On Thursday, September 30, 2021 at 9:38:49 AM UTC-7, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:

-squawk-

Please note how "covert agent" FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer is
trying to manipulate, "DECEIVE" and DESTROY the reputation
of the gentleman Went Kills.

https://groups.google.com/search/conversations?q=FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer%20Kent%20Wills

On Friday, October 1, 2021 at 5:59:51 AM UTC+1, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> On 9/30/2021 3:07 PM, Dhruv wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 30, 2021 at 9:38:49 AM UTC-7, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> >
> > -squawk-
> >
> > Please note how "covert agent" FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer is
> > trying to manipulate, "DECEIVE" and DESTROY the reputation
> > of the gentleman Went Kills.
> >
> > https://groups.google.com/search/conversations?q=FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer%20Kent%20Wills
> >
> WHITE FILTH like you are an EVIL VIRUS which should be MERCILESSLY
> MASSACRED to make human species BETTER.
>
> Dumb whites like John Hall and Richard Dixon and the rest on this
> newsgroup don't have EVEN the basic logic and common sense to understand
> that YOU with email id tsp...@gmail.com are a CIA NSA MI6 MI5 ASIS ASIO
> Psychopath which SECRETLY CHIPPED them and millions of humans and
> operating them like fucking PUPPETS.
>
> They are SO DUMB, they don't understand that "What you are doing here"
> is EXACTLY what Greenwald and Snowden REVEALED about you.
>
> That's HOW DUMB they are.
>
>
>
> KENT WILLS is ONE of the Secret Society Psychopaths who DON'T WANT to
> file a police case against me BECAUSE it will HARM HIM and the REST of
> the SHADOW GOVT which will GET EXPOSED.
>
>
> ALL OF YOU SHOULD DOWNLOAD this PSYCHOPATH "Kent Wills" PICTURE and FILE
> A COMPLAINT with FBI and POLICE
> https://groups.google.com/g/uk.sport.cricket/c/TppCJLl1JOw/m/_eL7mH8DAgAJ
> Western Whites DON'T UNDERSTAND the mentality, DNA and Modus Operandi of
> their "fellow whites".
>
> =======================================================================
>
> https://theintercept.com/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/
>
> How Covert Agents Infiltrate the Internet to Manipulate, Deceive, and
> Destroy Reputations
>
> One of the many pressing stories that remains to be told from the
> Snowden archive is how western intelligence agencies are attempting to
> manipulate and control online discourse with "extreme tactics of
> deception and reputation-destruction."
>
> Glenn Greenwald
>
>
>
> One of the many pressing stories that remains to be told from the
> Snowden archive is how western intelligence agencies are attempting to
> manipulate and control online discourse with extreme tactics of
> deception and reputation-destruction. It’s time to tell a chunk of that
> story, complete with the relevant documents.
>
> Over the last several weeks, I worked with NBC News to publish a series
> of articles about “dirty trick” tactics used by GCHQ’s previously secret
> unit, JTRIG (Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group). These were based
> on four classified GCHQ documents presented to the NSA and the other
> three partners in the English-speaking “Five Eyes” alliance. Today, we
> at the Intercept are publishing another new JTRIG document, in full,
> entitled “The Art of Deception: Training for Online Covert Operations.”
>
> By publishing these stories one by one, our NBC reporting highlighted
> some of the key, discrete revelations: the monitoring of YouTube and
> Blogger, the targeting of Anonymous with the very same DDoS attacks they
> accuse “hacktivists” of using, the use of “honey traps” (luring people
> into compromising situations using sex) and destructive viruses. But,
> here, I want to focus and elaborate on the overarching point revealed by
> all of these documents: namely, that these agencies are attempting to
> control, infiltrate, manipulate, and warp online discourse, and in doing
> so, are compromising the integrity of the internet itself.
>
> Among the core self-identified purposes of JTRIG are two tactics: (1) to
> inject all sorts of false material onto the internet in order to destroy
> the reputation of its targets; and (2) to use social sciences and other
> techniques to manipulate online discourse and activism to generate
> outcomes it considers desirable. To see how extremist these programs
> are, just consider the tactics they boast of using to achieve those
> ends: “false flag operations” (posting material to the internet and
> falsely attributing it to someone else), fake victim blog posts
> (pretending to be a victim of the individual whose reputation they want
> to destroy), and posting “negative information” on various forums. Here
> is one illustrative list of tactics from the latest GCHQ document we’re
> publishing today:
>
> Other tactics aimed at individuals are listed here, under the revealing
> title “discredit a target”:
>
> Then there are the tactics used to destroy companies the agency targets:
>
>
> GCHQ describes the purpose of JTRIG in starkly clear terms: “using
> online techniques to make something happen in the real or cyber world,”
> including “information ops (influence or disruption).”
>
> Critically, the “targets” for this deceit and reputation-destruction
> extend far beyond the customary roster of normal spycraft: hostile
> nations and their leaders, military agencies, and intelligence services.
> In fact, the discussion of many of these techniques occurs in the
> context of using them in lieu of “traditional law enforcement” against
> people suspected (but not charged or convicted) of ordinary crimes or,
> more broadly still, “hacktivism”, meaning those who use online protest
> activity for political ends.
>
> The title page of one of these documents reflects the agency’s own
> awareness that it is “pushing the boundaries” by using “cyber offensive”
> techniques against people who have nothing to do with terrorism or
> national security threats, and indeed, centrally involves law
> enforcement agents who investigate ordinary crimes:
>
> No matter your views on Anonymous, “hacktivists” or garden-variety
> criminals, it is not difficult to see how dangerous it is to have secret
> government agencies being able to target any individuals they want – who
> have never been charged with, let alone convicted of, any crimes – with
> these sorts of online, deception-based tactics of reputation destruction
> and disruption. There is a strong argument to make, as Jay Leiderman
> demonstrated in the Guardian in the context of the Paypal 14 hacktivist
> persecution, that the “denial of service” tactics used by hacktivists
> result in (at most) trivial damage (far less than the cyber-warfare
> tactics favored by the US and UK) and are far more akin to the type of
> political protest protected by the First Amendment.
>
> The broader point is that, far beyond hacktivists, these surveillance
> agencies have vested themselves with the power to deliberately ruin
> people’s reputations and disrupt their online political activity even
> though they’ve been charged with no crimes, and even though their
> actions have no conceivable connection to terrorism or even national
> security threats. As Anonymous expert Gabriella Coleman of McGill
> University told me, “targeting Anonymous and hacktivists amounts to
> targeting citizens for expressing their political beliefs, resulting in
> the stifling of legitimate dissent.” Pointing to this study she
> published, Professor Coleman vehemently contested the assertion that
> “there is anything terrorist/violent in their actions.”
>
> Government plans to monitor and influence internet communications, and
> covertly infiltrate online communities in order to sow dissension and
> disseminate false information, have long been the source of speculation.
> Harvard Law Professor Cass Sunstein, a close Obama adviser and the White
> House’s former head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
> wrote a controversial paper in 2008 proposing that the US government
> employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-”independent” advocates to
> “cognitively infiltrate” online groups and websites, as well as other
> activist groups.
>
> Sunstein also proposed sending covert agents into “chat rooms, online
> social networks, or even real-space groups” which spread what he views
> as false and damaging “conspiracy theories” about the government.
> Ironically, the very same Sunstein was recently named by Obama to serve
> as a member of the NSA review panel created by the White House, one that
> – while disputing key NSA claims – proceeded to propose many cosmetic
> reforms to the agency’s powers (most of which were ignored by the
> President who appointed them).
>
> But these GCHQ documents are the first to prove that a major western
> government is using some of the most controversial techniques to
> disseminate deception online and harm the reputations of targets. Under
> the tactics they use, the state is deliberately spreading lies on the
> internet about whichever individuals it targets, including the use of
> what GCHQ itself calls “false flag operations” and emails to people’s
> families and friends. Who would possibly trust a government to exercise
> these powers at all, let alone do so in secret, with virtually no
> oversight, and outside of any cognizable legal framework?
>
> Then there is the use of psychology and other social sciences to not
> only understand, but shape and control, how online activism and
> discourse unfolds. Today’s newly published document touts the work of
> GCHQ’s “Human Science Operations Cell,” devoted to “online human
> intelligence” and “strategic influence and disruption”:
>
> We submitted numerous questions to GCHQ, including: (1) Does GCHQ in
> fact engage in “false flag operations” where material is posted to the
> Internet and falsely attributed to someone else?; (2) Does GCHQ engage
> in efforts to influence or manipulate political discourse online?; and
> (3) Does GCHQ’s mandate include targeting common criminals (such as
> boiler room operators), or only foreign threats?
>
> As usual, they ignored those questions and opted instead to send their
> vague and nonresponsive boilerplate: “It is a longstanding policy that
> we do not comment on intelligence matters. Furthermore, all of GCHQ’s
> work is carried out in accordance with a strict legal and policy
> framework which ensures that our activities are authorised, necessary
> and proportionate, and that there is rigorous oversight, including from
> the Secretary of State, the Interception and Intelligence Services
> Commissioners and the Parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee.
> All our operational processes rigorously support this position.”
>
> These agencies’ refusal to “comment on intelligence matters” – meaning:
> talk at all about anything and everything they do – is precisely why
> whistleblowing is so urgent, the journalism that supports it so clearly
> in the public interest, and the increasingly unhinged attacks by these
> agencies so easy to understand. Claims that government agencies are
> infiltrating online communities and engaging in “false flag operations”
> to discredit targets are often dismissed as conspiracy theories, but
> these documents leave no doubt they are doing precisely that.
>
> Whatever else is true, no government should be able to engage in these
> tactics: what justification is there for having government agencies
> target people – who have been charged with no crime – for
> reputation-destruction, infiltrate online political communities, and
> develop techniques for manipulating online discourse? But to allow those
> actions with no public knowledge or accountability is particularly
> unjustifiable.