Saltar para: Posts [1], Pesquisa e Arquivos [2]
Asha Rangappa, "How Facebook Changed the Spy Game":
The vast majority of counterintelligence cases I worked in the FBI involved a foreign intelligence service (FIS) conducting what we called “perception management campaigns.” Perception management, broadly defined, includes any activity that is designed to shape American opinion and policy in ways favorable to the FIS home country. Some perception management operations can involve aggressive tactics like infiltrating and spying on dissident groups (and even intimidating them), or trying to directly influence U.S. policy by targeting politicians under the guise of a legitimate lobbying group. But perception management operations also include more passive tactics like using media to spread government propaganda—and these are the most difficult for the FBI to investigate.
(...).
As the internet renders useless the FBI’s normal methods to counter foreign propaganda, the reach of these operations has increased a thousandfold. In the past, a failure to neutralize a perception management operation would at least be limited by the reach of “traditional,” i.e., paper, media which are practically constrained to a region or paying customers. But social media platforms can reach an almost limitless audience, often within days or hours, more or less for free: Russia’s Facebook ads alone reached between 23 million and 70 million viewers. Without any direct way to investigate and identify the source of the private accounts that generate this “fake news,” there’s literally nothing the FBI can do to stop a propaganda operation that can occur on such a massive scale.
This fact is not lost on the Russians. Like any country with sophisticated intelligence services, Russia has long been a careful student of U.S. freedoms, laws and the constraints of its main nemesis in the U.S., the FBI. They have always known how to exploit our “constitutional loopholes”: The difference now is that technology has transformed the legal crevice in which they used to operate into a canyon. The irony, of course, is that the rights that Americans most cherish—those of speech and press—and are now weaponized against us are the same ones Russia despises and clamps down on in its own country.
Jamelle Bouie, "Who Needs Rule of Law?":
Just one of our two parties is interested in checking this president’s abuse. The other, the Republican Party, is indifferent, content to tolerate Trump’s misconduct as long as it doesn’t interrupt or interfere with its political agenda. What defined Thursday’s hearing, in fact, was the degree to which Republicans downplayed obvious examples of bad—potentially illegal—behavior and sought to exonerate Trump rather than grapple with Comey’s damning allegations about the president. Sen. James Risch of Idaho, for example, pressed Comey on his claim that President Trump had asked the then–FBI director to drop the investigation into Flynn, suggesting that—because Trump didn’t give a direct order—we ought to ignore the clear subtext of the president’s statement. Sen. James Lankford of Oklahoma described Trump’s actions on behalf of Flynn as a “light touch.” Other Republican committee members, like Sens. John Cornyn of Texas and John McCain of Arizona, steered the conversation toward the FBI’s investigation of Hillary Clinton’s private email server. Still others, like Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, defended Trump’s actions, blasting leaks to the press as efforts to undermine his administration.
Republican committee members were aided in all of this by the official organs of the GOP, which treated the hearings as a distraction—a partisan frivolity driven by Democrats and the press. “Director Comey’s opening statement confirms he told President Trump three times that he was not under investigation,” said a statement from the Republican National Committee that recommended a strategy of deflection. The RNC additionally argued that “Director Comey lost confidence of both sides of the aisle, and the president was justified in firing him.” House Speaker Paul Ryan, commenting on the procedures, defended Trump’s potentially illegal behavior as the mistakes of a novice. “He’s just new to this, and probably wasn’t steeped in long-running protocols,” he said.
(...).
James Comey’s sworn Senate testimony, both written and spoken, is evidence of one political crisis: A president with little regard for rule of law who sees no problem in bringing his influence and authority to bear on federal investigations. The Republican reaction—the effort to protect Trump and discredit Comey—is evidence of another: a crisis of ultra-partisanship, where the nation’s governing party has opted against oversight and accountability, abdicating its role in our system of checks and balances and allowing that president free rein, as long as he signs its legislation and nominates its judges.
Americans face two major crises, each feeding into the other. Republicans aren’t bound to partisan loyalty. They can choose country over party, rule of law over ideology. But they won’t, and the rest of us will pay for it.
Enquanto as Esquerdas e Direitas iluminadas cá do burgo discutem o correcto posicionamento em relação ao ataque terrorista ocorrido em Orlando na Florida, por causa da trictomia homossexualidade-arma de fogo-Estado Islâmico, convém relevar os seguintes pontos; na corrida presidencial dos Estados Unidos (EUA) quem mais vai beneficiar é Donald Trump. Há meses atrás, neste mesmo blog, referi este facto. Um ataque terrorista em solo americano serviria para validar a sua tese securitária, anti-islâmica e proteccionista - e isso ajuda a sua campanha baseada no medo colectivo. No entanto, existem diversas dimensões que devem ser analisadas. Pelo que sabemos, nenhum dos gay que participava na festa latina na discoteca Pulse tinha em sua posse uma arma de defesa pessoal - lá vai pelo cano o anti-americanismo primário de que andam todos armados na América - pelos vistos estes não. Em segundo lugar, somos informados que o Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) já detinha um ficheiro respeitante ao principal suspeito - ou seja, os serviços de informação não foram irrredutíveis e competentes na triagem de vilões. Em terceiro lugar, o operacional ao serviço do Estado Islâmico (EI) acaba por colocar em prática cânones que precedem esta organização terrorista - o Alcorão é intensamente declarativo em relação ao seu desprezo pela homossexualidade. Em quarto lugar, as grandes teorias organizacionais em torno das ligações, comunicações e linhas de comando dentro da estrutura do EI não servem a causa de interpretação dos factos. O agente do EI em causa valida-se na sua missão de um modo remoto da Síria ou Iraque, apetrecha-se no mercado local de armas semi-automáticas, presta vassalagem aos senhores do EI e ainda informa as autoridades locais sobre a iminência de um ataque. Assistimos também a outro processo em curso. À segmentação do alvo. O grau de diferenciação que instiga aquele que perpetra o ataque a escolher uma sub-categoria de inimigo - os homossexuais -, revela uma maior sofisticação operacional. Será expectável, na senda da mesma lógica, outros modos de distinção. A saber, e por exemplo, um enfoque especial do EI em relação a organizações de defesa dos direitos das mulheres. Mesmo com a chuva de críticas de que tem sido alvo os EUA, as autoridades não produziram os discursos inflamados que a Europa desejava. Por outro lado, o grau de solidaridade europeu em relação aos eventos de Orlando parece ter sido mitigado por outros espectáculos, como aquele de Marseille. Não vejo muitos Je Suis Orlando por aqui. É mais bota abaixo bola acima. Os de cá não querem ser confundidos como sendo de outras equipas.