Tweet Thread analysis below. It seems the thread, as long as it is, is cut off.
6 hours ago,
89 tweets,
19 min read
LONG THREAD:
Today, a pro-Trump journalist was arrested while releasing a new doco exposing major US intel & military figures, based on materials from 2 ex-employee whistleblowers.
I have just viewed the doco. Its content is significant & I will now analyse it in full below.
Today, a pro-Trump journalist was arrested while releasing a new doco exposing major US intel & military figures, based on materials from 2 ex-employee whistleblowers.
I have just viewed the doco. Its content is significant & I will now analyse it in full below.
DISCLAIMER 1: I deliberately didn't name the journalist, the documentary
or the whistleblowers in the above tweet, because I'm well used to
having my social media posts suppressed so was avoiding key words
deliberately. I'll post the links at the very end of the thread.
DISCLAIMER 2: I am a journalist who specialises in writing about
intelligence agencies and whistleblowers. I am not pro-Trump. I do not
agree with much of the politics of the documentary maker & her
whistleblowers. However, I believe their content is important and merits
analysis
DISCLAIMER 3: What I saw in the documentary, in summary, is a far more
in-depth & significant analysis of US intel than I've seen come out
of the Left in years. The Left should be as alarmed by the revelations
as any pro-Trump person is. Leftist journalists: we need to do better.
METHOD OF ANALYSIS: I will post rough time stamps as per the copy of the
doco currently on YT (though probably it won't remain there for long),
summarise key points from the doco, and add contextual information that I
have accrued from my own journalism and experiences.
DISCLAIMER #4: I live in exile in Russia due to persecution in my home
country by Western intel. I am not employed by any Russian organisation,
have never received a single dollar from Russia/Russians, have NEVER
been told what to say or write. My opinions are completely my own.
That said, let's get to it.
1. The documentary opens with a 'Drain The Swamp' animation. It's cute, but I can tell you for a fact that the swamp is a transnational operation, spanning more than 100 countries worldwide, and is not confined to any US political body. Sadly.
1. The documentary opens with a 'Drain The Swamp' animation. It's cute, but I can tell you for a fact that the swamp is a transnational operation, spanning more than 100 countries worldwide, and is not confined to any US political body. Sadly.
2. The opening question of the
documentary, circa 0:20 secs: "What if I were to tell you that a small
group of government contractors were hired by government officials to
frame the Trump campaign, set him up for the Russia collusion
investigation...
...provided witnesses for the impeachment hearings and provided
administrative support services to the DOJ during the Mueller
investigation? And what if it just so happened the same group of
contractors are behind the fake news in Mainstream Media, influence
operations..."
So begins the framing of the documentary, as being Trump and
Russiagate-centric, but actually what follows, and what most interests
me, are far more wide reaching questions around the power wielded by
current and ex-US intelligence agencies, and their ability to target
citizens
There is also investigative strands that touch on WikiLeaks, Julian
Assange, Seth Rich & other areas of significant interest to people
like @KimDotcom,
all WikiLeaks supporters and myself - many of us who are well outside
of Trump's camp or base. What follows is *public* interest
3. At 01:04 "The ObamaGate scandal only scratches the surface."
Cuts to Lindsay Graham & other politicians talking about "Russian interference".
Voiceover: "Both parties are equally guilty of covering up what should turn out to be an even bigger scandal: Shadowgate..."
Cuts to Lindsay Graham & other politicians talking about "Russian interference".
Voiceover: "Both parties are equally guilty of covering up what should turn out to be an even bigger scandal: Shadowgate..."
At 01:37 the filmmaker describes Shadowgate:
"The tactical and operational role the shadow government played behind the scenes carrying out the coup against Pres. Trump. We're going to be looking behind the puppets at who the real puppet master string-pullers are."
"The tactical and operational role the shadow government played behind the scenes carrying out the coup against Pres. Trump. We're going to be looking behind the puppets at who the real puppet master string-pullers are."
02:02 "This is about people whose names never come up, but should.
Career politicians... are not the shadow government. The shadow
government consists of government contractors, defense, intelligence,
security and so on... aka the Military Industrial Complex"
"...that way what the public sees through FOIA requests, investigations,
Congressional hearings or otherwise, is as clean as a whistle. All the
dirty work is kept private, with contractors in clandestine networks..."
"These contractors have used their connections, power and influence to
create an unprecedented international criminal enterprise where
blackmail is traded and people's personal data is gold."
The above concludes the introduction section of the documentary. My thoughts next:
The above concludes the introduction section of the documentary. My thoughts next:
IMO what she calls 'the contractors' aren't themselves innovating the
criminal enterprise - they're just creating private, for-profit mirrors
of the structures of the intelligence agencies they usually exit from
into private industry. The contractors are like mini-intel agencies
...and the intelligence agencies themselves are usually among their
biggest customers (though corporations and foreign govts/foreign intel
agencies are on their customer lists too). We've seen that with
everything from Stratfor in the US, to TCIL's private fusion centre in
NZ...
...though she's absolutely right that the use of contractors provides
deniability for their govt & non-govt clients. The contracting
companies provide an insulation layer for corps & military
industrial complex officials and actors who are up to no good, often
with public money
I'd also add (as it doesn't get touched on in the documentary) private
intelligence is a highly unregulated space, and the Rumsfeld "Total
Force" doctrine brought many security & intelligence contractors
under the umbrella of the US military, granting them immunity to
prosecution
That fact, coupled with the Director of NSA having sole responsibility
for writing NSA's policies & directives, then *only* being
answerable to the 'Judicial Review Board' comprised of heads of CIA,
DoD, State + Joint Chiefs (circle jerk much) makes intel agencies rogue
operators
In #DecipherYou,
a series where I studied Snowden files live on YouTube, we discovered
the Director of NSA had been retroactively rewriting NSA policy
directives to cover NSA staff for things they'd been doing that were
illegal. They also tightly control flow of info to Congress
4. At 03:14 the filmmaker introduces her two whistleblowers.
"...who both worked extensively within the shadow govt as contractors have come forward with revelations that may be part of the biggest whistleblowing event to date."
"...who both worked extensively within the shadow govt as contractors have come forward with revelations that may be part of the biggest whistleblowing event to date."
"Interactive", to DoD apparently means "two-way communications".
Basically in their view, any two-way communication presents an
opportunity for them to get involved in, or influence the communication.
They stipulate: emails, blogs, chat rooms, and internet bulletin
boards.
Note that the above Wikipedia reference (terrible source but in the
above case, accurate as per related NSA docs I've studied from Snowden
files) says the NSA established the RTRG in 2007 - and this
whistleblower's document is dated June 8th 2007. Lending to its
credibility.
Also note that in the document, the DoD states that the purpose of their
"Internet Activities" is to "provide information to the public"
(propaganda operations) "shape the security environment" (by influencing
public opinions) & "support military operations" (info/influence
ops)
At 04:30 the whistleblower himself states that it was also to support "hacking operations" - CNO (computer network operations).
Almost faded out at the bottom of the document, the words: "programs, products & actions that shape emotions, motives, reasons & behaviours.."
Almost faded out at the bottom of the document, the words: "programs, products & actions that shape emotions, motives, reasons & behaviours.."
So the military doesn't just want to feed you false information or
change your belief system - they also want to provoke emotions and
feelings in you, that change your motives, your reasoning, and your
behaviours - to make you take actions that are in their interests.
Here's a more full view of it, though hard to read. @LissaKJohnson you will definitely want to see this.
The Dynology product credit at the bottom is dated 2009. So the contract was 2007 and the deployment of this version of the application was two years later (which is normal)
The Dynology product credit at the bottom is dated 2009. So the contract was 2007 and the deployment of this version of the application was two years later (which is normal)
Screenshots like the above are so valuable because we are able to see
what things look like to the operators of these psyops. We can see the
functionality of the program, we can see their internal indicators and
compliance requirements, and their capabilities. Literally priceless
On the top of the screen, we see:
"Engagements" - these are likely jobs, tasks, or the record of interactions
"Targets" - list of their victims
"Entities" - likely classes of targets, groupings like organisations or hashtags
"Personas" - the spy's sock puppets/fake identities
"Engagements" - these are likely jobs, tasks, or the record of interactions
"Targets" - list of their victims
"Entities" - likely classes of targets, groupings like organisations or hashtags
"Personas" - the spy's sock puppets/fake identities
...and "Admin", because even spies have areas that are restricted from
them, and themselves get monitored, by their I.T. administrators and
executives.
(Spies themselves are ginormous internal targets and many literally live a life of fear like their targets. It's karmic & sad)
(Spies themselves are ginormous internal targets and many literally live a life of fear like their targets. It's karmic & sad)
On the main dashboard of the application we see:
Under "Key Information":
A dropdown to select the target (yep, we really are names in their dropdown list)
A dropdown to select the fake identity they use to scam us with
They can also create targets and create personas
Under "Key Information":
A dropdown to select the target (yep, we really are names in their dropdown list)
A dropdown to select the fake identity they use to scam us with
They can also create targets and create personas
The "create target" part is one of the most worrying factors of all and I've been talking about this for years now -
In a for-profit surveillance industry, making more money and having more workload requires MORE TARGETS.
Every year, they need more targets than the year before
In a for-profit surveillance industry, making more money and having more workload requires MORE TARGETS.
Every year, they need more targets than the year before
They started off just going after radicals/dissidents etc - then that
became journalists, then *any* issue-based dissenter (on the right or
left), then teachers/educators, scientists, you name it - but
eventually, if we let this continue, literally everyone will become a
target.
Now I've had to super-zoom in to try to show you this portion of their screen - which is the part @LissaKJohnson will be most interested in.
It's the angles by which they craft their attempt to influence us. Their ins. Designed to trigger emotion & mirror human social behaviour
It's the angles by which they craft their attempt to influence us. Their ins. Designed to trigger emotion & mirror human social behaviour
The military are all about metrics, so what they're doing here is
logging the strategy they used on the target so they can work out what
was most effective.
Their manipulation options read:
Legitimacy
Inevitability
Self Interest
Nostalgia
Bandwagon
In Group-Out
Group-In
Their manipulation options read:
Legitimacy
Inevitability
Self Interest
Nostalgia
Bandwagon
In Group-Out
Group-In
I have a fair idea what the first 4 are but when it comes to these terms I prefer to defer to @LissaKJohnson
or someone who is trained in psychology as they often have more
specific meanings when employed as attacks, than the obvious. I may see
if she wants to do a stream on this
I'm pretty sure none of us would have to look very hard to find examples
of "people" (personas) online using attacks on 'legitimacy', or
invoking 'inevitability', 'self interest' or 'nostalgia' to bolster
support for a political position or to sway the direction of a
conversation
6. At 05:10 Tore explains her work for a company called CGI.
"I was a contractor for various intelligence agencies that were privately created... because unlike what most people think, our intelligence doesn't stay within our borders or within federal buildings."
"I was a contractor for various intelligence agencies that were privately created... because unlike what most people think, our intelligence doesn't stay within our borders or within federal buildings."
"What I did was something called localisation... you find a group of
people that could be a whole country, or a city, or a 6-block radius
like CHAZ... you try to get into their mind. You have to understand how
they eat, how they walk, how they talk, what pushes their buttons..."
"...what drives them nuts, what upsets them, what makes them happy, then
you use that to their advantage to push whatever ideology or product or
direction you want them to go. Marrying together cultural
appropriation, language, nuances of the demographic you are
targeting..."
At 07:39: "So if I want to blackmail you & put you under my thumb...
I'll know your deepest darkest fears. I'll know people I can get in
contact with to find out more about you."
Bergy: "You understand enough about someone.. you can use their anxieties"
Bergy: "You understand enough about someone.. you can use their anxieties"
"You can use those things to help reflexively control or influence a
target, or a group of people, or an entire election, or an entire
country."
Tore: "What Bergy created was a program that was based off the strategies that we [intelligence agencies] used in person..."
Tore: "What Bergy created was a program that was based off the strategies that we [intelligence agencies] used in person..."
"...a psychological operation, but that crunches data... so you can predict how your target will respond."
At 9:42, Bergy: "The database component allows you to build behavioural profiles on individual targets. Through those you can implement reflexive control."
At 9:42, Bergy: "The database component allows you to build behavioural profiles on individual targets. Through those you can implement reflexive control."
QUICK SYNOPSIS OF THE IMPLICATIONS OF WHERE WE'RE AT SO FAR:
This doco is proof that the full suite of intelligence agency targeting functions and psychological warfare capabilities are now operating in the private sector.
This doco is proof that the full suite of intelligence agency targeting functions and psychological warfare capabilities are now operating in the private sector.
Snowden blew the whistle on GCHQ and NSA using JTRIG.
This doco proves that the private sector has access to the same technology, and is using it.
COMING UP: we get into who exactly started these companies, and the very famous names they've been targeting (not just Trump!)
This doco proves that the private sector has access to the same technology, and is using it.
COMING UP: we get into who exactly started these companies, and the very famous names they've been targeting (not just Trump!)
At roughly 10:00 - 11:00 Bergy explains how Jim (Jones) prevented
Shadownet technology from being moved to a classified military network
so that they could commercialise the use of the technology (sell it to
private sector corps/other customers)
At 12:44 the filmmaker seems to claim that surveillance whistleblowers
like Drake, Binney & co were used to ultimately legalise mass
surveillance.
Having extensively studied their disclosures, I completely disagree with this. I suspect its poor wording on the doco's part.
Having extensively studied their disclosures, I completely disagree with this. I suspect its poor wording on the doco's part.
18 seconds later, at 13:02 she's on to the next topic, which makes the
prior claim seem really erroneous (and it was presented without
evidence). Which is why I suspect poor wording. I think she meant the
govt PR strategy after-the-fact rather than to blame the whistleblowers.
From 13:13 the filmmaker talks about the 2008 law re FISA, and section
702. She presents it as if this was the introduction of legalised spying
on citizens. This lacks historical context. FISA/702 wasn't because of
whistleblowers, it was part of a string of post 9/11 legislation
The Snowden files (which date back to 2003) show the government had been
moving towards what they call "total awareness" (seeing everything) for
literally every inch of the globe since the early 2000s at least - and
the govt had no qualms spying on citizens during decades prior.
Their habit of retroactively legalising their illegal activities is a
pattern that we see consistently unfold year after year and across the
Five Eyes countries and their "partners". They break laws til they can't
get away with it any longer then they make new laws to legalise it
The moving graphic (at 13:19 - 13:38) of data flows from the 'internet
backbone' (at cable) being intercepted by the agencies is cute and
mostly accurate. However its then used to make a huge claim - that
private companies have "twinned" the data, for their own use and motives
In my opinion, that is unlikely. In the Snowden files we learned that
the NSA has "customers" who access that data through a "customer needs
request portal". The DoD is an NSA customer, so are nearly all govt
departments/agencies (even 'boring' ones) & so is the Federal
Reserve..
Given that Shadownet was owned by a DoD contractor, I doubt they would
need to steal the entire world's data in order to get access to
intelligence (called 'product' by the NSA)
They would just make a request for the intelligence and get it served up on a platter
They would just make a request for the intelligence and get it served up on a platter
Furthermore, the slew of post 9/11 information sharing legislation
constantly references cooperation between state, federal, international
AND PRIVATE companies. Fusion centres exist precisely to facilitate this
exchange of information. At this point anyone & their dog can get
it
Through fusion centres, telcos, banks and insurance companies, just to
name a few of many types of private industry titans, can access
intelligence gathered by military and law enforcement. Even health
providers are in the chain. It's a 2-way data flow. They give &
receive data
They give the government/military access to their customer databases,
and in turn they can make information requests which are serviced by the
fusion centres, pulling from law enforcement and government databases.
(All law enforcement agencies are also NSA 'customers')
Furthermore, if someone was to "twin" or "copy" the full data-take from
cable of the NSA, they would literally need Utah-sized data facilities,
such as the NSA has been building, to store it all in. It really isn't
feasible for any private corporation to store that much data
Do I doubt that a character as immoral, underhanded, malicious, and
shady as that which the documentary is about to invoke - John Brennan -
has an ego big enough to want to possess the NSA's full dataset for
himself? No. But he wouldn't need to, he could access it other ways.
Which leads us into the real meat of this documentary - from 13:38:
"Tore alleges that she worked for John Brennan at The Analysis Corporation and Global Strategies Group."
This is where things start to get even more interesting.
"Tore alleges that she worked for John Brennan at The Analysis Corporation and Global Strategies Group."
This is where things start to get even more interesting.
7. From 14:02 onwards the
documentary explores a number of high profile "hacking" incidents
related to the US government and intelligence agencies, over the course
of the last decade.
Tore claims that the "hacks" were cover stories for what was really going on.
Tore claims that the "hacks" were cover stories for what was really going on.
Tore: "See, Brennan has a certain M.O.... when he wants to get something, he pretends there was some hack."
Tore details how, in the course of her job, she was instructed to exfiltrate data from the State Department, then was shocked to hear it later being deemed a "hack"
Tore details how, in the course of her job, she was instructed to exfiltrate data from the State Department, then was shocked to hear it later being deemed a "hack"
Tore: "For me, going to copy a server off a consulate computer, State
Dept, whatever, would be normal if we had a contract with them. They'd
tell me what terminal, I'd scan the barcode, make sure I was at the
right computer, and do my job."
Tore: "All of the Directors there were former GCHQ, CIA, NSA, MI6, MI5,
German intelligence... you have to wonder why were all of these former
heads heading up consulting firms... they were collecting up everybody's
data and privatising it."
From 18:15 there's a section making claims about Snowden. It looks like a
hash job has been made of the editing. Again, I don't actually think
its deliberate. But the way its been put together seems to add up to
claims that don't sound quite right to me.
Filmmaker: "Now tell us about these data bridges to the NSA. Is that legally obtained information?"
Tore: "I mean that's kind of what Snowden did too."
Snowden has talked about how he created a program to bridge multiple databases for NSA. Snowden *was* a contractor. HOWEVER..
Tore: "I mean that's kind of what Snowden did too."
Snowden has talked about how he created a program to bridge multiple databases for NSA. Snowden *was* a contractor. HOWEVER..
Tore's above quote is cut straight to a voiceover of the filmmaker
claiming: "According to sources closely connected to this subject, under
John Brennan's direction Snowden created a data bridge from the NSA
database into private servers controlled by private intelligence... 1/2
...and cybersecurity contractors. A.k.a. The Analysis Corporation,
Global Strategies Group & Canadian Global Information (CGI)."
My opinion is that this is misleading. Snowden worked for Booz Allen Hamilton, not Brennan. Snowden & Brennan did not work for CIA at the same time...
My opinion is that this is misleading. Snowden worked for Booz Allen Hamilton, not Brennan. Snowden & Brennan did not work for CIA at the same time...
Ed is the right person to debunk or ratify the claims. However, my take
(& I'm certainly not omniscient) is that the use of "A.K.A." in the
voiceover takes the leap from Snowden's work for NSA-contractor Booz
Allen, to an assumption that Brennan's companies had the same access...
...and its entirely possible that the NSA does have such arrangements
with other contracting agencies than Booz, however I personally doubt
that that came via Snowden.
The following quote at 18:51 from Tore is edited as if its a follow-on but she's just explaining a full-take.
The following quote at 18:51 from Tore is edited as if its a follow-on but she's just explaining a full-take.
The filmmaker cuts straight back to Snowden, now talking about his 2013
disclosures re PRISM, FISA & 702. She says "this kicked off, on the
Federal level, justification for spying on US citizens."
I disagree. US citizens were already being spied on. What it kicked off is excuses
I disagree. US citizens were already being spied on. What it kicked off is excuses
You can't blame whistleblowers for the government's reactions to their
revelations. Especially when those are crafted by PR departments, caught
with their pants down and trying to defend the indefensible.
I totally disagree with this idea of blaming the messenger.
I totally disagree with this idea of blaming the messenger.
At 21:34 another huge claim: "GSG, CGI & other private contractors
allegedly had unauthorised access to the entire Five Eyes network,
unfiltered, unrestricted, decompartmentalised, outside any govt
regulation or oversight."
By 23:00 we're back to the whistleblower Bergy, and he's explaining both
who General Jones and his son are, and that their companies had DoD
contracts that included to oversee Congress's 'Knowledge Management
Systems'. "Hosted, managed and stored in Germany."
24:53 Filmmaker: "The ability for these contractors to eavesdrop on both the House and the Senate is staggering."
Bergy says he complained about it, and the CKMS contract was then awarded to a cut-out/shell company 1 mile away from Dynology's offices.
Bergy says he complained about it, and the CKMS contract was then awarded to a cut-out/shell company 1 mile away from Dynology's offices.
And the web gets bigger:
Bergy explains that other companies, with the same board of directors as Dynology, start selling identical products (identical to Shadownet)
The intellectual property ultimately paid for by taxpayers, is being replicated for profit. By familiar names
Bergy explains that other companies, with the same board of directors as Dynology, start selling identical products (identical to Shadownet)
The intellectual property ultimately paid for by taxpayers, is being replicated for profit. By familiar names
No comments:
Post a Comment
Insightful and Relevant if Irreverent Comments