Quantcast
Channel: Information operations – To Inform is to Influence
Viewing all 5256 articles
Browse latest View live

Paperless Meetings

0
0
Paper for my notebook.

Paper for my notebook. (Photo credit: rmkoske)

I hate paper.

I don’t like walking to the mailbox to pick up mail because it’s mostly junk mail.

I hate my filing system, which consists of paper copies of things I cannot throw away.  Eventually I’m going to scan them all in.  Now to figure out how to scan in all my photographs.

Today I introduced a motion in one of the meetings I attend each month to go paperless, for a Board of Directors.

I then set up an online poll for the Board and asked if they have a laptop, a notebook, a tablet, a portable reader, a smart phone or none of the above.

The important point is to get them to answer.  If they don’t, then we do an informal poll at the meeting.  If they don’t have an electronic device, we can share…    Or, since I have a laptop, a smart phone and a tablet, I can loan two of them out.

It’s just that I have 12 sheets of paper from today’s meeting that I don’t need or want to keep.  I have a vermiposting setup but I still don’t like getting paper.

I just hope I don’t go to the extreme.


Filed under: Information operations Tagged: Laptop, Paper, Paperless office, Smartphone

The Emperor Is NAKED

0
0

Reblogged from Krypt3ia:

Click to visit the original post

gedh gedh gedh gedh gedh gedh

OMG THE DAM DATA!

Last week a report came out on Wired about how the ACE (Army Corps of Engineers) database was hacked by China and "sensitive" dam data was taken.. By China, let that sink in for a bit as there was no real attribution data in the story. Anyway, aside from the BOOGA BOOGA BOOGA headlines I had to wonder just how hard it was for these "Chinese" hackers to get in and steal the all important super secret DAM data.

Read more… 699 more words

Dam, damn, dam... good stuff.

Questions Someone Should Ask DOD About Its Report on Chinese Cyber-Operations

0
0

http://www.lawfareblog.com/2013/05/questions-someone-should-ask-dod-about-its-report-on-chinese-cyber-operations/.

Questions Someone Should Ask DOD About Its Report on Chinese Cyber-Operations

By 
Tuesday, May 7, 2013 at 2:12 PM

As Paul noted, a new Pentagon Report to Congress states:

In 2012, numerous computer systems around the world, including those owned by the U.S. government, continued to be targeted for intrusions, some of which appear to be attributable directly to the Chinese government and military. These intrusions were focused on exfiltrating information.  China is using its computer network exploitation (CNE) capability to support intelligence collection against the U.S. diplomatic, economic, and defense industrial base sectors that support U.S. national defense programs.

Note that the actions complained about are cyber-exploitations, not cyber-attacks.

I would hope that a journalist asks someone in the Pentagon these questions:

  • Is the United States engaged in similar cyber-exploitations “to support intelligence collection against [China's] diplomatic, economic, and defense industrial base sectors that support [China's] national defense programs”?
  • If not, why not? 
  • If so, what are you complaining about?
  • Is the complaint that China is doing a better job at cyber-espionage related to national defense programs than the United States?
  • How much of DOD’s worries are grounded in China’s motives for cyber-exploitations?  In particular, to what extent are USG worries about China’s cyber-exploitations really grounded in, as the Report states, (a) concerns that the exploitations might help China’s military planners to build “a picture of U.S. network defense networks, logistics, and related military capabilities that could be exploited during a crisis,” and (b) concerns that “the accesses and skills required for these intrusions are similar to those necessary to conduct computer network attacks”?
  • Is the United States not similarly engaged in cyber-espionage of China’s national defense programs with an eye toward U.S. national defense, and might not the skills behind U.S. cyber-intrusions be “similar to those necessary to conduct computer network attacks”?  How are China’s motives different from ours?

Filed under: Information operations Tagged: China, Chinese government, Cyberwarfare, Pentagon, United States, United States Congress, US government

On IO Blogs

0
0
Side view of a U.S. Air Force O-2 of the 9th S...

Side view of a U.S. Air Force O-2 of the 9th Special Operations Squadron dropping Chieu Hoi leaflets over the Republic of Vietnam. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I received a comment today to an ancient blog, asking what other blogs talk about the same subject.  I wrote out a response and realized I wanted to share this with everyone.  So I told the original commenter to read this blog.

This blog is on Information Operations, running the gamut from general IO to cyber to MISO/Psychological Operations to Electronic Warfare to Deception to OPSEC to Strategic Communication to Public Diplomacy to… just about everything a country or a military does to influence another country.  Speaking of Strategic Communication, I had a former NSC staffer question me about that today because of the bogus memorandum OSD published, stating that Strategic Communication no longer existed.  That thing has caused nothing but trouble because it was released before coordination and not at all official.

Information Operations

Political Warfare.Org, at http://jmw.typepad.com/political_warfare/, deals with all the same subjects with a distinct political flavor, great course.  Dr. J. Michael Waller also wrote the book “Fighting the War of Ideas like a Real War“.  He really owes me for all the recommendations I’ve given him, now he owes me one more.

Leonie Industries used to have a nice blog, but it’s gone fairly inactive. http://www.leoniegroup.com/blog/tag/information-operations/  I’ve talked with these folks often, they really get IO.

Two updates:

Healthy Influence Blog or Persuasion Blog.  This excellent blog deals with the science of persuasion, written by Dr. Steven Booth-Butterfield.  Steve’s blog really gets into the breadth and depth of persuasion, his blog pieces are intricately accurate and one can almost write a master’s thesis about the subject if you would read all his blogs, I believe.  Steve is a really nice guy and absolutely brilliant.  He literally wrote the book on persuasion.

Selil.  Dr. Sam Liles almost defies description, but, simply put, his blog is an excellent must-read for anything cyber.  Sam is also an endurance motorcycle rider, like me, so I happily read his occasional article about his motorcycle and currently his Iron Butt Rally preparation.  This past February, when there was snow on the ground, Sam rode his bike from Perdue University in Indiana to Washington DC to participate in a seminar on cyber.  Sam is also a former police officer aka cop, he’s also a really nice guy and absolutely brilliant.  Sam also has this unique ability to see through the bullcrap being thrown around Washington when it comes to cyber, both offensive and defensively and somehow manages to keep me straight.  But, be prepared, he tells the truth.  If I’m wrong about something, and that’s more often than not, he’ll tell me.

The US Army’s Information Proponent at Fort Leavenworth has a blog at http://usacacblogs.army.mil/informationproponentoffice/2012/01/68/ and if you can past the opening screen, you’re a better person than I am.  There is a more direct link to their IO resource page at http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/IPO/

Larry Dietz runs the PSYOP Regimental Blog at http://psyopregiment.blogspot.com/  Of course it has somewhat of a PSYOP / MISO flavor to it, but I forgive him.

Not Blogs but Great IO Sources

Now this is not an IO blog but they post the newsletter from the JIOWC, the Joint Information Operations Warfare Center.  http://www.phibetaiota.net/2013/01/information-operations-newsletter-vol-13-no-03/  It would be a good place to start to read their newsletters. Be one with your Google and search here… in my best Dalai Lama voice.  Okay, bad joke, but it made me laugh.

I would be remiss if I didn’t mention the Air University ‘online library’ at http://www.au.af.mil/info-ops/  This is a truly great collection of discussions of all things IO.  Not a blog but a reliable source to link to. This is a labor of love, so I’ve been told, this is the work of volunteers.

RAND publishes a lot of really good studies on IO, here: http://www.rand.org/topics/information-operations.html  Not a blog, but great for an evening with your tablet by the fire.  How romantic, eh?  Just don’t forget to lift your pinkie finger, show some class.

There are a few blogs out there on similar subjects.

Cyber

I’m waiting for a good cyber blog to pop up.  The media is publishing all kinds of great articles on cyber and there are a lot of blogs that pick up on those stories, but it doesn’t appear as if anyone with real experience is blogging about the field.  The offensive side of the house is all written in Chinese, so I’m at a loss there.  Oops, did I just type that out loud?

Actually, the offensive side of the house at the US Cyber Command will forever be dark.  ’nuff said.

Advanced Persistent Threats.  I’m getting way deep involved with this, so I should have a ton of stuff right here, in the future.

Public Diplomacy

John Brown has a very active blog on Public Diplomacy at http://publicdiplomacypressandblogreview.blogspot.com/

Matt Armstrong publishes MountainRunner.US, he deals with Public Diplomacy, but sadly it’s gone dark.  Matt is writing a book, however and the White House just published an “intent to nominate” Matt to the Board of Governors for the Broadcasting Board of Governors, here!   Great things are in store, ahead!

The Public Diplomacy Council has a really nice blog going here, http://www.publicdiplomacycouncil.org/.

Warning!

Don’t be fooled by most blogs that deal with “Information Warfare”, I seldom find anything dealing remotely with the subject. Also, stay the heck away from Alex Jones and Infowars.com, it is so completely bogus and conspiracy theory prone as to melt one’s brain.  If they ever read this they’ll probably steal that idea.

One last generic warning. There is no such thing as a government program to brainwash the American people or anyone in a foreign country. Also HAARP is not a program to somehow magically shower you with radio waves, causing you to begin singing “God loves America” or any such tomfoolery. If you read anything about Psychological Warfare, be prepared to run away. Also, if you ever read a blog citing the IO Roadmap as proof that the US is doing anything good, bad or indifferent, close your eyes before they melt. That little POS never seems to go away.


Filed under: Information operations, Public Diplomacy, Strategic Communication Tagged: Alex Jones, Broadcasting Board of Governors, information operations, Joint Information Operations Warfare Center, Psychological warfare, public diplomacy, Strategic Communication, United State

Two More Memorable IO Blogs

0
0
English: Socks the Cat (1989-2009), also known...

English: Socks the Cat (1989-2009), also known as “First Cat”, presiding over a White House press conference during Clinton presidency.(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Yesterday I published a blog piece “On IO Blogs”, here.  But I messed up and forgot two very, very good blogs.  I woke up at 3 am and just had to write this update.

Healthy Influence Blog or Persuasion Blog.  This excellent blog deals with the science of persuasion, written by Dr. Steven Booth-Butterfield.  Steve’s blog really gets into the breadth and depth of persuasion, his blog pieces are intricately accurate and one can almost write a master’s thesis about the subject if you would read all his blogs, I believe.  Steve is a really nice guy and absolutely brilliant.  He literally wrote the book on persuasion.

Selil.  Dr. Sam Liles almost defies description, but, simply put, his blog is an excellent must-read for anything cyber.  Sam is also an endurance motorcycle rider, like me, so I happily read his occasional article about his motorcycle and currently his Iron Butt Rally preparation.  This past February, when there was snow on the ground, Sam rode his bike from Perdue University in Indiana to Washington DC to participate in a seminar on cyber.  Sam is also a former police officer aka cop, he’s also a really nice guy and absolutely brilliant.  Sam also has this unique ability to see through the bullcrap being thrown around Washington when it comes to cyber, both offensive and defensively and somehow manages to keep me straight.  But, be prepared, he tells the truth.  If I’m wrong about something, and that’s more often than not, he’ll tell me.

Please, if there are any other blogs out there related to IO, tell me?  I don’t want to overlook anyone and I especially don’t want to hurt any feelings.


Filed under: Information operations Tagged: blog, Indiana, iOS Blog, Motorcycle, Persuasion, Washington

Presiding Governor Lynton Steps Down from the BBG Board

0
0

From a BBG Press Release: 

May 23, 2013

Washington, DC – Broadcasting Board of Governors leader Michael Lynton has informed the White House that he is leaving the BBG effective today.

“It has been an honor to serve our country by taking part in the work of this board, which was established to oversee an agency with a complex and vital calling,” Lynton wrote in a letter to President Barack Obama about his decision. “Time and time again, we have seen that the journalists and other staff of the BBG are dedicated to the agency’s mission: to inform, engage and connect people around the world in support of freedom and democracy. They prove it around the clock and against steep odds, in many cases amid some of the most difficult circumstances imaginable.

“In an effort to sustain this mission, I was proud to work with fellow board members on promoting long-needed reforms of the agency’s structure and governance– among them, enhancing collaboration between the broadcasters and establishing the position of a Chief Executive Officer with day-to-day operational responsibilities,” he continued. “I wish the current members and our successors the very best in seeing these reforms through.”

Lynton thanked his fellow Governors for electing him to lead the Board in February 2012, adding, “circumstances kept me from taking part in their recent formal meetings, but it is my hope that the BBG board will enjoy a full and productive membership soon.”

Michael Lynton is CEO of Sony Entertainment, Inc. He is the former CEO of AOL Europe and Chairman and CEO of Pearson plc’s Penguin Group.

A member of the Council on Foreign Relations, Lynton serves on the boards of the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, the Rand Corporation, and the Harvard Board of Overseers. He is a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Business School.

Lynton was named the BBG’s interim presiding governor following the departure of Chairman Walter Isaacson. He joined the board on July 2, 2010, serving a term expiring on August 13, 2012. By law, any member whose term has expired may serve until a successor has been appointed and qualified. His departure leaves the Board with four members, including Secretary of State John Kerry, who serves as an ex-officio member.

Here is the full text of Lynton’s resignation letter:

May 23, 2013
The President
The White House
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

With this letter, I submit my resignation from the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) effective May 23rd. 2013.

It has been an honor to serve our country by taking part in the work of this board, which was established to oversee an agency with a complex and vital calling. Time and time again, we have seen that the journalists and other staff of the BBG are dedicated to the agency’s mission: to inform, engage and connect people around the world in support of freedom and democracy. They prove it around the clock and against steep odds, in many cases amid some of the most difficult circumstances imaginable.

In an effort to sustain this mission, I was proud to work with fellow board members on promoting long-needed reforms of the agency’s structure and governance– among them, enhancing collaboration between the broadcasters and establishing the position of a Chief Executive Officer with day-to-day operational responsibilities. I wish the current members and our successors the very best in seeing these reforms through.

And I’d like once more to thank fellow board members for asking me to take the reins more than a year ago. Circumstances kept me from taking part in their recent formal meetings, but it is my hope that the BBG board will enjoy a full and productive membership soon.

Respectfully,

Michael Lynton


Filed under: Information operations Tagged: Barack Obama, BBG, Broadcasting Board of Governors, Council on Foreign Relations, Harvard Business School, John Kerry, Lynton, Michael Lynton

Letter to the Secretary of State about Public Diplomacy

0
0
The Honorable John F. Kerry
Seal of the United States Department of State.

Seal of the United States Department of State. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Secretary of State

 

Washington DC 20520

 

Dear Mr. Secretary:

 

We urge that a career foreign affairs professional be appointed as the next Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs.  Such an appointment would support your efforts fully to integrate public diplomacy into U.S. foreign affairs.

 

No career professional has served as Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs.  Coincidentally or not, today there is a wide consensus that U.S. perspectives are less well understood abroad, and people-to-people exchanges are less robust than they should be.  In today’s globalizing but still threatening world, and as our military forces abroad are drawn down, it is more important than ever that America strengthen its “soft power.”  For this, public diplomacy is an essential and powerful tool.

 

A career foreign affairs professional, with years of overseas and Washington experience, is more likely to understand the larger world context and how public diplomacy can help achieve America’s policy goals.  And it is challenging to direct and energize public diplomacy if the leadership  has brief tours or vacancies are lengthy.  Prior to the incumbent Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, leaving after just over a year in office, the previous four served, on average, nearly two years.  By comparison, the previous four Under Secretaries for Political Affairs, all career professionals, served, on average, nearly three-and-one-half years.  The U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy reports that the position of Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs has been vacant more than 30% of the time since it was created in 1999.  The position of Under Secretary for Political Affairs has been vacant only 5% of that time.

 

Studies by the Defense Science Board, RAND, and other independent groups have found that America’s engagement with foreign publics succeeds best when led by experienced officials having the authority to establish priorities, assign responsibilities, transfer funds, and concur in senior appointments.  Leaders must have direct access to you and the President on critical communication issues as policies are formulated and implemented.

 

When done well, public diplomacy works.  Large numbers of foreign heads of government, legislators, and social, economic, and political leaders — many of them America’s staunch allies and stalwart friends — have participated in U.S. public diplomacy programs.  The University of Southern California recently reported that of individuals exposed to U.S. public diplomacy, 79 percent have used what they learned to bring about positive change in their own communities by running for political office, organizing a civil society group, doing volunteer work, and starting a new business or other projects.  Fully 94 percent say the exposure has increased their understanding of U.S. foreign policy, and America’s people, society, and values.

 

The President’s and your public engagements are among our country’s greatest diplomatic assets.  You have over a thousand skilled, culturally-aware, and language-trained public diplomacy officers ready to leverage advanced technology and person-to-person communications skills in order to change foreign outcomes in America’s favor.  All they need is truly professional, experienced leadership.

 

Respectfully,

 

Leonard J. Baldyga, Career Minister (Retired), U.S. Information Agency

 

Adrian A. Basora, Ambassador (Retired), Director of the Project on Democratic Transitions, Foreign Policy Research Institute, and Past President, Eisenhower Fellowships

 

John R. Beyrle, Director, U.S. Russia Foundation, and former Ambassador to Russia and Bulgaria

 

Barbara K. Bodine, former Ambassador to Yemen

 

Edward Brynn, former Ambassador to Burkina Faso and Ghana, and Acting Historian of the Department of State

 

Brian Carlson, former Ambassador to Latvia and Public Affairs Officer (PAO) in Spain, Norway, and Bulgaria

 

John Campbell, Ambassador (Retired), Ralph Bunche Senior Fellow for Africa Policy Studies, Council on Foreign Relations

 

William Courtney, former Ambassador to Kazakhstan and Georgia

 

Shaun Donnelly, former Ambassador to Sri Lanka and Maldives

 

Craig G. Dunkerley, former Special Envoy for Conventional Armed Forces in Europe

 

Sally Grooms Cowal, former Ambassador to Trinidad and Tobago, PAO in Mexico, and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs

 

Walter L. Cutler, former Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, and Zaire

 

John Evans, former Ambassador to Armenia

 

Linda Jewell, former Ambassador to Ecuador

 

Robert Finn, former Ambassador to Afghanistan and Tajikistan, and Opening Chargé d’affaires in Azerbaijan

 

Jacob P. Gillespie, former PAO in Spain and El Salvador

 

Robert R. Gosende, former Special Envoy for Somalia and PAO in the Russian Federation and South Africa

 

Donna J. Hamilton, former Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs

 

John R. Hamilton, former Ambassador to Peru and Guatemala

 

William Harrop, former Ambassador to Israel, Kenya, Zaire, and Guinea, and Inspector General of the Department of State

 

Arthur Hartman, Career Ambassador (Retired)

 

Dennis K. Hays, former Ambassador to Suriname and President of the American Foreign Service Association

 

H. Allen Holmes, Ambassador (Retired), former Assistant Secretary of State for Politico-Military Affairs

 

Robert E. Hunter, former Ambassador to NATO (non-career) and senior member of the National Security Council (NSC) Staff

 

Morris Jacobs, former President of the Public Diplomacy Council

 

Linda Jewell, former Ambassador to Ecuador and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs

 

Joe B. Johnson, Public Diplomacy Council and former PAO in Ireland and Panama

 

Richard D. Kauzlarich, former Ambassador to Azerbaijan and Bosnia and Herzegovina

 

Dr. William P. Kiehl, President & CEO, PDWorldwide, and former PAO in Czechoslovakia, Finland, and Thailand

 

Melinda Kimble, Senior Fellow, United Nations Foundation, and former Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans, Environment, and Science

 

Daniel Kurtzer, former Ambassador to Egypt and Israel.

 

Bruce Laingen, former Ambassador to Malta and Chargé d’affaires, Tehran

 

Richard LeBaron, former Ambassador to Kuwait and Founding Coordinator of the Center for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications

 

Melvyn Levitsky, former Ambassador to Bulgaria and Brazil, and Assistant Secretary of State for International Narcotics Matters

 

Thomas E. McNamara, Ambassador (Retired), former Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs

 

Richard Miles, former Ambassador to Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, and Georgia

 

John O’Keefe, former Ambassador to the Kyrgyz Republic

 

Thomas R. Pickering, former Ambassador to Nigeria, Jordan, El Salvador, Israel, the United Nations, India, and Russia, and Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs

 

Christopher Ross, Personal Envoy of the United Nations Secretary-General for Western Sahara, and former Special Coordinator for Public Diplomacy and Ambassador to Algeria and Syria

 

William A. Rugh, former Ambassador to Yemen and to the United Arab Emirates, and PAO in Egypt and Saudi Arabia

 

Harold H. Saunders, former senior member of the NSC Staff, Director of Intelligence and Research, and Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs

 

Michael Schneider, Senior Executive Service (Retired), U.S. Information Agency

 

John W. Shirley, former Ambassador to Tanzania, PAO in Warsaw and Rome, and Counselor of the U.S. Information Agency

 

Katherine Shirley, former ambassador to Senegal

 

Pamela Hyde Smith, former Ambassador to Moldova and PAO in the United Kingdom

 

Patrick Nickolas Theros, former Ambassador to Qatar

 

Hans N. Tuch, Career Minister (Retired), former PAO in the USSR, Germany, and Brazil, and Deputy Chief of Mission in Bulgaria and Brazil

 

Alexander F. Watson, former Ambassador to Peru, Ambassador and Deputy Permanent Representative at the United Nations, and Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs

 

Marcelle M. Wahba, former Ambassador to the United Arab Emirates and PAO in Egypt,

 

Jordan, and Cyprus

 

Philip C. Wilcox, Jr., Ambassador (Retired), former Chief of Mission in Jerusalem and Ambassador at Large for Counterterrorism

 

Kenneth Yalowitz, former Ambassador to Belarus and Georgia

 

cc.  National Security Advisor Thomas E. Donilon

 


Filed under: Information operations

Information as an Element of National Power

0
0
English: Based on the map uploaded to en.wikip...

Map composed by a United States Army War College student, as part of his Master’s thesis, in the public domain as a work of a member of the US Government. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I’m in the middle of a deep dive on “Information as an Element of National Power” and I wanted to share some resources I have found from the US Army War College.   These are all from the US Army War College’s website, here.

Just a small side note before I let you peruse these references, because what I am seeing is, in my opinion, disgusting.  The Army War College, in its infinite wisdom, portrayed as a cost-cutting move, eliminated its ‘Information as Power’ department.  Why?   My personal opinion is that the senior leadership does not recognize how important information is and will be in the bigger picture.  Sure, it’s important to know how to deploy area denial weapons, it’s important to understand how to command and control hundreds of thousands of military pieces of equipment, but when it comes to garnering the support of a population of a country, a region or the world, it must not be that important.  We might have militarily won Iraq and Afghanistan, although the jury is still out, but we did not win the support of the people.  I do not need to wonder why, in view that it is not that important to our senior military leaders.

Library Collection – Information as an Element of National Power

USAWC Publications – Information as an Element of National Power

Articles – Information as an Element of National Power

 

Related articles


Filed under: Information operations, Information Warfare

Li Wu Feng of the Central Foreign Affairs Office, State Council Information Office Deputy Director

0
0

I just came across this press release from Xinhua.  Li Wu Feng (also spelled Li WuFeng)  just came from being the chief official for the Chinese Internet (Director General of the State Council Information Office) and is now the Deputy Director of the Central Foreign Affairs Office, State Council Information Office .  But what really caught my eye was his previous position was Central Foreign Propaganda Office of the State Council Information Office of the Deputy Director.  Yes, the Chinese have a Foreign Propaganda Office.  I’ve spoken with academics in China and the Chinese interpretation of the word propaganda is not as pejorative as the West’s association of the word propaganda with Joseph Goebbels.

Originally published: http://www.best-news.us/news-4682414-Li-Wu-Feng-of-the-Central-Foreign-Affairs-Office-State-Council-Information-Office-Deputy-Director-map–CV.html

Published: 9:32:00 June 19,2013  Views: 1

BEIJING, June 19 (Xinhua) According to the State Council Information Office website news, Li Wu Feng has served as the Central Foreign Propaganda Office of the State Council Information Office of the Deputy Director. Previously, Li Wu Feng of the State Internet Information Office deputy director.

Li Wu Feng, male, Han nationality, Ningdu Ji, born in August 1957, Xingzi 1974 November to work in May 1979 joined the Chinese Communist Party of China People’s University Department of Philosophy, graduate, postgraduate and currently a center of foreign Propaganda Office of the State Council Information Office of the Deputy Director.

November 1974 December 1976 Pengze County, Jiangxi Yang Zi Township to jump the queue, in January 1977 -1979 in September PLA 32518 army soldier,

September 1979 July 1983 Renmin University of China major in philosophy undergraduate students,

July 1983 September 1985 Graduate School of Renmin University of China office work,

September 1985 – 1988 July Renmin University of China Department of Philosophy graduate,

July 1988 – 1991 April propaganda Propaganda Bureau,

May 1991 – 2000 in June the central propaganda office, a deputy director, director and deputy director,

June 2000 -2012 in July the central propaganda office five Deputy Secretary, Secretary (Period: June 2007 – 2008 June sending party members went to the Three Gorges Corporation, assistant general manager),

July 2012 May 2013 National Internet Information Office deputy director,

May 2013 the Central Foreign Propaganda Office of the State Council Information Office of the Deputy Director (CV and photos from the State Council Information Office Website) Tags:

(Original title: Li Wu Feng of the Central Foreign Affairs Office, State Council Information Office Deputy Director (Figure / CV


Filed under: Information operations

Reminder about the InfowarCon 2014 Survey

0
0

A note from Winn Schwartau:

I’ve been asked by many different groups to bring back INFOWARCON, the cyberwar conference I ran starting in 1994.
GFirst is sadly gone.
Too many Training Congresses are all the same ol’ …
Too many prepared vendor pitches
Content-less stump speeches from “Official-dom”
All defense… no offense.
IMHO:
If you can’t attack, how can you defend?
InfowarCon is designed to provide open source access to technologies, perceptions and views from the attacking side of the equation. What Poor-Man’s Terrorist Weapons can be built “on the cheap” yet offer our adversaries strategic and tactical advantage?
You know the problem. So, we are asking for your thoughts about
Attending
Presenting/Demonstrating
Sponsoring
InfowarCon 2014: Offensive Information Technologies Training & Congress
3 Action-Packed Days of Brilliant Hands-On Training, Seminars, Demonstrations and Learning How to be Offensive!
 
If you could spare a moment (like no one EVER asks you for that!) and fill out a 100% anonymous survey,
your answers will tell us if anyone cares about my vision and wants to participate.
Kind thanks in advance!
Winn
Winn Schwartau, Founder/CEO
+1.727.393.6600
IWC Logo Small

Filed under: Information operations Tagged: InfowarCon, Theft, Winn, Winn Schwartau

Trans Regional Web Initiative Survives Congressional Assault

0
0

Tom Vanden Brook, a USA Today reporter, wrote here that a bill by Rep. Jeff Denham, R-Calif failed by 238-135, after a damning and damaging GAO report.

English: Official portriat of US Rep Jeff Denham

Official portrait of US Rep Jeff Denham (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Here were the actual words in the NDAA, source:

SEC. 343. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR TRANS REGIONAL WEB INITIATIVE (TRWI).

None of the funds authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2014 by section 301 for operation and maintenance, Defense-wide, may be obligated or expended to continue the Trans Regional Web Initiative (TRWI).

I sent a netcall (the military equivalent to “calling all cars”) to my professional friends and colleagues, as well as Tom Vanden Brook at USA Today and Craig Whitlock at the Washington Post.

The websites targeted are here:

  1. infosurhoy.com – Targets audiences in Latin America and the Caribbean (SOUTHCOM)
  2. centralasiaonline.com – Focuses on Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, Pakistan and Afghanistan (CENTCOM)
  3. al-shorfa.com – aimed at the Persian Gulf States (CENTCOM)
  4. mawtani.com – aimed at Iraq (CENTCOM)
  5. setimes.com or Southeast Times, a news and information site covering Southeast Europe (Albanian, Bosnian, Bulgarian, Croatian, English, Greek, Macedonian, Romanian, Serbian and Turkish) (EUCOM)
  6. magharebia.com – targets the northern tier of Africa – Morocco, Tunisia, Mauritania, Libya and Algeria (AFRICOM)
  7. khabarsouthasia.com – in English, Bengali and Urdu (PACOM)
  8. khabarsoutheastasia.com – in English and Bahasa Indonesia (PACOM)
  9. sabahionline.com – Sabahi Online, targets Horn of Africa – Somalia, Djibouti, Kenya and Tanzania (AFRICOM)
  10. agorarevista.com - focused on Mexico (NORTHCOM)

As of right now I seem to missing one website, one that is the responsibility of NORTHCOM. I have confirmation the site exists, I just don’t know the URL.

 

Also reputedly targeted were these military to military exchange magazines:

  • Diálogo (SOUTHCOM)
  • African Defense Forum (AFRICOM)
  • Asia-Pacific Defence Forum (PACOM)
  • Agora (NORTHCOM)
  • Perconcordium (EUCOM)
  • Unipath (CENTCOM)

Surprisingly, I got responses and a ton of information from Tom Vanden Brook, Craig Whitlock and several Psyop (MISO, I know) friends and colleagues. but not from OSD(P).

I began researching this material even before I knew it was up for a vote, I guess fate is a fickle lover. Take the first six websites I listed. According to a document, “U.S. Government Counterterrorism: A Guide to Who Does What“, the first six sites cost $10.5 million dollars in 2010. According to Mr. Vanden Brooks article, “ten” sites cost $19.5 million. That’s one heckuva price increase!

NORTHCOM has a website which should be included on this list but I’ll be darned if I can find it. According to “Pentagon as Pitchman” report by Russell Rumbaugh and Matthew Leatherman of the Stimson Center here, the website exists. I’ve independently confirmed it exists, it’s in support of their Regional War on Terror (RWOT) program, but I don’t know very much about it..

The TRWI program is not to be confused with the VOICE program:

  • Operation OBJECTIVE VOICE – Africa Command,
  • Operation EARNEST VOICE – Central Command
  • Operation ASSURED VOICE in European Command
  • Operation CLEAR VOICE in Northern Command
  • Operation RELIANT VOICE in Pacific Command
  • Operation SOVEREIGN VOICE in Southern Command

I must voice my disgust for the use of ‘propaganda’ by Mr. Vanden Brook in his article. The two of us recently sat down together and I explained the definition of propaganda (there is none, but it’s like porn, you know it when you see it). I actually started building a collection of propaganda for demonstration purposes. According to Dr. Steven Luckert of the US Memorial Holocaust Museum, propaganda is roughly based on facts or stereotypes which are distorted to support an extreme ideology (I’m grossly paraphrasing). These sites, however, post “fair and objective” articles from legitimate news sources.

Representative Denham also believes the websites are too costly. Pardon me, Mr. Denham, have you ever run a professional website? I have an it is frigging expensive, time intensive and in this case, very, very well done on all these sites. I actually visited every single one of them today and they’re all very good. No, Mr. Representative, the idea, again to paraphrase, is to build a website that, over a long time period, establishes itself as a legitimate and accepted source of fair and objective information. This way the people in the focus area know they can go there for good information and make informed decisions. If you pop up a website when a crisis begins it appears suspicious and the people have no faith in its legitimacy. WAY too often, very young IO folks think they can just pop up a website and make the target audience BELIEVE in their cause.

My next points and they’re nit picky: “that such websites have the potential to unintentionally skew U.S. policy positions or be out of step with U.S. government efforts in a particular country,” a quote by unnamed “some State Department Public Diplomacy officials and senior embassy officials”. First of all, it shouldn’t be a quote if it’s a conglomeration of statements, especially by unnamed multiple sources. Second, the word “potential” is used, the same as I have the potential to be a gigolo, a thief, or an assassin, but I am none of the above. The last thing about this sentence is that this is the point of central planning and decentralized execution – you must train, then trust but supervise and verify. When the US military began allowing hundreds and thousands of webpages to be built, those lessons were learned the hard way. State Department has the same solution, not everything is approved by the Secretary of State, the authority has to be delegated down the chain.

“Denham had hoped to kill the program so that the Pentagon “would be able to more effectively resource its core mission: building a force that can fight and win our nations wars. I suggest you sit down and learn the fundamentals of Information Operations. I have a 30 hour IO course standing by, but I’ll give you a two hour basic lecture if you want to learn what IO really is and what IO is capable of (please excuse my grammar). Tell you what, I’m giving that talk tomorrow at the DC campus of Bahçeşehir University, why don’t you stop by? 10 am, don’t be late!

Update: Apologies to the Congressman.  I mistakenly wrote he had no military service whereas he served 16 years in the USAF.


Filed under: Information operations Tagged: AFRICOM, CENTCOM, Jeff Denham, Tom Vanden Brook, United States, United States Africa Command, United States European Command, Vanden Brook

The Future of Cyberwar – Better or Worse?

0
0

Yesterday I gave a lecture at the Washington DC campus of Bahçeşehir University, about one block from the White House.   A number of undergraduate students and one PhD candidate, studying Strategic Communications, are spending a short time in Washington DC, being lectured to by various industry experts.   As this campus has still not opened for classes, this is a pilot program for a hopefully longer, more extensive and intensive program.  

I gave a 90 minute talk on Information Operations, Information Warfare and Cyber Warfare. Yes, I know, I’ve talked long and hard that there should be no actual term entitled cyberwar, but let’s just set that aside for now and talk about it academically another time.  For you purists out there, go pound sand.  Information Operations is what I do but cyberwarfare pays the bills right now.

The group was bright and paid better attention than most American students, and their questions reflected their interest.  As a group they were surprisingly soft-spoken, as well. Either that or the wax buildup in my ears needs some serious treatment.  But seriously folks, these guys and gals asked me some seriously good questions.  More important, the group was shocked, shocked I tell you, that I could talk about Information Operations in public. They thought it should be highly classified.  I had to keep reminding myself that these were not Americans, they were from Turkey and the country is in a state of almost civil war at the moment.  

One of the best questions was from a young woman who absolutely floored me with the insight and simplicity of the question.   Is cyberwar in the future going to get better or worse?  

I consider myself a futurist but seldom have I been pushed to actually voice what I believe, what I project and how I see the ‘cyberwar’ field evolving.  To answer this one must not only think of the evolution of cyberwar techniques and computational systems, but also how computer systems are being used and will be used.  I’ve been following flexible electronic developments.  I’ve been following implantable electronics. I’ve been following neural interfaces.  I’ve been following prosthetic evolution.  I’ve been following artificial body parts.  I’ve been following quantum computing.  I’ve been watching simple and complex objects that you and I commonly use being infused with electronic parts.  I’ve been following remote control development. I’ve followed remote interfaces with moving objects near and far.  We’ve already seen rooms and houses sensing someone’s presence and changing to suit their individual preferences.  But I also remember the predictions from 100 years ago that turned out to be far fetched, even impossible, mostly due to their impractical nature and the development of technology that leapfrogged past more mundane applications of older technology.  With this in mind, the answer was obvious. 

Worse.  With the increase of technology infiltrating every part of our lives, from the simplest and tiniest objects in our world, to the largest and most complex projects imaginable, we will be much more vulnerable to cyber and electronic attacks and interference than we can currently even imagine.  If implantable electronics have a neural interface, our brains and our bodies will be potential targets.  Even if these devices are not networked, we have already seen a demonstration by Stuxnet that this doesn’t matter.  Anything and everything that contains electronic components and functionality is potentially targetable, vulnerable and susceptible.  With the frequency spectrum almost completely in use, there are increased chances of interference causing accidents, overloads and false signals.  

What we plainly need is legislation which is forward looking and causes security to be the most basic issue in all development in the future.  Build a new chip, make sure it contains security precautions.  Build a new interface, make sure security is a basic, fundamental concern.  Build a new system, ensure security is the number one priority.  

Will this necessary legislation happen?   Let’s see, the US Congress has a proven track record of non-accomplishment.  My prediction is no.  Not unless we have that digital Pearl Harbor we’ve been hearing about for 20 years.  Then Congress might wake up after they’ve been slapped in the face.  Maybe then…


Filed under: Information operations Tagged: Bahçeşehir University, Cyberwarfare, information operations, information warfare, Pearl Harbor, Stuxnet, United State, White House

NORTHCOM’s TRWI Site

0
0

The other day I published a piece on the Trans-Regional Web Initiative here, a concerted effort by US IO offices to reach out and establish credible, long-term, sources for information providing fair and objective information.   For the most part one can look at each of these websites that I published and properly infer that the areas of focus are all areas with severe problems.  Not only are the governments unfair and oppressive, compounded by a highly militant environment, but the press is not free.   Because the press is not free, the targeted audiences may or may not be fully informed about current events in their area.

When I published my blog I listed nine websites and implied that the US Northern Command had such a website.   We finally found it:

The only difference between this site and the others is the lack of an English translation button, but my browser offered to translate it for me.  ..and there, plain as day, on the “About US” page, it says the website is run by the US Northern Command.

The only question I have is “Who is the Agora Magazine staff that provides content on the website?” I found one in Italy and one in Holland


Filed under: Information operations Tagged: information operations, Mexico, NORTHCOM, TRWI, US Northern Command

The US government has betrayed the internet. We need to take it back

0
0

The NSA has undermined a fundamental social contract. We engineers built the internet – and now we have to fix it

• Bruce Schneier

Bruce Schneier

• theguardian.com, Thursday 5 September 2013 15.04 EDT

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/05/government-betrayed-internet-nsa-spying

Government and industry have betrayed the internet, and us.

By subverting the internet at every level to make it a vast, multi-layered and robust surveillance platform, the NSA has undermined a fundamental social contract. The companies that build and manage our internet infrastructure, the companies that create and sell us our hardware and software, or the companies that host our data: we can no longer trust them to be ethical internet stewards.

This is not the internet the world needs, or the internet its creators envisioned. We need to take it back.

And by we, I mean the engineering community.

Yes, this is primarily a political problem, a policy matter that requires political intervention.

But this is also an engineering problem, and there are several things engineers can – and should – do.

One, we should expose. If you do not have a security clearance, and if you have not received a National Security Letter, you are not bound by a federal confidentially requirements or a gag order. If you have been contacted by the NSA to subvert a product or protocol, you need to come forward with your story. Your employer obligations don’t cover illegal or unethical activity. If you work with classified data and are truly brave, expose what you know. We need whistleblowers.

We need to know how exactly how the NSA and other agencies are subverting routers, switches, the internet backbone, encryption technologies and cloud systems. I already have five stories from people like you, and I’ve just started collecting. I want 50. There’s safety in numbers, and this form of civil disobedience is the moral thing to do.

Two, we can design. We need to figure out how to re-engineer the internet to prevent this kind of wholesale spying. We need new techniques to prevent communications intermediaries from leaking private information.

We can make surveillance expensive again. In particular, we need open protocols, open implementations, open systems – these will be harder for the NSA to subvert.

The Internet Engineering Task Force, the group that defines the standards that make the internet run, has a meeting planned for early November in Vancouver. This group needs dedicate its next meeting to this task. This is an emergency, and demands an emergency response.

Three, we can influence governance. I have resisted saying this up to now, and I am saddened to say it, but the US has proved to be an unethical steward of the internet. The UK is no better. The NSA’s actions are legitimizing the internet abuses by China, Russia, Iran and others. We need to figure out new means of internet governance, ones that makes it harder for powerful tech countries to monitor everything. For example, we need to demand transparency, oversight, and accountability from our governments and corporations.

Unfortunately, this is going play directly into the hands of totalitarian governments that want to control their country’s internet for even more extreme forms of surveillance. We need to figure out how to prevent that, too. We need to avoid the mistakes of the International Telecommunications Union, which has become a forum to legitimize bad government behavior, and create truly international governance that can’t be dominated or abused by any one country.

Generations from now, when people look back on these early decades of the internet, I hope they will not be disappointed in us. We can ensure that they don’t only if each of us makes this a priority, and engages in the debate. We have a moral duty to do this, and we have no time to lose.

Dismantling the surveillance state won’t be easy. Has any country that engaged in mass surveillance of its own citizens voluntarily given up that capability? Has any mass surveillance country avoided becoming totalitarian? Whatever happens, we’re going to be breaking new ground.

Again, the politics of this is a bigger task than the engineering, but the engineering is critical. We need to demand that real technologists be involved in any key government decision making on these issues. We’ve had enough of lawyers and politicians not fully understanding technology; we need technologists at the table when we build tech policy.

To the engineers, I say this: we built the internet, and some of us have helped to subvert it. Now, those of us who love liberty have to fix it.

• Bruce Schneier writes about security, technology, and people. His latest book is Liars and Outliers: Enabling the Trust That Society Needs to Thrive. He is working for the Guardian on other NSA stories


Filed under: Information operations

Body Implants & Prosthetics

0
0

More in our ongoing future technology series.

Afghanistan and Iraq have brought about a huge increase in the advancement of prosthetics and body implants.  This was actually brought about by the increased effectiveness of body armor, protecting soldiers from being killed, but at the perceived sacrifice of extremities.

As late as the American Civil War, very little was known about the human body and infections were responsible for the loss of most human life.  When infections were finally being combatted with antibiotics, helmets began appearing, to protect a soldier’s head.  Body armor only came into somewhat common use in the 1990s and the US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq made its use mandatory.  I recall in 1994 wearing body armor when entering Haiti and it was…  agony.  Hot, heavy and cumbersome.  I don’t recall when I turned it back in to supply, but it couldn’t have been soon enough.

Even with body armor, heads, arms and legs are not protected as well as the torso.  If you watched the movie “Blackhawk Down”, the body armor was so heavy that some decided to leave it behind – leading to a loss of life in many cases.  Helmets protect much of the head but the face and neck are still exposed.  The arms and legs are still totally exposed, so explosions, shrapnel and bullets do severe damage.  This caused a huge increase in research and development of prosthetic limbs, their functionality and upgrades.

•Prosthetic legs, arms lifelike, computer enabled.  Imagine a prosthetic hand which you can control with your mind, to grip something gently.  That is a huge increase in functionality and gives a huge increase in quality of life.  Much of the subtle movements and feedback in a prosthetic limb is enabled by the use of computer circuitry.
•Neural and future brain implants streamline movement.  Many prosthetics move through the use of neural implants, replacing older muscle-tension sensors.  The closer we get to neural implants and eventually brain implants, the closer we are to ‘hacking the brain’.  We now know much of where certain muscle groups are controlled, but there is so much more we do not know.  Our knowledge of the human body, especially the brain, is nascent.  Predictions are hopeful that we should have near perfect knowledge of the human body in ten to fifteen years.
•Retinal implants will restore vision.  We now have ballistic protection for soldiers’ eyes but still, we lose too many eyes.  I have a friend with eye damage, her collection of eye prosthetics is impressive.  I am starting to hear and seeing prototypes for artificial eyes with visible, IR and even UV sensors.  I believe the bump in the log is splicing into the optic nerve so that the brain can see and sense an image.
•I have not heard about security, have you?  As our prosthetics come closer and closer to actually interfacing with the human body, with nerves, with the actual brain, we cannot have security as an afterthought.  Not only must we prevent damage to the human body, but we must protect the knowledge contained within the human brain.  Also, we can never forget that anything brought into a commercial or a sensitive area may be used for corporate or intelligence espionage.
Hack the brain?  Eventually, but we are fairly safe for another ten years or so.  Ten years.  Think how little time that is in the meantime until our very brains will become unique vulnerable targets.

Filed under: Information operations

1 (800) 318-2596

0
0

I continue to have difficulty following this administration’s focus.  

Yes, the past two weeks in Washington DC have been quite different.  Two weeks ago we had a deranged individual kill 12 people at the Navy Yard.  Two days ago we had a deranged woman attempt to crash a gate at the White House, then engage law enforcement on multiple occasions around the US Capitol building and was then killed, all while having a toddler in the back seat.  Then, yesterday, we had a man set himself on fire on the National Mall.  Oh, yes, then we had the government shut down and 800,000 federal workers were furloughed.  I was downtown on Thursday afternoon and the streets were deserted.  It was wonderful. 

But, amidst all this travesty of our great government, the President issued a toll-free number to explain the Obamacare to US citizens.  1-800-318-2596.  Unfortunately, nobody thought to associate the letters on a telephone keypad (what used to be a dial) with the numbers.  It spells out a very, very dirty sentence.  F***-Yo.  Oh, yes.  

Mr. President, I’m writing a National Information Strategy for you, as requested by a friend.  Please consider it.  It’s better than my mother proofreading my school papers when I was a kid…


Filed under: Information operations

Social Media both Good and Bad

0
0

I was recently alarmed when people began piling on and attempted to eviscerate Melissa Bachman for posting pictures of her with wild animals she and clients have killed.  A Facebook page, attacking her, “Stop Melissa Bachman“, was established and as of November 18, 2014,  90,531 people have “Liked” the page.  A Facebook page, supporting Melissa Bachman, “Show Support for Melissa Bachman“, was also established and, as of November 18, 8,365 “Liked” the page.  Now there is an petition to bar Melissa Bachman from ever returning to South Africa, where she killed a lion and posted the picture.

For the record I am a hunting advocate but have never hunted for animals (very deliberate wording).  I made plans to hunt bear in Alaska after I retired from the Army but that was overcome by events.  I do want to hunt, so if anyone wants to invite me to join them, I will move mountains to get a legal license and join you!

Back to the subject at hand.

I find it very disconcerting when perfectly legal occupations are denigrated, demeaned and excoriated just because one disagrees. “I hate you because of (fill in the blank)” and, as a result, the blind are now leading the blind. This is not just about Melissa Bachman and/or hunting, this is about almost anything in this ‘new world order’.  Even more disturbing is when professional corporations and associations have a knee jerk reaction and cancel popular news programs because of a vocal few.

In this case it is easy to attack Melissa for killing defenseless animals.  Indeed, the attacks on Melissa were vicious and she was correct in feeling targeted by personal attacks.  The fact of the matter is her profession is legal but some may disagree.  This is akin to legal brothels in Las Vegas being attacked by extreme conservatives because they disagree with prostitution.  Melissa’s situation is not helped by what some call the Mainstream Media because conservation and gun control are so central to the left’s progressive or liberal cause.  That is why I chose to include a picture of Melissa as a bowhunter.   I guess I need to include a more controversial picture just to tick off some anti-gun nuts.

To be clear (Thank you, President Obama, for making that phrase popular), I think it is interesting that people attack Melissa Bachman for having a job, doing something that she appears to love, just because it makes them feel good.  I also think they are misguided and wasting an inordinate amount of time, where they should be telling South Africa to bar lion hunting and other wildlife depleting hunts.  Chances are, however, they’re going to tell you to pound sand, because that brings in big tourism dollars and South Africa isn’t really along the normal tourist routes, is it?


Filed under: Information operations

A Unique Way to Inform

0
0

This past weekend I gave a presentation about Information Operations to a group of Strategic Planners.  I really feel I shortchanged the audience, I put together the briefing in one evening.  I borrowed some slides from another presentation I gave some time ago but I did not want to present the normal drivel IO speech.  In the past a typical IO presentation would dwell on the five components and then give shallow coverage of what IO does and, more importantly, what it is supposed to do.  Instead I presented the new definition of IO up front and then presented some of the “Three C’s”.   The “Three C’s” are Content, Connectivity, and Cognition (all hail to Dr. Dan Kuehl and this construct).  Content is roughly the actual message or idea being presented.  Connectivity is the physical ‘how’ we get the message to the target audience and Cognition is how the message or idea is designed to impacted between the ears, in the target audience’s brain.

I put together a list of means by which we can transmit a message to groups of people in order to influence the people, the leaders, and the decision makers – connectivity.  This list included such conventional things like radio, television, online news sources, email, SMS or text messages, satellite broadcast, DVDs, leaflets, loudspeakers and so on.  To me, this list reads like blah, blah, blah…   Nothing has really changed in the last 50 years except online stuff and SMS, and that’s becoming fairly commonplace.

Today I saw that the Times of Israel ran a story, here, about Swedish Jewish activist Annika Hernroth-Rothstein filing for asylum in her own country of Sweden in order to:

protest a series of measures in Sweden banning kosher slaughter, ritual circumcision, and possibly even the importation of kosher meat.

She did this to bring attention to what she perceives as a systematic attempt to suppress Judaism.   She states:

I want people to understand that this is not just a ploy. Of course, it is a publicity stunt, and I know it won’t last long and [my application] will be dismissed, but it’s about a much larger issue. It’s about holding the government accountable.

She is seeking refugee status within her own country.

To me this is a first, using one’s own governmental processes to gain attention and, therefore, perhaps influence others to support her cause.  The process being used in this case, in Sweden, will certainly be dismissed, but her case must be officially considered, but it forces her government to at least consider that a group is being oppressed.   Anytime I hear that word, I think of the Special Forces motto: De Oppresso Liber, To Free the Oppressed.

I see other asylum seekers in the future.  I believe this method may be used for a little while before laws are put in place to block these spurious attempts.  But at least, for the short-term, other governments may see their asylum seeking processes (and other processes) used, internally, in order to gain attention.

This may not be a new means of communication but it is a unique way to get attention.  Kudos.


Filed under: Information operations

.D

0
0

I have a good friend, Katherine, who I do not think of as disabled, but she is blind in one eye. To me she is highly intelligent, personable and engaging.  She is a graduate student at the Institute of World Politics in Washington DC and also teaches at one of the local universities in Maryland.  She is the editor of Active Measures, an academic journal owned by the school.  She was a student in a political warfare course when I met her and we’ve been acquaintances and friends since.  The things we’ve chatted about have run the gamut from Mac computers to how to wage an information operation.

I would have never guessed that Katherine is blind if she hadn’t told me. She has a prosthetic eye which so resembles her other, that I could not tell it was not the genuine article. Perhaps that’s a reflection of how my skills of observation are deteriorating or perhaps this shows how well she has adapted.  But somehow I can’t call her condition a handicap, she doesn’t appear even slightly disabled.

So what in the heck does this have to do with Information Operations?

Today Katherine posted an article about a “One-Eyed Teen with Cancer”, here.  I read the article with amazement how, with a very similar case to Katherine, Emily Monroe, a 17-year-old senior, has not only held her own, she has also succeeded.  Their cases make me think of Information Operations and attitude versus behavior.

This young woman’s public attitude and Katherine’s are very similar – positive and upbeat.  I can’t speak for Katherine’s situation but in Emily’s case, people in her school said cruel things to her, about the cancer that caused her blindness.  Both Katherine and Emily’s behavior and achievements do not appear to be adversely affected by the attitudes of those around them, they are both succeeding academically, excelling in their studies.

The argument in Target Audience Analysis has often been what should be targeted, attitude or behavior?  When I spoke with Dr. Lee Rowland and CDR Steve Tatham in the UK, they both advocate for behavior.  American IO targets attitude.  I gave an example in a briefing this Saturday about ‘Ahmed and his family’, which highlights that attitude does not have an exact correlation with behavior.

In this case, despite external stimuli exerting negatively on both Katherine and Emily, their attitudes and, more importantly, their behavior – have not been impacted negatively.

No, this is not a good case resolving the behavior versus attitude argument, but it sure made me think.  I think very highly of Katherine and what she is doing and, more importantly, her potential.  With her one eye, she often sees more than I do.  She’s got potential, very good potential!


Filed under: Information operations

Literally Lost in Translation

0
0

I love exchanging messages with my friends in foreign lands, however there are going to be occasional problems in translation.

Today I sent a response to a friend in Russia who was discussing a US Presidential Executive Order from President Kennedy. I enjoy learning about American history and found EO 11110 was not an attempt to corner US currency, but an attempt to continue the transition away from Silver Certificates. I copied a paragraph out of Wikipedia, he ‘liked’ my explanation.   Then I gave a one paragraph explanation, thanking him for the opportunity to set the record straight.

I typed into Google Translate that I love questioning (to question) my country and our leaders… and when I did the reverse translation of the translation from Google, it came out to “I doubt my love for my country”.

Oh goodness, now I have to question every translation I’ve ever made to another language!


Filed under: Information operations, Information Warfare, Language, Narrative Tagged: Google Translate
Viewing all 5256 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images