personal opinion, the engineer who works for Monsanto to create rr wheat or something like that, is despicable. Just like the contractors behind remotely controlled drones killing people.
But please don't misunderstand me - my point is not that engineers are "bad" people or putting the blame on them or anything. I'm talking about the educational processes that create engineers and the selection processes that give them power in the the world of production (which is the corporate world now). In education, engineers are absolutely encouraged to shrug off social responsibility and to think of their work as amoral and neutral. In social selection and advancement, the people who're most willing to do this will come to power. It's simple as that. This does mean that in general, engineers are more likely to be servants of power than its critics. Power and success can blind people to some extent, and this blindness is in fact encouraged in corporate structures. In fact, if you want to take responsibility for the consequences of your actions (other than not enough profits or customer satisfaction or whatever), you'll be branded stupid and will have no role to play in a corporate structure. To be an engineer, you don't only (or maybe even mostly) need technical knowledge; and certainly you'll need to be more and more of a manager as you go up the corporate ladder.
Also, as things stand now, engineers are simply *not* the same social class as labourers. They're controllers. This very often forces them to give up their professional and moral principles, which they have to be willing to do if they want to advance in society. On the other hand, and this is extremely important imo, there's a trend that tries to commodify engineering knowledge, just like pedagogy and even medicine to some extent, so this will have to change.
Also, thanks for mentioning Veblen, "Theory of the Leisure Class" is available on Gutenberg.org so I have a book for tonight, you made my day!
It looks to me basically that you're both talking past each other a bit. You're correct that to move up the corp ladder, an engineer has to "buy in" into the system. But then, Alcyon's point appears to me to be that as someone moves up the ladder, s/he becomes much more a manager than an engineer, which is the case.
The issue here is this: sure, a software engineer, or more correctly, multiple software engineers, writing code that allows governments, and corporations to post propaganda is culpable, no, despicable. I have little sympathy for such people, since software engineers especially, more than any group of people should be well aware of the issues surrounding discussions on the internet: as someone posted upthread, about FUD, a term that is well familiar to software engineers, computer programmers, computer geeks etc. But, s/he is working within the system. If s/he refuses to write such code, s/he might get sacked, and just replaced with someone else. Consider that computer programming is a VERY easy job to outsource, arguably the easiest. Unlike other jobs, there are almost no physical barriers to finding someone else to do the job.
Well this is indeed becoming truer and truer as time goes on, because the profession is becoming more and more deskilled every day as engineers in a lot of fields are being replaced by basically semi skilled workers aided with software, while proper engineering work gets redirected to creating ownable and thus totally controllable intellectual property in the form of patents (and the software and other concentrations of knowledge that help semi skilled workers do work that previously only trained engineers could do).
But overall, engineers have historically been very much on the management side and their contributions had a lot to do with strengthening centralised control and creating this top-down, deskilling, centralising control structure. Engineering has (and had especially through the 20th century) a lot of power to shape society, and for a variety of reasons, this is how it worked out. Engineers mostly do not come from factory workers but from universities, and they're almost immediately given power to plan and optimise work, both technology and human labour; and traditionally, as you progress as an engineer, you become more and more of a manager - while rising up from the rank of a labourer to a management position is much more difficult and comparatively very rare. I think it's very similar to the difference between officers and footsoldiers in an army: there are people who rise up the ranks but it's not how the system works most of the time, it's more for show - and no matter how you look at it, officers and footsoldiers are not the same type of soldier: they don't take the same risks, don't get the same benefits, don't have the same career paths and certainly don't have the same decision making power. Looking at the real world effects that modern engineering actually resulted in, it's imo pretty clear that it pushed society, especially the organisation of work, very much to the right.
As for being divisive, really? I don't really think that engineers are really traditional allies of workers at all, so imo this is more about how things actually are right now. If it's divisive, it's imo because engineers in general do not and traditionally have not seen themselves as workers or allies of workers.
On the other hand, this is all changing because knowledge, its production and dissemination, is being formalised, centralised and privatised. So yeah, engineers are becoming more and more like workers. And yep, they're easier and easier to fire because of this. In addition to this, engineers have to stand with at least one foot on the ground of reality, so they tend to be more objective and realistic in general in terms of decisionmaking. Thing is, they often think this is the only factor that influences their thinking, and simply don't realise that their social function also determines how they think to a very large degree. Engineering, as it is now (and it doesn't need to be this way), is also determined by and a product of modern capitalism to a large degree, not just scientific and technical facts.
Engineers mostly do not come from factory workers but from universities,... and traditionally, as you progress as an engineer, you become more and more of a manager
-------------------------------
Engineers sometimes make good leaders, but are notorious for being poor managers, whether because of coming from working-class backgrounds (most people in science and engineering do), or because of having Asperger's stigmata, often at a sub-clinical, thus undiagnosed, level.
The ones who become successful corporate managers are usually those few who come from an advantaged (intact, medium-high income, White) family and are otherwise average.
" The US military is developing software that will let it secretly manipulate social media using fake online personas designed to influence internet conversations and spread pro-American propaganda"
I am confused -is this really necessary when we already have the MSM?
(Every day and in every way the USA becomes more and more like the former Soviet Union)
"is this really necessary when we already have the MSM?"
No, but it is an advance toward TOTALITARIANISM. Someone above said they will try to defeat all means for democracy.
Through the MSM, the military industrial complex controls what they say to us. Now, through these online sock puppets, they will control what we say to each other.
We need to figure out a way to counter this.
Re. the Soviet Union: They were mere pikers compared to what we are doing. If you can imagine it, we've already done it (or will). Your tax dollars at work.
Mr.President, we must not allow... a Tweet gap!
Where is Assange when we need him?
Awaiting "extradition" to an American black site.
So much for net neutrality. The war is everywhere.
brought to you by your buddies at the DOD spreading,
"Hope" and fakedemocracy<----
Nahh, I don't think this is DoD stuff, I think it's more about big business bullshit, mainly climate change and other highly important issues, probably elections too. I honestly think the DoD is just using this stuff that's already widely used by the PR industry.
MoveOn got it right when they spoke of Gen. Betrayus.
Mr.President, we must not allow... a Tweet gap!