Defense & Security Technology

I fear that you are right. ga

but I fear the media amplifies the rumour much more than they 'track' one.

CR4 ADMIN: Deleted Post

Politics/Religion: This post was deleted because it was overly religious or political. While each user is entitled to his or her own opinion on these topics, CR4 is not the place for discussion about them. Please review Section 14 of the CR4 Site FAQ and the CR4 Rules of Conduct.

Dissemination of information (intelligence) to the proper people is needed. Those on the ground can maybe put that information together with what they sense or know in the environment they are in and can then make the determination as to whether it is valid or not. Information (correct) allows us to make good decisons.

They may be able to match it with their contacts and relationships they have with the locals and then make decisions on what actions to take or not take. I think part of the problem with drone or military strikes may sometimes take place because of long-running feuds or tribal issues and as a way of getting back at someone and they may use relationships or positions of power to use a third party (us) to settle the score by claiming there are enemy combatants, when in actuality they are simply rivals.

Intentional disinformation is a part of human conflict. Sometimes those reasons are selfish and sometimes they are ideological. Maybe someone is scorned because of their religious or philosophical ideas. We often see this, to the detriment of the systems that help us govern. People don't get a chance to serve because others don't like what or who they are and seek to disparage their reputations. Sorting out what is chaff (lies) and what is wheat (truth) calls for discernment on our part. We need to be careful who we get our information from and what their motivation is.

I'd agree with that for the most part.

The thing is, if good balanced information was what it all depended on then the USA wouldn't be there - especially under the Police of the World 'mandate'.

But many folk are so bound up in propaganda and dogma, they are deaf to all else and where no 'convenient rumor' exists, they invent one.

WMD's comes to mind.

All in all, tracking rumors is a good idea - though it may be a double edged sword in some 'motivation' circles.

How would YOU spread the doctrine of "free thinking" and do you think that would be wise?

And this is "on topic" because I happen to think that free thinking is the antidote to toxic rumours.

The Antiscience?

Ultimately I think that human nature itself will be our undoing. We can't change it.

"where no 'convenient rumor' exists, they invent one. WMD's comes to mind."

There isn't any question that Iraq had WMD's. There is plenty of evidence that Sadaam used them against his own people, the Kurds, in the north. These were chemical weapons that he used to annhilate whole villages in order to put down dissension. This is historical fact.

If we only characterize WMD's as nuclear, then you are correct. They also had plenty of time to move the equipment and the products.

It is difficult to sort through the clutter of information and discern what is correct and then what is the most judicious way to act upon it.

The proper thing to do is to start your own rumours. Like ANY weapon, it works both ways. Churchill said that a lie goes around the world before the truth gets it trousers on. And he was a master at manipulating rumours.

Rumours bring down governments. They are used to destroy the most powerful opposition. Victor Kiam used to say that "when they threatened to sue you, you are doing something right." In this day and age, where everybody has a lawyer, you may not win in the court, so you attempt to win in the "court of public opinion".

Is this a good thing or a bad thing? Who cares, it is what it is. We all must deal with it. Hiram Johnston said "The first casualty of war is Truth". I would expand that to include not just war, but politics and pretty much anything to do with money.

Rumors by definition are pieces of intelligence whose authenticity has not been confirmed, and may be true or false. They are only dangerous when the target population is inclined to believe or act upon the rumor without some form of authentication. The 'narrative IED's' described in the article are obviously preying on a culture of word of mouth information where there are inherently few resources for authentication.

The app for tracing rumors may be a good place to start, but in order to defuse the 'narrative IED' the general ignorance and lack of media and other authentication sources will also have to be addressed. Empowerment of the population in question is required, to ensure that communications and other necessary resources are present to assess and authenticate rumors and to disseminate the authenticated information. This is not a short term project. It also runs the usual risk, that communications infrastructure and authoritative resources become co-opted as a medium for that other weapon, the "Official Lie".