New FBI bulletin from warns of increased use of synthetic media in influence operations, specifically mentioning use of these tools for “social engineering”
Cc “it’s just Facebook ads” and “but it doesn’t do anything” people
Recommendations on what you can do about it are all over the place — jumble of security tips and “media literacy” recs
“Train users to report social engineering attempts” — sure, ok, easy-peasy /2
I remain 🙄 of solutions that pass along responsibility for state-led attacks to individual citizens. But I am encouraged to see greater engagement from the government & timely warnings like this that add authority and credibility to attempts to explain what has been happening /3
It’s clear that more resources are being devoted to what can be done in this space, and outside assets are being better leveraged. Positive developments.
More forward-leaning public communication about methods and goals remains essential, and this is a win in that category /4
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
An interesting point from the Bill Burns/CIA confirmation hearing today.
Sen. Blumenthal raised the issue of US Intel agencies going around legal restrictions/court approval to buy the private data of Americans from data brokers — which he labelled sleazy operators (true) /1
Raises an interesting point tho about the “OSINT” stuff which often relies on such purchased/illicit but online anyway data
“private” researchers can leverage information in ways Intel agencies can’t—in ways they are often criticized for (“how can they not know, it’s online”) /2
This same data also underpins all political campaigns.
Why should goons like Parscale get to use this against Americans? /3
Republican commentator on PBS makes point that by same standard presented by House managers, you could argue many Republican senators also incited violence and anti-constitutional sentiments — but like, yes, that’s the point.
Now she is arguing Trump tweeted a lot, so a hundred or so tweet inciting violence isn’t really a lot in the total volume, and just 😂
Republican commentator on PBS continues: are we getting to the point where everyone is going to be held accountable for what they say? I hope not.
So far the opening statement by Trump’s defense team is “emotion means the law shouldn’t apply” and “Senators are different than people” and also let’s not forget “and I guess we include women too now — sign of the times”
Not sure where this debate club catastrophe is going
“Why is it that we say MY senator?”
Umm actually it’s because English and federalism?
Stunning insights by Bobby genius
“And I guess not all senators agree with each other all the time”
Wut
“And uhhh FEDERALIST PAPERS MADISON HAMILTON because clearly I am losing the audience — should I rap it for you?”
My George Shultz story: he once have me an A+ on a project for making him laugh.
He team-taught an amazing class at Stanford — negotiations? Arms control? Not actually sure what class actually was — with three other big-name “formers” (which is why you took the class) /1
The first assignment was a team project — you were assigned a country and had to present your case on some arms control issue.
Of course my team got Russia.
So we worked out the whole presentation on nuclear whatever and I’m sure it was fine. /2
But when we presented it in class, we staged it so one very serious member of our team read the presentation in English (as the interpreter), while I was the “Russian” diplomat actually presenting. /3