Britain's response to Russia

rjsterry

PBlakeney wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Before you feel too hard done by, outside of the armed services, buying at least some of your own tools/kit is hardly unusual.

What an absolutely ridiculous argument.
For me to put my life on the line for Queen and Country I'd expect the best tools for the job, and that my family would be looked after in unfortunate circumstances. Also explains why I never signed up.

Oh calm down. I'm sure some things could be better, but the way MF tells it, they're buying their own tanks on eBay.

I am calm. No reason not to be.
But then, I am not a "borrower". Named for a reason. And my life is not on the line.

Like I said, I'm sure some things could be better, but the comment was made in the context of a comparison with the Russian military. I know where I'd prefer to be conscripted. Know idea what you mean by borrower in that context.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Imposter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Yeah fine but that means nothing to the UK result does it?

You can#t start testing for where people got their info from.

Of course you can - that's pretty much what one of the threads of Mueller's investigation is doing right now. As for the UK result - if it shows that the UK result was 'unsafe', then it pretty much invalidates it. What UK Gov chooses to do with that information is another matter entirely..

Fairly so no gov't can be in a position to decide what facts are valid and which aren't. That's soviet style control. A gov't can't dictate where people get their information from and what that information is.

Mueller is seeing if Trump et al committed federal offences.

Not the same as deciding which opinions are valid and which aren't.

Rick , rather than frame this in the context of democracy and free will do you actually understand the enormity, complexity and Machiavellian nature of what was achieved ?

You’ve got datapoints from 50 million users which provide a granular detail of an individuals beliefs, preconceptions, and political bias. Feed false news stories into these individuals and steer the narrative to a polarisation of these beliefs which then get translated into votes.

The world has moved on immersirably from the ideals and concepts that gave birth to democracy. Legislation, law enforcement and indeed the understanding of what can be achieved by leveraging the individuals personality, beliefs, prejudices and fears is still in its infancy.

Time will tell if Russia was pulling the levers which swayed the UK referendum and helped Trump into the Whitehouse.

As an act against a perceived enemy, it’s weakened the 5th largest economy, bought uncertainty to established treaties and trade agreements in the West. Putin could have shaped the world stage for the next generation.

This is all very well but what is the solution?

I think the point with CA's strategy was less to change people's minds, but to motivate those who might be sympathetic to a viewpoint, but were previously not bothered enough to vote. The targeted advertising does not need to be fake news. When a vote is lost or won on a small margin (as both Brexit ref and US election were) then those few extra people make a difference.

As for whether Russia did make use of CA's services, Chris Wylie seems pretty clear that they were a gun for hire, so Russia would be missing a trick if they hadn't hired them.

pblakeney

rjsterry wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Before you feel too hard done by, outside of the armed services, buying at least some of your own tools/kit is hardly unusual.

What an absolutely ridiculous argument.
For me to put my life on the line for Queen and Country I'd expect the best tools for the job, and that my family would be looked after in unfortunate circumstances. Also explains why I never signed up.

Oh calm down. I'm sure some things could be better, but the way MF tells it, they're buying their own tanks on eBay.

I am calm. No reason not to be.
But then, I am not a "borrower". Named for a reason. And my life is not on the line.

Like I said, I'm sure some things could be better, but the comment was made in the context of a comparison with the Russian military. I know where I'd prefer to be conscripted. Know idea what you mean by borrower in that context.

The borrowers are what the U.S. troops call our troops because they are always “borrowing” equipment. It is a sad state of affairs that we cannot properly supply our troops no matter which way you look at it.
The World’s 5th strongest economy is skint. Says a lot for the rest though...

rjsterry

PBlakeney wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Before you feel too hard done by, outside of the armed services, buying at least some of your own tools/kit is hardly unusual.

What an absolutely ridiculous argument.
For me to put my life on the line for Queen and Country I'd expect the best tools for the job, and that my family would be looked after in unfortunate circumstances. Also explains why I never signed up.

Oh calm down. I'm sure some things could be better, but the way MF tells it, they're buying their own tanks on eBay.

I am calm. No reason not to be.
But then, I am not a "borrower". Named for a reason. And my life is not on the line.

Like I said, I'm sure some things could be better, but the comment was made in the context of a comparison with the Russian military. I know where I'd prefer to be conscripted. Know idea what you mean by borrower in that context.

The borrowers are what the U.S. troops call our troops because they are always “borrowing” equipment. It is a sad state of affairs that we cannot properly supply our troops no matter which way you look at it.
The World’s 5th strongest economy is skint. Says a lot for the rest though...

We're not skint we are just spending the money elsewhere. Whichever government could choose to spend more on defense and less on something else.

pblakeney

It’s not the roads, it’s not the infrastructure, it’s not power generation, it’s not education, it’s not the NHS...
So where is the focus for spending if not defence?

pblakeney

PS - Does that mean we are now finished with”austerity”?

bompington

PBlakeney wrote:

It’s not the roads, it’s not the infrastructure, it’s not power generation, it’s not education, it’s not the NHS...
So where is the focus for spending if not defence?

Pross

PBlakeney wrote:

It’s not the roads, it’s not the infrastructure, it’s not power generation, it’s not education, it’s not the NHS...
So where is the focus for spending if not defence?

What proportion of GDP does the US spend on public healthcare and social security? I suspect they've prioritised defence spending over those, everyone has budgets to work with.

pblakeney

The 5th largest economy is still dealing with austerity regardless of whataboutism.

veronese68

PBlakeney wrote:

It’s not the roads, it’s not the infrastructure, it’s not power generation, it’s not education, it’s not the NHS...
So where is the focus for spending if not defence?

Nest feathering and pocket lining seems to be quite a high priority.

coopster_the_1st

Imposter wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

You said

Imposter wrote:

The point is the interference of third party countries in another nation's electoral processes.

That equally applies to what Obama said. Not that I believe in the conspiracy theories that you are implying!

Now your hypocrisy has been called out, you attempt to dismiss it.

For once Rick is talking sense on this subject which demonstrates just how wrong you are

You think some public remarks from another country's political leader equates to state-sponsored interference designed to disrupt, influence and undermine the democratic process?

The difference is that Obama's remarks did not unduly affect the outcome of the Brexit vote, in the sense that the 'no' campaign still won. Russia's alleged campaign may well have done much more to help the 'no' campaign. They certainly weren't trying to maintain the status quo, that's for sure. If you're claiming that Obama 'interfered', then you would have to accept that practically every other leader of a free, democratic nation also said pretty much the same thing. What you are describinig is simply not 'interference' in the context that is being discussed.

Brilliant work though. I want some of whatever it is you are drinking - providing it's not flavoured with polonium or VX...

Your hypocrisy is amazing. And the likes of you accuse leavers of being thick!

Are you saying his interference would only have been valid in your eyes if remain had won?!?

Obama's comments did not unduly affect the outcome of the vote I recall the polls after he made his comments and they moved to noticeably toward remain in the days after. He was reading out a British written script, hence the 'back of the queue' comment, so was not even representing his own views.

His comments definitely influenced the vote. Without them Leave would have won by a larger margin and thus had a larger mandate which in turn would have meant less of a divided country. You are either thick or blinded by your bias to not understand this.

When are you going to grow up and accept that you lost the vote? Had the EU been fairer on the UK remain would have won. Go looking there for the reason why the vote was lost not some fairy story

kingstongraham

Imposter wrote:

You think some public remarks from another country's political leader equates to state-sponsored interference designed to disrupt, influence and undermine the democratic process?

The difference is that Obama's remarks did not unduly affect the outcome of the Brexit vote, in the sense that the 'no' campaign still won.

I have to say that second point is quite a weak argument - basically Obama's interference was OK because it didn't work.

Obama's contribution was different because it was public, and everyone understood that it was the US president saying it. The issues with the troll farms, advertising on social media etc is that there is no acknowledgment of who is behind the propaganda. A key part of the CA sting on channel 4 was when they said "it has to not look like propaganda".

rick_chasey

KingstonGraham wrote:

Imposter wrote:

You think some public remarks from another country's political leader equates to state-sponsored interference designed to disrupt, influence and undermine the democratic process?

The difference is that Obama's remarks did not unduly affect the outcome of the Brexit vote, in the sense that the 'no' campaign still won.

I have to say that second point is quite a weak argument - basically Obama's interference was OK because it didn't work.

Obama's contribution was different because it was public, and everyone understood that it was the US president saying it. The issues with the troll farms, advertising on social media etc is that there is no acknowledgment of who is behind the propaganda. A key part of the CA sting on channel 4 was when they said "it has to not look like propaganda".

So if you are combat foreign persuasion in U.K. politics, how are you actually going to do it?

veronese68

KingstonGraham wrote:

Obama's contribution was different because it was public, and everyone understood that it was the US president saying it. The issues with the troll farms, advertising on social media etc is that there is no acknowledgment of who is behind the propaganda. A key part of the CA sting on channel 4 was when they said "it has to not look like propaganda".

Completely agree, and that's before you get into the serious questions over funding of the leave campaign. I seem to recall some of that illegal funding, some of which came from outside the UK, going through CA as well.
This is far too complex for Coopster to understand, he can't even get his head round a word having different meanings according to context. So his response will be "you lost, remoaners, get over it, losers, etc"

tangled_metal

British written Obama speech. Outstanding! America doesn't have speech writers capable of using English phrasing? Indeed I believe Obama himself is known for coming up with a few (can't remember what they where just he has used British English phrasing in a "casual" situation staged fur the press once when over here). I doubt very much he'd allow British written speech to come out of his mouth. At most he'd accept guidance but the words are from him / his guys.

EU fairer on the UK. Oh that old chestnut. It's amusing how much rubbish has been spoken about how it's the EU doing us wrong. Chances are most of the EU injustices where perpetrated by successive UK governments. Also arguments against the ECJ for example were actually criticising the wrong EU Court institution. Court of human rights gave the prisoners victory over their case for right to vote, a decision to be given on how long their life tariff should be, etc.

But hey make it all up off it doesn't suit. Both sides did that but at least the remain side you couldn't prove was wrong because it was mostly about predictions not statements.

Borrowers? Well that's been happening throughout the history of conflict. One army's soldiers see kit from another (ally or dead enemy) and think users better than there's so they swap. I believe WWII saw us soldiers taking German weaponry such as automatic handguns that were so much more advanced on the German side.

I think British mentality with soldier's kit is functional and squaddie proof. There's better on the private sector so soldiers choose to buy it. For example there's a small rucksack manufacturer based in Cumbria that's made custom fit and designed kit for soldiers before now. Kit that's far better than even us kit because it's unique to what each soldier requires. For a price though. I got a sack made by them too, good piece of kit, very durable, light and functional.

I'm no expert but I would put money on us soldiers buying some of their own kit to replace us issue kit. I know it's fictional but I believe it has come up on NCIS fictional US TV series that US marines having been in action with bought kit. Probably based on what actually happens. It's probably more common in the UK because mod is pretty sh1t at specifying and contracting out for personal kit for our soldiers. IIRC there was a boot incident where the desert boot had glue that melted in the desert heat. I'm sure there's more.

kingstongraham

Rick Chasey wrote:

So if you are combat foreign persuasion in U.K. politics, how are you actually going to do it?

I don't think you can stop it without shutting down social media. Awareness of it needs to be raised, so there is a lot more scepticism - if you don't know somebody, why do you trust what they are saying? Perhaps there should be a more broad "verified" tick to say that you are a real person, and you are where you say you are.

Also, rules on online political advertising needs to be brought in line with the rules for print and billboards, so that it is clear who is trying to persuade you.

Matthewfalle

Tangled Metal wrote:

IIRC there was a boot incident where the desert boot had glue that melted in the desert heat. I'm sure there's more.

When the first high leg combat boots came out they had cardboard insoles.

The still same applies to the shiiiit they give as standard issue now.

No Matt what you say, I personally think that people should be issued boots that are so rubbish they get through away as soon as possible and replaced by something that you have to buy yourself.

pinno

rjsterry wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Before you feel too hard done by, outside of the armed services, buying at least some of your own tools/kit is hardly unusual.

What an absolutely ridiculous argument.
For me to put my life on the line for Queen and Country I'd expect the best tools for the job, and that my family would be looked after in unfortunate circumstances. Also explains why I never signed up.

Oh calm down. I'm sure some things could be better, but the way MF tells it, they're buying their own tanks on eBay.

"Fix bayonets... get ready... go forth". Surely that should be the spirit.

surrey_commuter

KingstonGraham wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

So if you are combat foreign persuasion in U.K. politics, how are you actually going to do it?

I don't think you can stop it without shutting down social media. Awareness of it needs to be raised, so there is a lot more scepticism - if you don't know somebody, why do you trust what they are saying? Perhaps there should be a more broad "verified" tick to say that you are a real person, and you are where you say you are.

Also, rules on online political advertising needs to be brought in line with the rules for print and billboards, so that it is clear who is trying to persuade you.

it is a very complex issue.

What is the difference between FB and the side of a bus? is it more important who wrote on the bus/FB or who paid the message writer

pinno

A manipulated database which multiplies across many users thereby reaching a huge 'audience' and having an influence with the primary aim to bias a referendum for the purposes of disruption or...
A banner on the side of a bus advertised with the intention to sway a vote for the purposes of winning a referendum by argument and democratic process (whether false or not).

TheBigBean

Matthewfalle wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

IIRC there was a boot incident where the desert boot had glue that melted in the desert heat. I'm sure there's more.

When the first high leg combat boots came out they had cardboard insoles.

The still same applies to the shiiiit they give as standard issue now.

No Matt what you say, I personally think that people should be issued boots that are so rubbish they get through away as soon as possible and replaced by something that you have to buy yourself.

You could buy a nice shiny pair of boots with the savings made from all the subsidised stuff such as drinks, food, ski trips, med cruises etc.

tailwindhome

Remember when Homeland and House of Cards were far fetched works of fiction? Good times.

surrey_commuter

Pinno wrote:

A manipulated database which multiplies across many users thereby reaching a huge 'audience' and having an influence with the primary aim to bias a referendum for the purposes of disruption or...
A banner on the side of a bus advertised with the intention to sway a vote for the purposes of winning a referendum by argument and democratic process (whether false or not).

so you would have no issue if Boris had used FB rather than the side of a bus?

kingstongraham

TailWindHome wrote:

Remember when Homeland and House of Cards were far fetched works of fiction? Good times.

The USA elected a female president in Homeland - that's far fetched.

pinno

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Pinno wrote:

A manipulated database which multiplies across many users thereby reaching a huge 'audience' and having an influence with the primary aim to bias a referendum for the purposes of disruption or...
A banner on the side of a bus advertised with the intention to sway a vote for the purposes of winning a referendum by argument and democratic process (whether false or not).

so you would have no issue if Boris had used FB rather than the side of a bus?

Uh? Boris is only going to influence a hand full of twits (if he has any followers at all).

A programme that uses FB members and friends of members has an infinite multiplication. It implies real expression of opinion when in fact it is a manipulated bias, which given the narrow margin, may have had a significant impact on the result.
Anyone has a right to express their views and each person will carry more weight depending on that persons standing. However, that is quite different from a computer generated programme which fools thousands of readers into thinking that a, b or c is fact or is a relevant point and that point is the view or an expression of an individual.

Do you see my point?!

surrey_commuter

Pinno wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Pinno wrote:

A manipulated database which multiplies across many users thereby reaching a huge 'audience' and having an influence with the primary aim to bias a referendum for the purposes of disruption or...
A banner on the side of a bus advertised with the intention to sway a vote for the purposes of winning a referendum by argument and democratic process (whether false or not).

so you would have no issue if Boris had used FB rather than the side of a bus?

Uh? Boris is only going to influence a hand full of twits (if he has any followers at all).

A programme that uses FB members and friends of members has an infinite multiplication. It implies real expression of opinion when in fact it is a manipulated bias, which given the narrow margin, may have had a significant impact on the result.
Anyone has a right to express their views and each person will carry more weight depending on that persons standing. However, that is quite different from a computer generated programme which fools thousands of readers into thinking that a, b or c is fact or is a relevant point and that point is the view or an expression of an individual.

Do you see my point?!

Not really. Boris’s bus must have been seen by everybody in the country multiple times.

The beauty of the FB campaign was that it cost chickenfeed.

You could also reasonably argue that only an idiot would believe that Turkey was going to join the EU and 70 million of them were heading our way. As far as I now they were only repeating rubbish spouted by official Leave campaigners.

The biggest impact here and in the States was probably scare the easily lead into bothering to vote.

Apparently the LibDems were offered the chance to use the kit and declined -would it have been wrong if they did?

Is the problem the message, the delivery system or the paymaster?

slowmart

It’s not as simplistic or binary as “advertising”

It’s about influencing and polarising an individuals beliefs though analysing their behaviour and interactions through certain platforms such as Facebook. Accessing these data sets is a central plank to the strategic effectiveness and a major flaw as accessing, storage and using such data without permission is illegal.

To then label targeted and fabricated news stories as adverts to shift personal beliefs and polarise views is one of the aspects that has caused so much discomfort.

surrey_commuter

Slowmart wrote:

It’s not as simplistic or binary as “advertising”

It’s about influencing and polarising an individuals beliefs though analysing their behaviour and interactions through certain platforms such as Facebook. Accessing these data sets is a central plank to the strategic effectiveness and a major flaw as accessing, storage and using such data without permission is illegal.

To then label targeted and fabricated news stories as adverts to shift personal beliefs and polarise views is one of the aspects that has caused so much discomfort.

I agree that the data privacy issues are major. FWIW I think it could open Pandora’s Box on what else FB do.

The rest I see as no different to traditional political campaigning, targeting the audience through traditional media. The Tories running scare ads in the Mail is just a blunter use of the same tactic and apparently paid for with Russian money.

slowmart

SC, you need to look harder if you can’t see a difference between advertising and fake news stories targeted at individuals with the insight of their behaviours with the intent and capability of polarising views.

pinno

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Pinno wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Pinno wrote:

A manipulated database which multiplies across many users thereby reaching a huge 'audience' and having an influence with the primary aim to bias a referendum for the purposes of disruption or...
A banner on the side of a bus advertised with the intention to sway a vote for the purposes of winning a referendum by argument and democratic process (whether false or not).

so you would have no issue if Boris had used FB rather than the side of a bus?

Uh? Boris is only going to influence a hand full of twits (if he has any followers at all).

A programme that uses FB members and friends of members has an infinite multiplication. It implies real expression of opinion when in fact it is a manipulated bias, which given the narrow margin, may have had a significant impact on the result.
Anyone has a right to express their views and each person will carry more weight depending on that persons standing. However, that is quite different from a computer generated programme which fools thousands of readers into thinking that a, b or c is fact or is a relevant point and that point is the view or an expression of an individual.

Do you see my point?!

Not really. Boris’s bus must have been seen by everybody in the country multiple times.

The beauty of the FB campaign was that it cost chickenfeed.

You could also reasonably argue that only an idiot would believe that Turkey was going to join the EU and 70 million of them were heading our way. As far as I now they were only repeating rubbish spouted by official Leave campaigners.

The biggest impact here and in the States was probably scare the easily lead into bothering to vote.

Apparently the LibDems were offered the chance to use the kit and declined -would it have been wrong if they did?

Is the problem the message, the delivery system or the paymaster?

The latter two.
Anyway, i'm only expressing a concern about the use of media. Okay, peanuts but with potentially, a huge impact. Besides, I didn't vote leave.
Why can't you accept that the manner in which FB was used could be considered as manipulation of the masses for an ulterior motive that went beyond the advantages and disadvantages of leaving the EU. Behind it, an insidious move to weaken the UK?
If what you are arguing has any merit, why the spotlight on Cambridge analytica?

Meanwhile...

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/officials-see ... 43679.html