Subtle Strategies To Inhibit Efficient Internet Browsing

A bit of background first...

At the IPTO, Licklider got Lawrence Roberts to start a project to make a network, and Roberts based the technology on the work of Paul Baran,[4] who had written an exhaustive study for the United States Air Force that recommended packet switching (opposed to circuit switching) to achieve better network robustness and disaster survivability. UCLA professor Leonard Kleinrock had provided the theoretical foundations for packet networks in 1962, and later, in the 1970s, for hierarchical routing, concepts which have been the underpinning of the development towards today's Internet. After much work, the first two nodes of
what would become the ARPANET were interconnected between UCLA's School of
Engineering and Applied Science and SRI International (SRI) in Menlo Park,
California, on October 29, 1969.

Link

So we have here the beginnings of the internet. What that implies is that the

implementation of a global communications system was started about a half century ago. This not only included the research prior to the implementation of the early networks but continued research and the establishment of resources for the production of the materials that would ultimately be integrated into societal
infrastructure. That is essentially a given based on the dates provided. What is not necessarily a given is the idea that the integration of the internet into widespread use was considered from a sociological perspective. If higher educational institutions and government were the first to use computer networks then it is not a far stretch to consider that there was much consideration given to the social dynamics of populace interaction and as well the type of media that would be shared and discussed online.

While I cannot find any intelligence reports pre internet integration (am thinking about a potential FOIA request) the fact that government censorship and regulation of the internet is becoming more and more of a spotlighted issue is indeed an indication that it is an important matter for consideration. Mostly, though, I think that efforts to censor or regulate the internet are corporately motivated, however we are seeing political/social motivations...as demonstrated by the following -

In a 2008 academic paper, President Barack Obama's appointee to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs advocated "cognitive infiltration" of groups that advocate "conspiracy theories" like the ones surrounding 9/11.

The price of credibility is that government cannot be seen to control the independent experts."

Link

The last sentence in the above excerpt suggests to me that our intelligence has been interacting with strategies on how best to effect non mainstream communications without overt interaction.

At any rate, while the idea of government sponsored agents to provide contradictory reactions to non mainstream stories is an old and assumed strategy, the integration of coding protocols in search engines is what prompted this thread.

The following is a patent that was filed for a program referred to as such - "Method To Inhibit The Identification And Retrieval Of Proprietary Media Via Automated Search Engines Utilized In Association With Computer Compatible Communications Network"...or more simply put, a way to prevent or make more difficult a search for links that specifically look for owned or priviliged information/copyrighted medias through the internet.

Consequently what is needed is a method of article of manufacture to render media search engines built into Napster, Gnutella, and other media sharing network clients unusable. This is accomplished via the instant invention's processing capabilities which provide for the systematic manufacture and sharing of decoy files resembling proprietary media. When the instant invention is properly deployed, a user searching of such media recieves a high proportion of decoy hits. The instant invention's technology makes these decoy "hits" difficult to discern from real hits, and manifests lengthy download times to frustrate users and discourage use of search engines for desired media.

Link

The above patented, while specifing illegal music downloads as example, shows that there was a strategy developed to dilute certain search queries with generic links in order to increase the difficulty of finding a direct and efficient link to the desired media.

While the above patent is directed towards copyrighted music, there is no reason to not consider the possibility of such strategies to frustrate search queries for other types of information. While the consideration may indeed be on the paranoid side, it does bear considering, especially since legislation is being proposed in various forms to inhibit access to information or to direct information seekers to the online versions of the classic media propagators.

A Call To Legislate Internet Privacy...Or The Stifling Of Smaller Media Sites By Restricting Third Party Advertising

The internet is a major social initiative, one that has been carefully plotted for decades even before the populace was aware of the possibility. To assume, or neglect, that there has been intelligence interaction with the social and economic ramifications of such an integration is potentially irresponsible on our part. The focus of this thread is not only to point this out but as well to showcase an example of a very subtle program designed to adversely effect the efficiency a web user to locate specific links (though focused on music in the above example, the cross genre application is not a far fetched consideration). It would be an interesting effort to locate other examples and strategies...as well as to identify intelligence reports if possible regarding the very broad implications upon society that the internet has created.

Perhaps the idea of a Disinfo Agent is not where we as a Conspiracy Community should be soley focused. As demonstrated, there are more subtle ways for information to be 'hidden'. Though I contend that at times the best way to look for the most meaningful possibilities is to go to the journals...

reply to post by MemoryShock


That patent was for Gnutella and Napster. Both of which, as I'm sure you know, have been superseded by subsequent technologies, rendering the patent void of any bearing on the internet as it stands today.

The rest of your post is a bunch of separate aspects of the internet all loosely tied together in order to point to some bogeyman you've not demonstrated exists

As soon as a technology is put in place that hurts internet users, methods to circumvent it are made. Just look at Freenet.

So I'd say, as a person who's been working solely on the internet for 15 years, that you are being rather paranoid.

reply to post by davesidious


True enough...the paranoia may be rampant. But the patent and subsequent legislation does indeed suggest that the possibility.

Of course, one could just as well argue that the incredible amount of content on the internet is in itself a dilution...

reply to post by MemoryShock


Exactly - I'd argue that the monetisation of the internet has done more to dilute the information than anything else. Luckily Google has turned back that tide quite considerably with its PageRank algorithm.

That legislation discussed is nothing to worry about, as it's just one country. The internet itself is global. If you don't like your local, filtered/non-private internet, just connect to the internet in someone else's country. That will always be possible, as methods for cryptographically, and steganographically, concealing your internet browsing are fantastically advanced. As it is, that legislation is actually talking about guaranteeing your privacy on the internet - allowing you to have full access to the data held about your searching habits, and to opt-out entirely of being tracked in the future.

I'd not be scared of the internet just yet. It's still fantastically useful, and any attempts to dilute it will be (as has happened in the past) quickly thwarted by the millions of dedicated users out there who know fantastic amounts about the technology, and who are strong enough believers that they will dedicate their lives in bringing it to everyone.

Originally posted by MemoryShock

Of course, one could just as well argue that the incredible amount of content on the internet is in itself a dilution...

Oh my ... is dilution the new derailment?

Hey you ... stop diluting this thread! shall be the new and improved cry of the oppressed.

T&C amendment proposal pending right?


On serious note ... the point outlined in the OP is quite relevant. I have always wondered how music companies were so slow to react to internet piracy considerations, it seemed clumsy and apathetic to such a degree that one could easily surmise that an element of intent should be considered.

Even if incidental, the dilution strategy (false hit generation) is surely an effective one. In the old days, a couple of clicks would avail anyone with free access to copyrighted content. As the process becomes increasingly more difficult to achieve via said dispersal, the cry of "oh screw it, I'll just fork out the 99 cents over at itunes" increases exponentially.

Same strategy could be applied to the search of relevant and crucial information across internet so as to frustrate the user with sheer false hit volume ... so much so that he is more likely to 'give up.'

It should be noted that this dynamic is also a natural occurring and inherent one to the internet ... as access and ease of use improves, content quantities rise accordingly. This of course makes it even harder to distinguish 'dilution' intent. There could indeed a grand paradox developing, where the way to protect information that should be available to all is in fact to make it harder to find. Argh, it's complicated.

[edit on 18 Jan 2010 by schrodingers dog]

reply to post by schrodingers dog


The music industry is one of the slowest-moving industries out there, as for decades they had a strangle-hold over music. Their business model, which I shall not go into detail on, had artists over a barrel due to the physical nature of the "products" "they" "sold". Any changes to their model would require some serious thought on behalf of the record execs, and more worryingly for them, the artists, about the future of record contracts. Digital downloads don't require a record company to facilitate the pressing of 1s and 0s, so it was in their interests to milk the system as long as they could and hope Napster et al. were flashes in the proverbial pan, and normal "business" could resume. Unfortunately for them, they were the tidal bore of a new era in content. So, the record companies' hands were forced, and they did what they could as quickly as they could - clumsy poisoning of the MP3 well while their lobbyists pressured the lawmakers into creating draconian new measures for the protection of, and punishments for the "illegal" distribution of, copyrighted material.

Anyway, to sum it up: the music industry is slow. It's been slow for decades because slow made it money. As soon as it started to move fast, it broke apart, and ended up in the craptastic mess we see today. Independent labels are the future, not the anachronistic giants of 20 years ago.

The dilution strategy is a great way not to hide information, but to get visits for information you don't have (or at least didn't produce). Take all those false blogs out there on the internet that reference each other in reciprocal mess of links, dotted and splashed with keywords like some Pollock 2.0 nightmare. Their soul purpose is to get accidentally high enough on search returns for "hot" keywords that people will click them, and the owners of the blogs will get revenue for each advert displayed, or each advert clicked. They're not trying to hide information, but to get paid. And it works. Google's bottom line relies on their search returns being as accurate as possible, and so while a massive corporation, on this one aspect they are firmly in line with the web population.

Originally posted by davesidious

The dilution strategy is a great way not to hide information, but to get visits for information you don't have (or at least didn't produce). Take all those false blogs out there on the internet that reference each other in reciprocal mess of links, dotted and splashed with keywords like some Pollock 2.0 nightmare. Their soul purpose is to get accidentally high enough on search returns for "hot" keywords that people will click them, and the owners of the blogs will get revenue for each advert displayed, or each advert clicked. They're not trying to hide information, but to get paid. And it works. Google's bottom line relies on their search returns being as accurate as possible, and so while a massive corporation, on this one aspect they are firmly in line with the web population.

Agreed, in fact that was precisely the point I was trying to convey, albeit rather clumsily. I mean think about it, the strategy could easily be used to flood the net and search engines with thousands of false hits, dead ends, false spyware alerts, false information sites, etc, all peripheral to a topic which a government may wish to discredit. I am not sure as to the technological plausibility of this method, but it is at the very least, a valid and rather sordid consideration.

Originally posted by davesidious
That legislation discussed is nothing to worry about, as it's just one country.

I would argue that it isn't just one country and there are certain attempts by various government institutions as well as considerations by acadamia that suggest as the internet evolves into our collective day to day consciousness that there will be attempts to regulate the internet...

Proposed Web video restrictions cause outrage in Italy

A combination of consensus, lack of knowledge, and inertia among the people running the machines that administer domain name lookup means that domain names in TLD outside the legacy root, e.g., http:// lightning .faq, cannot be accessed by the large majority of people who use the Internet, unless they do some tinkering with obscure parts of their browser settings. Page 6

Link

So I think that when we consider the topical matter of this thread we should consider the implications of how the internet is being regulated and directed for the majority of non savvy internet users. The amount of people who suspiced government and corporate influence pre internet is certainly less than post internet but that doesn't really indicate the amount of people whom are still highlighting the mainstream media proposed interpretation of current events.

Those are the people that are the concern; those are the people whom are going to shape how our socio-economic future is constructed by...and their attention is what 'we' are playing for.

Though the more I think about it, the more I am considering the impact of the incredible amount of information being in itself the single most important obstacle...

Good points brought up by all though I tend to agree with SDog here in that a concern or at least an awareness of subtle impacts on the internet search experience being an implicit 'divide and conquer' strategy that will help the media status quo continue from their pre internet dominance on information propagation...

Edit to correct a term.

[edit on Wed, 20 Jan 2010 13:05:57 -0600 by MemoryShock]

reply to post by MemoryShock


I agree entirely.

I do, however, have great faith in the financial necessity of Google (and other search engines) in filtering out the cruft, and bringing the web back to more useful levels after every deluge of useless links.

Do you think it will get to the point of "pay per surf" or even regulated to the point of censorship for some sites? My opinion is that many people in government fear the widespread knowledge they have no control over (I know because I'm retired from fedgov) and it does scare them.

Originally posted by mikelee
Do you think it will get to the point of "pay per surf" or even regulated to the point of censorship for some sites?

I actually don't think that will happen and here is why...

In my experience with Psy-Ops (Yes I have some experience there) they tend to want to not be the focus. Regardless if the corporations decide it is a fidicuary concern to implement a format as you described, it won't work...precisely for the reason davesidious described above...there are too many people who value this form of communication for them to actually clamp it.

The more I think about it, the more I think we are in a transition point from static media communication towards interactive. There will be obstacles but the Corporations can't hide behind propaganda based press releases anymore. It will take some time though...and our perseverance.

My opinion is that many people in government fear the widespread knowledge they have no control over (I know because I'm retired from fedgov) and it does scare them.

They should be scared. OR...

They shouldn't be so manipulative.

The onset of the internet was such that even the best of intel couldn't have anticipated the impact global and instantaneous communication would have on the perspectives of those previously influenced by 'static' media.

And that's a good thing...

reply to post by MemoryShock


I agree with you on the PsyOp aspect, my concern along that train of thought is manipulation of the internet in ways of involvement with companys or services under the pretense of "services" but in reality are designed and executed for limitation & censorship purposes.

Thought this would interest you all also. SECoST Hillary Clinton's remarks on Internet Freedom.

State Department website & speech

Oh my. Just found this thread. Excellent work MS. S&F

Re: Your statement:

"I think that efforts to censor or regulate the internet are corporately motivated, "

I agree. ...Computerized information is defined as a "product" and so, a "commodity" under international trade law.

Corporations are fighting hard to make ALL information profitable - which it cannot be if the web is free. So there's a vested interest in killing our Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press on the internet.

reply to post by mikelee



Wow. Thanks for that link.

Here's a snippet from Hillary's speech, delivered January January 21, 2010.

During his visit to China in November, for example, President Obama held a town hall meeting with an online component to highlight the importance of the internet. In response to a question that was sent in over the internet, he defended the right of people to freely access information, and said that the more freely information flows, the stronger societies become. He spoke about how access to information helps citizens hold their own governments accountable, generates new ideas, encourages creativity and entrepreneurship. The United States belief in that ground truth is what brings me here today.

Obama and his administration appear to have done a full 180* turnaround in the past 3 short weeks.

Note that the last G7 meeting was last weekend (February 6).

...One of the main GATT terms (General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs) is that national laws governing trade must be in harmony with GATT and other nations.

Looks to me like the USA and other G7 countries are harmonizing with China on Internet controls and regulations.

The main beneficiaries are global mega-corporations, and the commodity of concern is information.

It is NOT a political issue, it is a trade issue. We are being forced to harmonize with trade law that defines information products as commodities.


- sofi