West's Information War Continues

April 8, 2021 (Gunnar Ulson - NEO) - YouTube has recently deleted the latest channel used by Iranian state media's PressTV. The move follows attacks on the Iranian media outlet by US-based social media giant Facebook earlier this year. 

PressTV's own take on the deletion in its article, "Google renews attack on YouTube account of Iran’s Press TV," would note: 

Google has for the seventh time targeted Iranian broadcaster Press TV, blocking the English-language news network’s access to its official YouTube account without any prior notice.

The US tech giant shut YouTube accounts of Press TV late on Tuesday, citing "violations of community guidelines."

Iranian state media is only the most recent target of US censorship and information warfare, with YouTube, Facebook and Twitter having also recently de-platformed government accounts in Myanmar as well as a concerted effort by these same networks to either de-platform or undermine the credibility of Russian and Chinese state media.  

The use of ambiguous justifications like "violations of community guidelines" which themselves can be ambiguous and open to interpretation, helps demonstrate the political nature of what is clearly a campaign of censorship. 

YouTube and other US-based social media platforms, still dominating the global social media industry, attempt to portray targets of what is clearly politically-motivated censorship as "fake news" or somehow engaged in dangerous "disinformation," while the accounts of Western-based media organizations actually involved in very real disinformation, often times in promotion of sanctions and warfare having a direct impact on millions of lives, remain online and in good standing. 

Western Monopoly Challenged 

Beyond social media, the UK had recently ousted Chinese state media, CGTN, which was met by Beijing in turn shutting down BBC broadcasts in China. 

More recently, China-based BBC reporter John Sudworth would flee to Taiwan, fearing legal actions for his outrageous, one-sided propaganda regarding Xinjiang.

The BBC's own article, "BBC China correspondent John Sudworth moves to Taiwan after threats," deliberately attempts to portray Sudworth as a victim of "threats" rather than a foreign agent involved in political interference under the guise of journalism finally facing legitimate legal actions. 

Nations Should Begin Removing Facebook, Twitter, and Google from Their Information Space

Legal options are a start. The ultimate goal should be replacing Facebook, Twitter, and Google with local alternatives like Russia, China, and many other nations are already doing.

September 24, 2020 (Tony Cartalucci - LD) - The Thai government has begun legal proceedings against US-based social media platforms including Facebook, Twitter, and Google. This comes at a time when nations around the globe have begun pushing back against the abusive American tech firms and their role in advancing US foreign policy and in particular, illegal US interventions including war.

Not only are these US-based tech companies refusing to follow Thai laws regarding sedition, libel, and disinformation targeting national security and sociopolitical-economic stability, they have pursued a one-sided policy of censoring information critical of ongoing US-backed anti-government protests - shadow banning or outright censoring any and all accounts attempting to share information about documented US government funding behind the organizations involved. 

Virtually every aspect of current, ongoing anti-government protests in Thailand are funded by the US government. 

 

The US National Endowment for Democracy (NED) - an organization created by the US government, funded by the US Congress, and overseen by both Congress and the US State Department - funds everything from the Thai opposition's core leadership, to organizations petitioning the government to rewrite the Thai constitution, to media organizations promoting the protests, and even groups who physically bring people to rallies. 

 

READ MORE: The Complete Guide: US Government Role in Thailand's "Student Protests"

 

Since verifying this information is as easy as going to the US NED's own official website, Twitter, Facebook, and Google's concerted efforts to bury or altogether ban accounts discussing this information on the grounds of "fake news" is clear cut censorship designed specifically to aid US political interference within Thailand's internal political affairs - a violation of the UN Charter regarding political independence and non-interference as well as a direct attack on Thailand's sovereignty. 

 

Facebook, Twitter, and Google are Extensions of US Interventionism

Facebook, Twitter, and Google all openly serve as extensions of US special interests having been documented to be working with the US government and the US State Department in particular to use their platforms to help advance US foreign policy. 

 

This was admittedly done throughout the the US-engineered "Arab Spring" in 2011. 

The New York Times in an article titled, "U.S. Groups Helped Nurture Arab Uprisings," not only admitted to the role the US government played in stirring up unrest in the Arab World in 2011 - but also the role US-based social media giants like Facebook and tech giant Google played, stating (emphasis added):

Some Egyptian youth leaders attended a 2008 technology meeting in New York, where they were taught to use social networking and mobile technologies to promote democracy. Among those sponsoring the meeting were Facebook, Google, MTV, Columbia Law School and the State Department.

Google has also admittedly helped the US government in its efforts to violently overthrow the government of Syria. The Independent in a 2016 article titled, "Google planned to help Syrian rebels bring down Assad regime, leaked Hillary Clinton emails claim," would note Google's activities regarding Syria:

An interactive tool created by Google was designed to encourage Syrian rebels and help bring down the Assad regime, Hillary Clinton's leaked emails have reportedly revealed. 

By tracking and mapping defections within the Syrian leadership, it was reportedly designed to encourage more people to defect and 'give confidence' to the rebel opposition.

Clearly, more is going on at Google than Internet searches - and a US tech giant involved in an illegal war to violently overthrow the government in Syria is a US tech giant that will willingly involve itself in other US interventions around the globe as it, Facebook, and Twitter are clearly doing in Thailand today. 

 

Targeting Thailand 

 

Twitter in particular has been actively involved in boosting the illusion of popularity of Thai anti-government protests - hosting a massive online army of automated and sockpuppet accounts. This "bot army" has helped create numerous anti-government hashtags propelled to the top of Twitter's "trending" list. These hashtags are then promptly the subject of dishonest news articles across Western and local anti-government media outlets citing them as "evidence" of wide public approval. 

 

AI Arms Race: Future of Warfare

April 2, 2020 (Gunnar Ulson - NEO) - The truth about artificial intelligence (AI) and the process of machine learning (algorithms which learn on their own rather than perform tasks based on human programming) is somewhat less spectacular than depicted in Hollywood movies. Yet the impact of advanced information technology on modern warfare will be significant nonetheless.

Already, machine learning is allowing automation including self-driving cars and analysis by computers that by far surpass average human abilities. It is development that is already having a significant impact on national and global economics. If we translate this process to various aspects of modern warfare, it becomes clear that whomever does so first and most effectively, will have an immense advantage over their adversaries.

This may explain why there is an AI "arms race" so to speak. The US, Russia and China are all racing to develop not only applications in AI and machine learning, but also investing in the human resources and building the infrastructure to continue to do so at accelerated rates.

China already has the second largest number of researchers involved in AI, second only to the United States. Both it and other states are continuing to invest in AI and its various sub-disciplines, fully aware of the impact this technology is increasingly having on economics as well as national security.

The OODA Loop 

US Air Force Colonel John Boyd developed what is now known as the OODA Loop. OODA represents the process of observing, orienting, deciding and acting. This process is not only one still employed by the US military (all branches) but also a process adopted by many businesses.

It requires first and foremost the ability to not only accumulate immense amounts of information during the "observe" process, but also requires the ability to make sense of that information. Human analysts are limited by the amount of information they can sift through, and even then they are limited by various human flaws that may prevent the successful interpretation of information they do sift through.

AI on the other hand, is able to sift through immense amounts of information, at incredible rates and with accuracy repeatedly proven to be superior to human analysts.

To get a grip on the scale we're discussing, consider the fact that Facebook has AI algorithms that sift through, identify the faces and objects within and accurately tag a monumental 350 million photographs... daily.

In a 2017 talk at the US Naval War College, Admiral John Richardson would impress upon the audience two key points.

First, today with information technology and sensors (including satellites, ground sensors and information available across the Internet), a massive amount of information is now available strategically and tactically for military commanders. Second, whichever nation is able to accumulate and make sense of this information the fastest will have an edge over its adversaries.

The "observe" and "orient" processes of the OODA loop currently and in the future depend on the ability to acquire and make sense of this information, providing commanders with the most crucial information from among the vast amount of info available in order to "decide" and "act."

An AI algorithm able to process images, text and other forms of information by the hundreds of millions within a single day and accurately categorize and prioritize it is clearly a tool that will be essential for future warfare.

The United States, both across public and private institutions and enterprises, is investing deeply in developing the ability to do this and to do it better than other nations.

Libra: Facebook Wants to Control Your Money

Facebook - backed by some of the largest banks and corporations on Earth - seek to create a global digital currency and reassert Western dominion over the global economy. 

November 30, 2019 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - Many are probably already familiar with US-based social media giants like Facebook and Twitter carrying out sweeping campaigns of censorship executed in line with US foreign policy objectives.

New Eastern Outlook itself was deleted off of both networks - just one among many thousands of accounts wiped out in a virtual information war.

Many are also probably aware of how Facebook in particular has trampled the privacy of its users, manipulated users unwittingly through involuntary experiments and controls what many people around the globe see while online - most of the time without users even realizing it.

But imagine instead of just silencing and marginalizing opponents or controlling the information the public has access to and thus manipulating the public itself, Facebook was also able to control the very currency people use in their day to day lives.  Its control over the public, both within the US and beyond, would be unprecedented.

The ability to control both information and money would be a potent tool, enhancing Facebook's already deeply disruptive and abusive behavior as well as the much larger corporate-financier interests Facebook works with and for.

Enter Libra 
Earlier this year Facebook announced its own currency called Libra. It is based on blockchain technology, billed as a "cryptocurrency," and aims at dominating banking and commerce in much the same way Facebook already dominates social media, messaging and in general, the flow of information.

There is no doubt that the same cooperation Facebook has provided the US government and the interests that dominate its domestic and foreign policy in controlling and manipulating public opinion around the globe, stifling alternative news, and even overthrowing governments will translate directly into a similar pattern of abuse through its desired control over a global currency.

Unlike hard currency which does not know in whose hands it resides and thus is unable to discriminate against its holder - Libra not only allows Facebook to know whose hands its currency is in, but how much of it is there, what it is being used for - in addition to all other personal information Facebook has access to. This not only allows for an obvious extension of Facebook's already well-known politically-motivated abuses - but also gives Facebook the ability to target users who may pose as competition to Facebook or one of the many larger corporations Facebook works with or for.

Imagine Facebook carrying out a similar campaign to their current one of political censorship, but with an added monetary component - not only removing the West's political opponents from their social media network and effectively silencing them, but crippling them financially by freezing their accounts and denying them access to the massive digital global economy they hope to create and control through Libra.

While US politicians and regulators appear to be obstructing Libra's rollout, the truth is that many of the very interests these politicians and regulators work for are directly involved in Libra's creation.

Not Just Facebook: What is the "Libra Association?" 

The initial white paper laying out Libra's premise included in its introduction:

Libra’s mission is to enable a simple global currency and financial infrastructure that empowers billions of people.

Such noble intentions are betrayed not only by Facebook's involvement, but also by the partners included in Libra's creation.

While Facebook serves as the face of Libra, it and its subsidiary Calibra are only two among many members of the Geneva-based "Libra Association."

Other partners include Mastercard, Visa, Lyft, Uber, Vodafone, and eBay along with a handful of venture capital firms and nonprofits.

These nonprofits include Women's World Banking funded by Visa, Credit Suisse, MetLife, Citi Bank, Exxon, Bloomberg, Mastercard, Goldman Sachs and many other large corporations and banking interests.

There is also MercyCorps whose website is particularly opaque in regards to its funding, but includes inveterate Neo-Conservative, former World Bank president, and US Deputy Secretary of State under George Bush Jr. Robert Zoellick upon its "Global Leadership Council."

Kiva - like MercyCorps - is another Libra Association "nonprofit" partnered with a collection of banks and corporations including Google, HP, Mastercard, PayPal, Capital One, Deutsche Bank, MetLife, PepsiCo, Citi Bank, eBay, BlackRock, Bank of America, JP Morgan, and Chevron.

It would be difficult to construct a more dubious list of partners, donors, and associates in fiction than the one standing behind Libra in reality.

Judging by the composition of those driving Libra forward, we can make two assumptions:

1. Libra's founders are among the same special interests that drive US policy, legislation, and regulations. The prospect of the US government legitimately evaluating and regulating Libra in line with the best interests of the American and global public is nonexistent;
2. Despite Libra's stated mission of "empowering billions," its rollout looks more like the restructuring of America's financial hegemony over billions. Libra seeks to circumvent alternatives created to work around the already abusive and coercive global financial networks the US dominates and weaponizes to its own advantage.

F. William Engdahl in his article, "Is the Fed Preparing to Topple US Dollar?," aptly noted that Bank of England governor Mark Carney at a US Federal Reserve sponsored symposium proposed a global digital currency citing Libra specifically as a model. 

Considering the very interests that constitute Western banking and finance are involved in Libra's creation - it is obvious that Libra is more than just a model being cited - it is the global digital currency insiders like Carney proposed coming to life. 

Remembering Facebook's Long History of Abuses 

While many of the corporations and financial institutions involved in Libra's creation are systematically corrupt all on their own, the conduct of Facebook past and present most aptly illustrates the abuse to be expected should Libra be adopted globally.

While Facebook poses as an independent corporation monopolizing and abusing its social media network and subsidiaries - in reality Facebook has carried out these abuses in tandem with the US government and the collection of special interests that monopolize US domestic and foreign policy.

Huawei Moving on Without Google?

October 17, 2019 (Gunnar Ulson - NEO) - Huawei's flagship smartphone, the Mate 30 and Mate 30 Pro, launched without Google products being available on it due to US restrictions against Chinese companies (and specifically against Huawei itself).

Contrary to what many have speculated, Huawei has not developed its "own operating system" for its phones but is instead simply using an open source version of Google's Android. This means that Android applications will still be available to Huawei users and they will still use their phones as normal, but they will have to acquire applications through Huawei's AppGallery rather than through Google Play.

CNET in a recent article titled, "Huawei Mate 30 Pro ditches Google Apps, keeps Android. Why it matters," would explain:

The phones will ship with state-of-the-art hardware, including four rear cameras, but without full Android support. The Mate 30 phones are based on Android open source, meaning they will still function like Androids. What they won't have, though, is Google services or apps. No Google Maps, no Google Chrome and, most importantly, no Google Play Store. 

Instead, you'll surf the web through the Huawei Browser and download apps through the Huawei AppGallery. The AppGallery has around 45,000 apps, according to Huawei, compared to the Google Play Store's estimated 2.7 million. Google typically licenses the latest version of Android, currently Android 10, for phone manufacturers to use. The Mate 30 phones will instead be powered by open-source Android and run EMUI 10, Huawei's user interface that approximates Google's Android 10.

Huawei's latest phone is expected to sell well within China's domestic markets but its future beyond Chinese borders is in question.

Will users buy a phone they cannot use Google's seemingly ubiquitous services on? Tech publications across the Western World have been pondering this question as well as Huawei's future prospects in light of US restrictions and the looming trade war.

In a wider context, how will this seemingly pivotal moment for Huawei impact its global market share or that of Chinese businesses in general?

Leaving Google Behind

Executive Director and CEO of Huawei Business Group, Richard Yu, has stated that Huawei and Google have a strong partnership and that the current and growing complications Huawei faces is a direct result of the US government's doing, Forbes would report.

It is obvious that for Huawei continuing to use Google's Android operating system on its phones and being able to work with Google would be most beneficial for the company at least in the short term. In the long term Huawei may eventually be poised to compete directly with Google or eventually overtake it with its own version of popular Google products.

Many analysts seem to believe this is the impetus driving US restrictions in the first place; American firms being unable to compete head-to-head with their Chinese counterparts and the US using its still potent economic primacy to sabotage China's economic ascension (and that of specific Chinese firms) for as long as possible.

No matter what Huawei's executives really think about Google or Google of them, it appears inevitable that Huawei will at the very least be positioned in the near future to challenge Google's control over Android as well as its primacy over e-mail, map applications and other features the global public have until now turned to Google for.

The US, by restricting Huawei's access to Google services, seems to have only hastened that day, forcing the Chinese tech giant to rapidly invest in, develop and promote alternatives. Whatever shortcomings its own version of Android may face in the short term, Huawei certainly has the resources to hire the developers required to create their own security updates and hardware support in the near future.

West's "Fake News" Begins to Backfire

September 5, 2019 (Joseph Thomas - NEO) - Western special interests have used the term "fake news" as a pretext for widening censorship, particularly across US-based social media networks like Facebook and Twitter as well as across Google's various platforms.

In a move of political judo, many nations are citing the threat of "fake news" to in turn deal with media platforms, often funded and supported by the US and Europe, operating within their borders and often targeting sitting governments to either coerce or unseat them in pursuit of Western interests.

A recent example of this is in Thailand where the government has announced plans for measures to combat what is being called "fake news."

A Bangkok Post article titled, "Digital Economy and Society Ministry outlines fake news crackdown," would report:

The Digital Economy and Society Ministry (DE) is seeking to counter fake information shared online through the Line app because urgent issues could potentially incite mass public misunderstanding.

The article also makes mention of the Thai government's plans to approach tech-giants like Facebook, Line and Google, urging each to establish offices in Thailand for the specific purpose of confronting "fake-news."

Facebook and Google already have a well-oiled process of identifying and removing content both platforms deem "fake news" or "coordinated, disingenuous behaviour," but this is a process that focuses solely on deleting narratives from their networks that challenge US interests. Both platforms, as well as Twitter, are more than happy to otherwise allow false narratives aimed at governments around the world to flourish with impunity.

The offices the Thai government seeks to establish are described as a shortcut for the Thai government to contact these foreign tech companies and spur them into action. However, similar arrangements have already been tried with mixed results and ultimately, with large foreign tech-giants like Facebook, Google and Twitter enjoying net influence over Thailand's information space at the Thai government's and the Thai people's expense.

Protecting Information Space from Facebook's Tyranny

August 19, 2019 (Gunnar Ulson - NEO) - The recent attack aimed at New Eastern Outlook (NEO) and several of its authors once again exposes the infinite hypocrisy of US and European interests including across their media and among their supposed human rights advocates.

It also exposes the severe threat that exists to the national security of nations around the globe who lack control over platforms including social media used by their citizens to exchange information.

This lack of control over a nation's information space is quickly becoming as dangerous as being unable to control and protect a nation's physical space/territory.

Facebook's Tyranny  

NEO and at least one of its contributors had their Facebook and Twitter accounts deleted and were accused of "coordinated inauthentic behavior," according to Facebook's "newsroom."

Their statement reads:

In the past week, we removed multiple Pages, Groups and accounts that were involved in coordinated inauthentic behavior on Facebook and Instagram.

It also reads:

We removed 12 Facebook accounts and 10 Facebook Pages for engaging in coordinated inauthentic behavior that originated in Thailand and focused primarily on Thailand and the US. The people behind this small network used fake accounts to create fictitious personas and run Pages, increase engagement, disseminate content, and also to drive people to off-platform blogs posing as news outlets. They also frequently shared divisive narratives and comments on topics including Thai politics, geopolitical issues like US-China relations, protests in Hong Kong, and criticism of democracy activists in Thailand. Although the people behind this activity attempted to conceal their identities, our review found that some of this activity was linked to an individual based in Thailand associated with New Eastern Outlook, a Russian government-funded journal based in Moscow.

In this single statement, Facebook reveals about itself that it, and it alone, decides what is and isn't a "news outlet."

Apparently the blogs the deleted Facebook pages linked to were "not" news outlets, though no criteria was provided by Facebook nor any evidence presented that these links did not meet whatever criteria Facebook used.

While Facebook claims that it did not delete the accounts based on their content, they contradicted themselves by clearly referring to the content in their statement as "divisive narratives and comments" which clearly challenged narratives and comments established by Western media organizations.

The statement first accuses the pages of "coordinated inauthentic behavior," but then admits they were only able to link the pages to a single individual in Thailand. How does a single person "coordinate" with themselves? Again, Facebook doesn't explain.

Finally, Facebook reveals that any association at all with Russia is apparently grounds for deletion despite nothing of the sort being included in their terms of service nor any specific explanation of this apparent policy made in their statement. New Eastern Outlook is indeed a Russian journal.

Other governments, especially the United States, fund journals and media platforms not only in the United States, but around the globe. Facebook and Twitter, for example, have not deleted the accounts of the virtual army of such journals and platforms funded by the US government funded and directed via the National Endowment for Democracy (NED).

NED-funded operations often operate well outside of the United States, while NEO is based in Russia's capital, Moscow. NED-funded operations often don't disclose their funding or affiliations.

Ironically, the accounts Facebook deleted in Thailand were proficient at exposing this funding to the public.

The bottom line here is that Facebook is a massive social media platform. It is also clearly very abusive, maintaining strict but arbitrary control over content on its networks, detached even from their own stated terms of service. It is a form of control that ultimately and clearly works in favor of special interests in Washington and against anyone Washington declares a villain.

Facebook would be bad enough as just a massive US social media platform, but the real problem arises considering its global reach.

Looking at Information Space as we do Physical Space 

A nation's information space is a lot like its physical space (or territory). The people of a nation operate in it, conduct commerce, exchange information, report news, and carry out a growing number of other economically, socially and politically important activities there. It is not entirely unlike a nation's physical space where people conduct these same sort of activities.

A nation's physical space would never be surrendered to a foreign government or corporation to control and decide who can and cannot use it and how it is used. But this is precisely what many nations around the globe have done regarding their information space.

Washington's Russiagate Conspiracy Theory on Life Support

December 22, 2018 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - The latest bid to keep Washington's desperate Russiagate conspiracy theory alive has energized distilled segments of the public still convinced of Moscow's global omniscience and its role in manipulating and undermining virtually every aspect of their daily lives.

But recent "revelations" are simply the same accusations made against a Russian-based click-bait farm, repackaged and respun.

The Washington Post's article, "New report on Russian disinformation, prepared for the Senate, shows the operation’s scale and sweep," would in fact present no new report. Instead, it would present repackaged narratives involving "Russia’s disinformation campaign around the 2016 election." 

The Washington Post would claim:

The report, obtained by The Washington Post before its official release Monday, is the first to study the millions of posts provided by major technology firms to the Senate Intelligence Committee, led by Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), its chairman, and Sen. Mark Warner (Va.), its ranking Democrat. The bipartisan panel also released a second independent report studying the 2016 election Monday. Lawmakers said the findings “do not necessarily represent the views” of the panel or its members.

The two reports were put out by Oxford University’s Computational Propaganda Project and New Knowledge. No information is provided by the Washington Post as to what either of these organizations are, who runs them, or who funds them.

Both reports rehash allegations claiming the Russia-based Internet Research Agency (IRA) conducted an extensive influence campaign through social media during the 2016 US elections.

The total amount of money spent on such operations amounted to approximately $100,000 in Facebook ads. To put this amount in context, the very same Washington Post would report in April 2017 that the total amount spent on the 2016 elections amounted to $6.5 billion - in other words - the amount allegedly spent on Facebook ads by IRA was about 0.001% of total US campaign spending.

Both reports cited by the Washington Post and presented to US Congress did not dispute this. Instead, they attempted to claim the impact of IRA's activities far exceeded this $100,000 in ads.

The New Knowledge report would claim:

The Instagram and Facebook engagement statistics belie the claim that this was a small operation — it was far more than only $100,000 of Facebook ads, as originally asserted by Facebook executives," the New Knowledge white paper said. "The ad engagements were a minor factor in a much broader, organically driven influence operation. 

And to unskeptical, untrained eyes, the figures presented by both Oxford and New Knowledge tabulating millions of views, shares, and likes do appear to "belie the claim that this was a small operation."

Context is King 

But organically driven influence simply means whatever was posted by IRA was picked up by ordinary people and spread by them, not IRA. And while the numbers presented by Oxford and New Knowledge may seem impressive, how do they compare to the "scale and sweep" of the 2016 candidates' efforts on Facebook?

Since neither group of "researches" bothered to provide this important context, it is fortunate that the Western media itself has, albeit deeply buried in older articles.

Who is Winning the US-Chinese AI Arms Race?

December 2, 2018 (Gunnar Ulson - NEO) - Information technology has already transformed virtually every aspect of modern civilization. The rise of artificial intelligence and the ability of systems to train themselves rather than be programmed, allowing them to perform tasks no human could, is expected to have as much, if not more an impact than the proliferation of computers and the Internet.

The Wall Street Journal recently published an interview with Kai-Fu Lee, former head of Google in China and current CEO of Sinovation Ventures in Beijing, comparing US-Chinese strategies regarding the research, development and deployment of AI.

China's lack of regulatory obstacles and deeply entrenched corporate monopolies is giving China an advantage over the US. While US higher education is producing more, and better computer scientists specializing in AI at the moment, China is catching up.

Ultimately, for AI, the nation with the most data to train systems is the nation that will eventually dominate the field. Here, China has a clear and uncontested advantage. As tech companies across China work on AI and roll out applications for public consumption, the sensors, input and overall data accumulated across China's 1.3 billion people will far exceed that accessible to US companies.

Lee would explain, regarding whether the US or China was in the lead regarding AI:

In internet AI, which is algorithms making profitable recommendations for people based on their Web browsing history, China and the U.S. are about equal. China will probably get ahead because it has more user data. In business AI, where companies mine their customer data to come up with new product ideas and improve service, or use it to monitor systems to make them more efficient or lucrative, the U.S. is ahead, and will probably stay ahead because its enterprise data is properly archived and more usable for AI. In perception AI, or things like facial recognition and other biometric interfaces, China is ahead because it is building more sensors cheaply and for broader uses, and it will probably get further ahead.

The interview also made it clear that while US and Chinese companies seek to do business in each other's markets, the US and China can be perceived as "parallel universes" where US and Chinese tech companies are better suited to providing solutions and products within their own respective markets. In other words, unless Chinese companies can do what American companies cannot, there is little opportunity for them to do business in America and vice versa.

For example, while Facebook and Google seek to do business in China, the market is already saturated with Chinese companies doing what Facebook and Google do as well or better than Facebook and Google do it. Conversely, Google's Waymo subsidiary which concerns autonomous vehicles has no direct analogue in China, which is why it is able to successfully do business in China.

Why a Russia-based Security Firm Fell Victim of US Sanctions

March 28, 2018 (Vladimir Platov - NEO) - Last December, US President Donald Trump signed a decree banning the use of Kaspersky Lab software within US government agencies. This latest iteration of anti-Russian sanctions demanded all individuals employed by Washington to wipe the world-renowned anti-virus software off their computers within 90 days of the decree’s signing.

However, as the latest IT news show, Kaspersky Lab which received recognition for its achievements in the fight against all sorts of malware was not thrown out the door for genuine security concerns, but as a part of ongoing anti-Russia propaganda efforts we’ve been witnessing lately across the West. It’s also clear that Washington couldn’t care less about the efforts that Kaspersky Lab has been taking in countering high-profile cyber-espionage and government-sponsored malicious activities on the Internet that American intelligence agencies have been exposed as engaged in.

Such conclusions can be made based on outcomes during the recently held Kaspersky Security Analyst Summit (SAS), where Kaspersky Lab experts blew the lid off about the sophisticated spy-ware program known as Slingshot. It turned out that this malware has been operational since 2012, but it took IT security firms years to spot it. And it was the Russian-based company Kaspersky Lab that exposed this spy-ware of US intelligence agency-design to establish total surveillance over the Internet, as it’s been noted by the The Times.

According to this British publication, Kaspersky Lab, now barred from US markets, uncovered this malicious software, which allows US agencies to access routers to monitor user activity across the web.

Originally, Slingshot was created by the US military to track suspected terrorists who would use Internet cafes across the Middle East and North Africa to coordinate their activities. This malware was deployed in Afghanistan, Iraq, Kenya, Sudan, Somalia, Turkey and Yemen and, according to some experts, and over just six years of Slingshot becoming operational, a great many of both individuals and government agencies suffered across the Middle East and Africa.

Image: Since the US sponsors Al Qaeda and the US Defense Intelligence Agency admitted the US and its allies intentionally created the so-called "Islamic State," Slingshot is obviously not being used to track Al Qaeda terrorists in nations targeted by the cyber espionage program. More likely it is tracking opponents to US ambitions throughout MENA and Central Asia.

This Slingshot spy-ware is similar to the program created by the NSA for establishing total surveillance in the Western segment of the Internet. Experts from CyberScoop, while citing anonymous US intelligence agents (both retired and acting), report that Slingshot is a special operation launched by the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), a component of the United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM). Researchers also agree that the algorithms used by Slingshot are similar to those used by such hacker groups as Longhorn and The Lamberts affiliated with the CIA and the NSA, developed with the tools of the two above mentioned groups that were disclosed by WikiLeaks.

US-UK Accuse Russia of "NotPetya" Cyberattack, Offer Zero Evidence

February 19, 2018 (Ulson Gunnar - NEO) - The US and European press have both published stories accusing the Russian government, and in particular, the Russian military, of the so-called "NotPetya" cyberattack which targeted information technology infrastructure in Ukraine. 

The Washington Post in an article titled, "UK blames Russian military for ‘malicious’ cyberattack," would report:

Britain and the United States blamed the Russian government on Thursday for a cyberattack that hit businesses across Europe last year, with London accusing Moscow of “weaponizing information” in a new kind of warfare. 

Foreign Minister Tariq Ahmad said “the U.K. government judges that the Russian government, specifically the Russian military, was responsible for the destructive NotPetya cyberattack of June 2017.”

The fast-spreading outbreak of data-scrambling software centered on Ukraine, which is embroiled in a conflict with Moscow-backed separatists in the country’s east. It spread to companies that do business with Ukraine, including U.S. pharmaceutical company Merck, Danish shipping firm A.P. Moller-Maersk and FedEx subsidiary TNT.

British state media, the BBC, would report in its article, "UK and US blame Russia for 'malicious' NotPetya cyber-attack," that:

The Russian military was directly behind a "malicious" cyber-attack on Ukraine that spread globally last year, the US and Britain have said.

The BBC also added that:

On Thursday the UK government took the unusual step of publicly accusing the Russia military of being behind the attack. 

"The UK and its allies will not tolerate malicious cyber activity," the foreign office said in a statement. Later, the White House also pointed the finger at Russia.

Yet despite this "unusual step of publicly accusing the Russian military of being behind the attack," neither the US nor the British media provided the public with any evidence, at all, justifying the accusations.

The official statement released by the British government would claim:

The UK’s National Cyber Security Centre assesses that the Russian military was almost certainly responsible for the destructive NotPetya cyber-attack of June 2017. 

Given the high confidence assessment and the broader context, the UK government has made the judgement that the Russian government – the Kremlin – was responsible for this cyber-attack.

Claiming that the Russian military was "almost certainly responsible," is not the same as being certain the Russian military was responsible. And such phrases as "almost certainly" have been used in the past by the United States and its allies to launch baseless accusations ahead of what would otherwise be entirely unprovoked aggression against targeted states, in this case, Russia.

Google's AI Center in China: Poaching Talent

January 8, 2018 (Ulson Gunnar - NEO) - Artificial Intelligence (AI) is already fundamentally changing information technology and stands poised to permeate and transform technology both online and off ranging from manufacturing and transportation to medicine and military applications. The US, Russia and China have all noted that dominance in this field of technology will be an essential ingredient to holding global primacy in the near future.

What resembles a sort of arms race has emerged between prominent nations around the globe. Perhaps in an effort to provide the US with an edge, or perhaps in an effort to mitigate the impact of such an arms race, Google has opened an AI center in China.

CNN in its article, "Google is opening an artificial intelligence center in China," would announce:

Despite many of its services being blocked in China, Google has chosen Beijing as the location for its first artificial intelligence research center in Asia.

The purpose of the center, according to CNN, citing China's desire to become a global leader in AI technology, will be to:

...help China pursue its aim to become the global leader. The facility will employ a team of researchers who will be supported by engineers the company already has in China.

Considering Google's services being banned, blocked and otherwise unwelcomed in China, the question remains as to why exactly Google would seek to aid China in becoming a leader in AI technology Google itself seeks to position itself as a leader in.

This question may have been at least partially answered in a recent AI summit which included Eric Schmidt, executive chairman of Google's parent company, Alphabet Inc.

Poaching Foreign Talent

The Washington DC-based Center for a New American Security (CNAS), as part of its Artificial Intelligence and Global Security Initiative, held its Artificial intelligence and Global Security Summit (video) in early November 2017. During Schmidt's question and answer session, he remarked that China would likely overcome America's lead in AI technology by 2025.

While Schmidt offered suggestions on how the US could keep its lead over China, particularly through establishing its own national laboratories for researching and developing AI technology within an enumerated national strategy regarding AI, it would be his comments on US immigration policy that hinted at why Google might open an AI center in China as part of maintaining America's lead.

NATO Rolls Out Offensive Cyberweapons

December 26, 2017 (Ulson Gunnar - NEO) - NATO members including the US, UK, Germany, Norway, Spain, Denmark and the Netherlands have begun taking public steps in defining guidelines regarding the deployment of offensive cyberweapons.

Reuters in its article, "NATO mulls 'offensive defense' with cyber warfare rules," would state:

A group of NATO allies are considering a more muscular response to state-sponsored computer hackers that could involve using cyber attacks to bring down enemy networks, officials said.

Reuters would also report:

The doctrine could shift NATO’s approach from being defensive to confronting hackers that officials say Russia, China and North Korea use to try to undermine Western governments and steal technology.

The article also noted that the United States and its allies already possess and have threatened to use cyberweapons offensively, citing the 2010 Sutxnet virus deployed against Iranian nuclear infrastructure as a possible example. Other examples cited of possible applications included shutting down power plants with malware rather than bombing them.

Reuters also reported that NATO was setting up "cyber commands" including one in Estonia apparently intended to launch cyber attacks into Russia.

Extending NATO Aggression into Cyberspace 

At face value, a nation developing the ability to defend itself and carry out counterattacks against foreign aggressors, including in cyberspace, appears as legitimate policy.

For NATO, however, its track record of serial aggression and expansion beyond its borders predicated on intentionally false pretexts indicate that the military alliance will simply carry its aggression into cyberspace as well.

The NATO invasion and occupation of Afghanistan followed the attacks on September 11, 2001 on Washington D.C. and New York City. Despite none of the alleged suspects involved in the attack actually coming from Afghanistan, and the government of Afghanistan having played no role in the attacks, NATO would invade and has since occupied the nation for the past 16 years.

The 2003 invasion of Iraq led by the US and other prominent NATO members was predicated entirely on falsehoods. Claims that the Iraqi government at the time possessed chemical and biological weapons later turned out to have been intentionally fabricated to justify an invasion that, by some estimates, cost the lives of over a million Iraqis and thousands of US and European soldiers. The invasion and occupation resulted in regional conflict that continues to this day.

The US and the Global Artificial Intelligence Arms Race

December 4, 2017 (Ulson Gunnar - NEO) - Artificial intelligence (AI) is already widely used by tech firms worldwide for everything from search engines to social media. It is also increasingly being developed for other applications including monitoring systems and decision making. Experimental platforms are already being tested that can review medical records and images to diagnose patients. There are also autonomous AI agents being developed and tested that carry out and defend against cyberattacks.

While the US is perceived to hold a large advantage in this crucial and ever-emerging technological field, Russian and Chinese leadership have publicly recognized the importance of AI and the need to prevent any one nation from monopolizing it.

Russian media would report regarding Russian President Vladimir Putin's regarding the future of AI that:

Vladimir Putin spoke with students about science in an open lesson on September 1, the start of the school year in Russia. He told them that “the future belongs to artificial intelligence,” and whoever masters it first will rule the world. 

“Artificial intelligence is the future, not only for Russia, but for all humankind. It comes with colossal opportunities, but also threats that are difficult to predict. Whoever becomes the leader in this sphere will become the ruler of the world,” Russian President Vladimir Putin said.

Regarding Beijing's view on AI, Chinese media would report that:

China unveiled a national artificial intelligence (AI) development plan on Thursday, aiming to build an AI technologically world-leading domestic industry by 2030. 

Released by the State Council, the plan formulates the key strategy for the development of China’s AI industry.

Russia and China's recognition of the importance of AI in both economic and national defense terms has been noted by US policymakers and industry leaders who seek to maintain what is, for now, a primarily American dominated industry.

US Plans and Vision for AI 

The Washington DC-based Center for a New American Security (CNAS) has recently rolled out its Artificial Intelligence and Global Security Initiative.

The initiative seeks to bring together technology experts, policymakers and the media to explore the impact AI will have on all aspects of security from more indirect threats to infrastructure, the flow of information and economics, to AI deployed directly on the battlefield in the form of autonomous weapon systems.

CNAS' early November 2017 Artificial Intelligence and Global Security Summit included Eric Schmidt, executive chairman of Alphabet Inc. (Google), Andrew Moore of Carnegie Mellon University, Dr. Dario Amodei of OpenAI and Dr. Kathleen Fisher of Tufts University's computer science department.

Exporting "Information" Arms

November 10, 2017 (Joseph Thomas - NEO) - Nations like Russia and China make billions of dollars a year in the arms industry. Their arming of other nations with the latest in defence technology is not only a means of supporting their respective economies, it also fits into a diplomatic and national defence strategy of their own.

As information technology increasingly shapes the future of economics, society, politics and even warfare, the export of "information arms" appears to be an emerging opportunity not only for a nation's economy, but also in enhancing a global balance of power that may help guard against rogue global super powers.

Defending Information Space 

Russia and China also have begun developing infrastructure, platforms and indeed, entire strategies for defending their information space as well as their physical territory and their economic interests. These include information technology alternatives to large, predominately United States-based technology corporations and the products and services they provide.

In Russia, VKontakte, or VK, is the Russian version of America's Facebook. Among Russian speakers, VK is by far more popular. With some 450 million users worldwide, it is one of the most popular social media networks on the planet.

In addition to the economic benefits of a large, popular social media platform being based in Russia, VK allows the Russian government and the Russian people to decide how social media is used within their borders rather than such decisions being made in California, or less desirably still, in Washington.

Yandex is Russia's answer to Google. An Internet search engine, e-mail host, cloud service and engaged in research and develop regarding cutting-edge technology like artificial intelligence, Yandex gives Russia a means of closing the technology gap between itself and the United States, not only in economic terms, but in terms of national security as well.

China also has a large and growing number of information technology companies, keeping the profits made off of China's growing online population within China as well as giving China the ability to also decide how this technology is used within its own sociocultural, economic and political context.

Sina Weibo, considered a combination of US-based tech companies Twitter and Facebook, has over 500 million registered users. Decisions about appropriate content are made by China, for its primarily Chinese user base, not by California or Washington.

Platforms like Baidu are not only engaged in traditional IT goods and services, but also engages in research and development in regards to artificial intelligence and other breakthroughs that may serve China's economic growth by exploiting future opportunities and guarding against future threats.

News Media

Additionally, both Russia and China have developed their own media organisations capable of competing directly against US and European platforms that had until recently, dominated global media for decades.

Russia Today (RT), China Global Television Network (CGTN) and other networks have helped offset the monopolistic power and influence of the Western media.

US Seeks to Monopolize Cyberwarfare

September 16, 2017 (Ulson Gunnar - NEO) - The use of information to enhance martial power goes back to the beginning of human civilization itself, where propaganda and psychological warfare went hand-in-hand with slings, arrows, swords and shields.

The most recent iteration of this takes the form of social media and cyberwarfare where tools are being developed and deployed to influence populations at home and abroad, to manipulate political processes of foreign states and even tap into and exploit global economic forces.

In the beginning of the 21st century, the United States held an uncontested monopoly over the tools of cyberwarfare. Today, this is changing quickly, presenting an increasingly balanced cyberscape where nations are able to defend themselves on near parity with America's ability to attack them.

To reassert America's control over information and the technology used to broker it, Jared Cohen, current Google employee and former US State Department staff, has proposed a US-created and dominated "international" framework regarding cyberconflict.



His op-ed in the New York Times titled, "How to Prevent a Cyberwar," begins by admitting the very pretext the US is using to expand its control over cyberwarfare is baseless, noting that "specifics of Russia's interference in the 2016 America election remain unclear." 

Regardless, Cohen continues by laying out a plan for reasserting American control over cyberwarfare anyway, by claiming:

Cyberweapons won’t go away and their spread can’t be controlled. Instead, as we’ve done for other destructive technologies, the world needs to establish a set of principles to determine the proper conduct of governments regarding cyberconflict. They would dictate how to properly attribute cyberattacks, so that we know with confidence who is responsible, and they would guide how countries should respond.

Cohen, unsurprisingly, nominates the US to lead and direct these efforts:

The United States is uniquely positioned to lead this effort and point the world toward a goal of an enforceable cyberwarfare treaty. Many of the institutions that would be instrumental in informing these principles are based in the United States, including research universities and the technology industry. Part of this effort would involve leading by example, and the United States can and should establish itself as a defender of a free and open internet everywhere.

Cohen never explains how this US-dominated framework will differ from existing "international" frameworks regarding conventional warfare the US regularly abuses to justify a growing collection of devastating conflicts it is waging worldwide.

And as has been repeatedly documented, the United States' definition of a "free and open internet everywhere" is an Internet dominated by US tech companies seeking to enhance and expand US interests globally.

Cohen ironically notes that:

Cyberweapons have already been used by governments to interfere with elections, steal billions of dollars, harm critical infrastructure, censor the press, manipulate public conversations about crucial issues and harass dissidents and journalists. The intensity of cyberconflict around the world is increasing, and the tools are becoming cheaper and more readily available.

Indeed, cyberweapons have already been used, primarily by the United States.

Jared Cohen himself was directly involved in joint operations between Google, Facebook, the US State Department and a number of other US tech and media enterprises which before and during 2011 set the stage for the so-called "Arab Spring."

It included the training, funding and equipping of activists years ahead of the the uprisings as well as active participation in the uprisings themselves, including providing assistance to both protesters and militants everywhere from Libya to Syria in overthrowing governments targeted by Washington for regime change.

US Wages Cyberwar Abroad Under Cover of "Activism"

August 20, 2017 (Joseph Thomas - NEO) - The threat of cyberterrorism has competed for centre stage in American politics with fears of "Russian hackers" disrupting everything from elections to electrical grids. And yet as US policymakers wield threats of cyberterrorism to promote a long and growing list of countermeasures and pretexts for expanding its conflict with Moscow, it is simultaneously promoting very real cyberterrorism globally.

Worst of all, it does so under the guise of "activism."

The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace recently published a paper titled, "Growing Cyber Activism in Thailand."

In it, readers may have expected a detailed description of how independent local activists were using information technology to inform the public, communicate with policymakers and organise themselves more efficiently.

Instead, readers would find a list of US-funded fronts posing as "nongovernmental organisations" (NGOs) engaged in subversion, including attacks carried out against Thai government websites aimed at crippling them, the dumping of private information of ordinary citizens online and coercing policymakers into adopting their foreign-funded and directed agenda.

US-Backed Cyberterrorism 

The paper cites petitions created by the US-funded Thai Netizen Network on the US-based petition site, Change.org as well as distributed denial of service attacks (DDoS) aimed at crippling essential government websites, a campaign defended by US-funded Thai Netizen as being "virtual civil disobedience."

The paper would claim (our emphasis):

The most innovative countermeasure was a series of Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks: an anonymous group, Thailand F5 Cyber Army, declared a cyberwar on the Thai government by encouraging netizens to visit listed official websites and continuously press F5 on their keyboards to refresh the pages. The goal was to overwhelm web servers and cause a temporary collapse of the websites of the Ministry of Defense, Ministry of Information and Communication Technology, Government House of Thailand, National Legislative Assembly, and Internal Security Operations Command. The group disseminated detailed instructions on the operation to its anonymous activists. It then demanded that the junta cancel its Single Gateway proposal. 

Most of the attacks were successful. Activists wanted to demonstrate the government’s technological ineptitude and its lack of capacity to manage the Single Gateway. Arthit Suriyawongkul, coordinator of the Thai Netizen Network, described the campaign as virtual civil disobedience—an online version of the nonviolent resistance practiced by civil rights groups in the United States. 

In another case, an activist group called Anonymous launched a #BoycottThailand campaign on Twitter and reportedly hacked government websites, snatched confidential information from official databases, and shared it online.

The Thai Netizen Network is funded by the US State Department via the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) subsidiary, Freedom House, as well as convicted financial criminal George Soros' Open Society and a number of other foreign governments and corporate-funded foundations.

The role of a foreign-funded front coordinating efforts to undermine Thailand's national security, including promoting cyberterrorism as "civil disobedience," carries with it many implications. That the US is the foreign state promoting these activities in Thailand, undermines its own efforts to define and combat cyberterrorism back home.

What is Cyberterrorism?  

Cyberterrorism is described on the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) website as:

...the use of computer network tools to shut down critical national infrastructures (e.g., energy, transportation, government operations) or to coerce or intimidate a government or civilian population.

Attacking government websites millions of people across Thailand depend on for information and services while pilfering the personal information of thousands of ordinary citizens clearly fits the definition of not only cyberterrorism because of the political motivations involved, but also malicious criminality in general.

The West's War on Free Speech

June 6, 2017 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - With a name like the "National Democratic Institute" (NDI) one might expect the US State Department-funded, corporate-financier chaired front to be the premier proponent of freedom and democracy worldwide. And although it poses as such, it does precisely the opposite. It uses principles like free speech, democracy, press freedom, and human rights as a facade behind which it carries out a politically motivated agenda on behalf of the special interests that fund and direct its activities.

In a recent Tweet, NDI linked to a New York Times article titled, "In Europe’s Election Season, Tech Vies to Fight Fake News." It claimed in the Tweet that the article featured:

A look at some of the projects aiming to use automated algorithms to identify and combat fake news. 

The article itself though, reveals nothing short of a global effort by US tech-giants Google and Facebook, in collaboration with the Western media, to censor any and all media that fails to align with Western-dominated narratives.

The article itself claims:

The French electorate heads to the polls in the second round of presidential elections on May 7, followed by votes in Britain and Germany in the coming months. Computer scientists, tech giants and start-ups are using sophisticated algorithms and reams of online data to quickly — and automatically — spot fake news faster than traditional fact-checking groups can. 

The goal, experts say, is to expand these digital tools across Europe, so the region can counter the fake news that caused so much confusion and anger during the United States presidential election in November, when outright false reports routinely spread like wildfire on Facebook and Twitter.

The article then explains that once "fake news" is spotted, it is expunged from the Internet. It reports that:

After criticism of its role in spreading false reports during the United States elections, Facebook introduced a fact-checking tool ahead of the Dutch elections in March and the first round of the French presidential election on April 23. It also removed 30,000 accounts in France that had shared fake news, a small fraction of the approximately 33 million Facebook users in the country.

Were foreign government-linked tech companies purging tens of thousands of accounts ahead of elections in say, Thailand or Russia, it is very likely organizations like NDI and media platforms like the New York Times would cry foul, depicting it as censorship.