Cut off
Ecuador has cut off Julian Assange’s internet. The poor guy. He’s had to hide out in Ecuador’s London embassy since June 2012 on account of how he didn’t feel like answering to a rape charge.
“We have activated the appropriate contingency plans,” added the Twitter message on Monday. People close to WikiLeaks say that Assange himself is the principal operator of the website’s Twitter feed.
Over the last two weeks, Democratic Party officials and U.S. government agencies have accused the Russian government, including the country’s “senior-most officials,” of pursuing a campaign of cyber attacks against Democratic Party organizations ahead of the Nov. 8 U.S. presidential election.
WikiLeaks has been one of the most prominent internet outlets to post and promote hacked Democratic Party materials. While denying any connection with a Russian hacking campaign, Assange has refused to disclose WikiLeaks’ sources for hacked Democratic Party messages.
Assange is an egomaniacal weasel.
ANOTHER ONE. Let’s see if anyone bites the dust soon.
This whole episode has stirred in me vaguely Calvinist notions that anything that comes too easy probably isn’t going to do you any good.
In the sense that: Wikileaks, in theory, could have some real benefits, but, just as it is made possible by the current networked information ecosystem, it can be turned, effectively, into a weapon against the very ideals of those who might once have imagined it such a lovely idea. Sure, the people feeding it can retain anonymity (or at least maintain some reasonable doubt as to their identity) and publish information they’re privy to, however it is they came by it. In _theory_, this would be a nice way to protect whistleblowers with information that is actually of public value…
… but in the free-for-all that is the internet, it’s _way_ too easy for a nation state effectively to weaponize the same cutout. As appears to have happened, here.
I figure the tell as to who’s involved is partly just how the Podesta information is being released. Notice the slow trickle, the pattern: leak,spin, retract or simply disappear said spin.The spin will be highly deceptive, and crafted to attack the target, rumours will spread. No, there will be no particular substance behind any of it, but damage will be done all the same…
It’s essentially the same noise, nonsense, and vaguely corrosive misinformation strategy the Russians have been employing for years now. All aimed at reinforcing notions of Ms. Clinton’s ‘untrustworthiness’, weakening confidence in the democratic institutions.
I wonder vaguely to what extent Assange and his fellows are aware they’ve been used this way, and to what extent they’ve just let it happen gradually, slowly talked into leaking this stuff out, pointless and gossipy as it would otherwise be.
A larger principle I’d point out: privacy, secrecy are not by definition at odds with democracy. Yes, sitting governments should be as transparent as practical… _But_ private citizens expect to have privacy, and should; without this, as previously noted, society suffers enormously (not at all surprisingly, the classic example of this is Putin’s own lamented Soviet Union, in which the perception of living in a panopticon made it a hell, and one in which creativity was greatly stifled). Likewise, many competitive contests become very difficult, very one-sided, if one side is unable to trust the privacy of their internal comunication, and the other is… And a political campaign is also that…
… all this a bit abstract, but, more on a related note:
Yeah, I think Assange is pretty much a sleaze. I don’t really buy all his noise about extradition fears, anymore. It might have been a theoretical danger, once upon a time, but he’s a bit too notorious now for this to happen without immense political cost to the US and Sweden’s current government. Sweden’s extradition treaty makes it _very_ difficult to argue for. It really looks to me like he’s just got no interest in playing by the rules, facing the music over the remaining charge (most of them have passed the statute of limitations, while he’s been playing his game).
… so a sleaze, and, really, a sleaze who has no great difficulty letting his vaunted ‘transparency organization’ being repurposed as a propaganda organ.
(… it’s like traditional, now; I always miss something in proof-reading: ‘no great objection to his vaunted …’)
AJMilne,
I always look for Russians under the bed, haven’t found any so far. A campaign aimed at discrediting Hillary Clinton? Why would the Russians care? Oh jeez, the witch hunts are on again.
The US routinely shrugs off ‘immense political costs’ . I wouldn’t like Assange’s chances of survival if he ever left the Ecuadorian embassy, unless of course, he has some ‘insurance’.
I have it from a very reliable source that Assange is a colonel in the FSB.
RJW: That’s an incredibly disingenuous comparison.
No one is drumming anyone out of their Hollywood or government career. No one is claiming anyone’s a member of the Communist Party, secretly or otherwise, nor saying, if they were, they should be dismissed from their post.
And no one assessing–clear-eyed enough, I think–the scope and character of propaganda emanating from that quarter has produced a little list of names, nor is subpoenaing anyone. Though Sweden, of course, would like to, sure. On a rape charge.
So no, this isn’t a ‘witch hunt’. This is a reasonable assessment. There is no serious question they are deploying hackers primarily against soft targets. The likelihood the Podesta dump specifically is theirs is hard to assess, but it wouldn’t at all be out of character.
And they’re not ‘under the bed’. Look again: they’re in your news feed. The Russia Today pickup and promotion of a particularly tendentious (in fact: false) interpretation of one of the leaks was conveniently blatant, but, again, hardly out of character.
As to why they’d care: as I’ve written previously: it’s hard to be absolutely certain. But it certainly fits a pattern of encouraging radical nationalism, and isolationism, wherever it aligns with Putin’s interests.
(Oh. Correction: I’m referring to the Sputnik/Newsweek thing, not RT. Though you’ll note RT is very much in the rhythm of this, lately, too, which is why they were on my mind. WikiLeaks publishes, they find something to talk up.)
… and I expect you can use Google, and know the territory, so I don’t mean to insult your intelligence by providing you links. But for anyone else looking for context, _prior_ to this latest very-covered thing over the US elections, as a small primer:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/31/world/europe/russia-finland-nato-trolls.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_brigades
http://imrussia.org/en/analysis/world/2500-putinism-and-the-european-far-right
… and a personal favourite (sweet FSM, it’s a listicle… but it _does_, it seems to me, give a very nice flavour, and there’s something just oddly appropriate about that, actually)…
http://www.cracked.com/personal-experiences-2074-6-ways-youve-probably-read-russian-propaganda-today.html
… and, all that said, re ‘McCarthyist’ implications:
I would absolutely agree we do not want a return to the witch hunts. Overreaction to this will serve no one; the very thrust of much of this stuff is to _divide_ nations; so looking under your bed or at your neighbour for cold-war era spies in trenchcoats, or however you expect them to dress this millennium, isn’t where you want to go. Simply being aware, however, that this effort exists, I think, is absolutely wise. The networked world is a new animal; much is being worked out as to its implications. We already know–indeed, some of us here have very personal experience–the tremendous impact a coordinated troll army can have upon your well-being, and this is a force that almost certainly can be used in more diffuse ways; the essential aspect of the net–it connects everything, everywhere, and it is always on, and it’s a firehose from which you can drown while intending to take a drink–all this makes this a bit of a new world. It does look to me like there are actors on the net that are attempting to turn these aspects of that world to their advantage, with some success. I think the very fact that it’s become so public, however, is a bit of a measure how experimental all of this is; no one _really_ knows what they’re doing. They just hope they do.
AJMilne,
(1) “That’s an incredibly disingenuous comparison.”
There was no implication that any contemporary witch hunt would follow the same pattern as during the Cold War. Let’s wait and see.
(2) “As to why they’d care: as I’ve written previously: it’s hard to be absolutely certain. But it certainly fits a pattern of encouraging radical nationalism, and isolationism, wherever it aligns with Putin’s interests.”
So, you’re suggesting that the US, or any Western country would be susceptible to the destabilisation machinations of the Russian spook network. My guess is that they’re amateurs compared with the CIA.You’re referring to two organisations of professional liars.
(3) “Though Sweden, of course, would like to, sure. On a rape charge.”
Only on a rape charge? It’s a charge, he hasn’t been tried and convicted. Regardless of what Assange scores on the sleaze meter, he would be justified in fearing that the Swedes would hand him over to the CIA.
AJMIlne,@7
I’m not disputing the reality of a Russian propaganda campaign, however it’s rather modest compared to the one that the US has been running for 100 years, it’s called Hollywood–and we all pay for it.
Everyone I’ve ever known who works in what we Angelenos call “The Industry” will be fascinated to know they’re really doing psyops for the U.S. government!
Yes. I know. Hollywood has, at times, (war times, mostly) knowingly spread U.S. propaganda, and it certainly tends to reflect prevailing values. And lord knows you can call almost any information, including that embedded in entertainment, “propaganda.”
Nevertheless, there’sa a big difference between Hollywood (which for decades censored itself rather than let the Feds do it) and government-directed propaganda. When it comes to controlling what citizens (and the rest of the world) see and hear, the U.S. are babes compared to the former USSR, where Putin cut his teeth.
Not to mention that US ‘entertainment’ tends to be so blatantly out their in its economic, cultural and political position it just looks like a North Korean propaganda with better scripting, acting and special effects. The sort of interference that Russia is allegedly engaging in is in fact much more subtle. It’s the single statement from a Russian leader or proxy, followed by the purely co-incidental appearance of apparently damaging information that is seized upon by a group within the target country. By the time the dust settles the target country is unsettled and further polarised, no real proof of the maligned target ever having done anything badly wrong exists and Putin is sitting in the corner looking innocent. It’s a fundamentally different thing from the entertainment industry.
That said, I’m sure the CIA have had a good crack at that sort of thing in the past. I suspect the Russians might be better at it though. They seem to be more patient.
It’s worth noting that in a robustly functioning society such interference would have little effect. The better question to be asking yourselves is not whether Russia is responsible, but why your society is so fragile and vulnerable – regardless of who is responsible.
“Everyone I’ve ever known who works in what we Angelenos call “The Industry” will be fascinated to know they’re really doing psyops for the U.S. government!”
Most outside observers wouldn’t be surprised at all, including me. According to Hollywood there’s always some “Evil Empire” outside there somewhere plotting to attack the inoffensive US. The fact that the US regularly bombs the crap out of Third World countries seems to escaped the notice of many Hollywood producers. Perhaps Americans really don’t understand or care how other nationalities are stereotyped by Hollywood.
“How Hollywood projects Foreign policy” by Sally Totman. Not up to date, however it very clearly describes Hollywood’s cooperation up to 2006 and complicity in campaigns against America’s “enemy” at the time. Now we all are supposed to hate the Russians, again.
Rob,
“The sort of interference that Russia is allegedly engaging in is in fact much more subtle”
It’s all propaganda, whether or not it’s Hollywood’s version or Russia’s. How many governments in Latin America have been subverted and replaced by brutal US puppet regimes? Essentially Americans are just outraged that some uppity foreigners are trying the same technique against them, it’s just not fair.
RJW, we know the US has destabilised governments in the past, often quite blatantly. But not by using Hollywood, which ha merely reflected the ‘bad’ and ‘good’ guys at any given time. It’s not all the same, that is a false equivalence. Surely you’re not arguing that because the US has behaved badly in the past that excuses Russia’s (alleged) behaviour now? In any case, I think my salient point is the ‘why is the US currently so vulnerable?’
Rob,
“It’s not all the same, that is a false equivalence.”
Active attempts at destabilisation and propaganda campaigns by Hollywood or the MSM are really both sides of the same coin. Public opinion has to be influenced before violence is employed.
“I think my salient point is the ‘why is the US currently so vulnerable?’”
Yes, I’d agree that’s an interesting question, we’re of course assuming that the US is indeed as vulnerable as it’s presented.
As things stand at present it appears that around 40% of voters are prepared to vote for an obvious racist, mysoginistic, fascist bully using dubiously spun and obtained materials. Slice and dice that anyway you like with any explanation and reasoning you like. It’s not a sign of a healthy and cohesive society.
As for comparing professionally run destabilisation to Hollywood entertainment, they’re actually different sides of different coins. The destabilisation campaign is run against a target nation other than your own (the enemy). The movie as propaganda is used on your own people and allies to further ‘other’ the enemy.
Two coins can be out of the same purse without being equivalent.
It’s not even certain that an exchange rate exists at all. ;-)
(Blinks)
‘I always look for Russians under the bed, haven’t found any so far. A campaign aimed at discrediting Hillary Clinton? Why would the Russians care? Oh jeez, the witch hunts are on again.’
… (flip mirror) …
‘I’m not disputing the reality of a Russian propaganda campaign’
… (flip mirror)…
A campaign aimed at discrediting Hillary Clinton? Why would the Russians care?
… (flip mirror) …
‘I’m not disputing the reality of a Russian propaganda campaign’
… (flip mirror) …
‘Oh jeez, the witch hunts are on again.’
… (flip mirror) …
‘There was no implication that any contemporary witch hunt would follow the same pattern as during the Cold War…’
RJW. First. That phrase you used. ‘Witch hunt’. It’s evocative _precisely_ because of the very extremes McCarthy, especially, went to. And yes, the contagion-like quality his machinations followed, much as in, y’know, many of the _original_ witch hunts. And the general nastiness and dishonesty of the man, all part of the same tapestry, really…
… soooo… it’s a _witch hunt_… but… umm.. dunno what it’s gonna look like… Already decided it _is_ one, tho’… ‘Cos, well, _great_ phrase, that, right?
Noted.
Oh. Also:
‘So, you’re suggesting that the US, or any Western country would be susceptible to the destabilisation machinations of the Russian spook network. My guess is that they’re amateurs compared with the CIA.You’re referring to two organisations of professional liars.’
Umm… First, I gave no particular opinion on the CIA’s skill in this area. I expect they’ve done some work, oh yes… But _I_ wasn’t referring to two organisations at all. That was you. Possibly hoping to cover for the red shift, I’d figure…
But, getting back to the campaign I actually _raised_, and as I already think I kinda said, with some nuance, I think, above, and could easily expand upon: I think there are reasons to be concerned. Dribbling this stuff in, when they are, playing to suspicions people already have, yes, they may be finding ways to make this work. And the way people do get immersed in their own little net worlds, I’d add, probably adds whole new dimensions to this. The story that will play at Breitbart, for example, can probably saturate that community pretty fast, if it plays to their biases just right. Much of the traditional mechanisms of this stuff are: division (the net also allows this), crafting messages to a very specific audience (again, bingo), and, I think, despite the relative maturity of their system, the US does, absolutely, have cracks into which the wedges can be slipped…
But hey… I’m looking forward to your _next_ position, seriously… Got my spectrograph out.
Oh. Wait. No. I’m not. At all. Just kinda done with this shit. actually, already…
I know. I expect I’ve been appearing a bit impatient of late. It’s just: I’ve been on the net a long time, and I think I’m finally learning when not to fucking bother.
AJ Milne,
I’ll try to explain my position, whether or not you bother is your business.
I’m just cynical when the US, one of history’s most notorious imperialists portrays itself as a victim. As to Russia v. the US, in foreign policy terms, it’s essentially two crocodiles fighting for control of the lagoon.
I was a teenager during the Cuban missile crisis. Do I need to explain the implications or list America’s disastrous ‘interventions’ since 1945? We should expect more enlightened policies from America, the country is a democracy after all.
I’m with you, AJ Milne.