The Gradual Hijacking of the Internet

With the vast majority of media outlets now controlled by a small number of organisations, the Internet is the last refuge for those seeking news and information not tainted with the biases of mainstream media's political agendas. With its global reach and relative freedoms, the Internet provides a vehicle where views can be posted, shared and discussed with very little fear of repercussion. While mainstream reporters are force feeding the populace with what to think on major issues such as the Egyptian crisis, Afghanistan and the like, the Internet serves as the last bastion for alternative views in real time. Sites such as truthdig.com, whatreallyhappened.com, wikileaks.org and others, provide an alternative source of information and many include the option to leave comment. The comment sections provide a forum for discussion, opinion, adding information, providing opposing views and much more. It is often the case that the comments provide more substance to an article that just the article itself. 

If we take the recent articles on Bradley Manning as an example, we will see a steady stream of columns from mainstream media espousing his homosexuality, his fragile mental state and his likely sentencing. There is rarely any mention of the information he released. A video that showed US air crew laughing after killing dozens of innocent reporters and civilians in an air strike, records of the civilian death toll in Iraq showing that of the 109,000 deaths logged, over 66,000 were unarmed civilians, documents that showed US soldiers were committing horrific acts of torture on Iraqi prisoners and reports showing a US defence contracting company was involved in child trafficking are the more notable nefarious activities Bradley Manning exposed but, alas, these are rarely reported in the mainstream articles. To understand the whole picture on this or any other major event, one must trawl the Internet.

Of course the politicians and power brokers know this as well. The Internet is powerful and with few restraints. Information is available with just a few clicks and much of this information either doesn't fully support, or is in direct opposition to, the mainstream media's spin. Just as we have seen the manipulation of the press in passing decades, we are now in the midst of the manipulation of the Internet. If we are not diligent and active, the Internet will simply be an echo of mainstream media's spin. 

Here are a few of the manipulations:

Click farms

Organisations, both public and private, are looking to improve their social media standing as it demonstrates a level of trust to users and consumers. The United States'  Bureau of International Information Programs for example, spent $630,000 to increase its "likes" count on Facebook between 2011 and 2013. The spending increased the bureau's English-language Facebook page "likes"from 100,000 to more than 2 million.

The importance of "likes" is considerable to consumers with around  a third checking ratings, reviews, "likes" and the number of Twitter followers before they choose to buy a product or use a service. The establishment of click farms in countries such as India provides an avenue for companies seeking to boost their profile on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, YouTube and others by employing people to sit at screens in dark rooms to generate ratings, "likes" and Followers. Reports suggest that payment to these workers can be as low as $1 to generate 1,000 likes or follow 1,000 people.

Online Income 

Have you ever wondered who writes all those reviews for the products or services you are thinking of using? Companies offer around $50 for each positive review chosen to be used. In fact, one of the best ways to earn an income through the Internet is to write positive reviews on products and services. There is no requirement for you to ever have used the product or service as long as your review is catchy, positive and readable. Potential customers have no way of knowing whether a review has been bought and paid for, written under strict guidelines or is just a comment from someone who has actually purchased the product.

Sock puppets

Sock puppets are fake online identities created to influence views and opinions. One "owner" may operate multiple sock puppets with each supporting the puppeteer's views in an argument, attempting to position the puppeteer as representing majority opinion and suppressing opposition voices. Sock puppets may also be used in online polls to submit multiple votes to influence outcomes. 

In 2011, a Californian company, Ntrepid, was awarded a $2.76 million contract under the auspices of US Central Command for "online persona management". The aim is to create "fake online personas to influence net conversations and spread US propaganda". This allows the US government to manipulate, if not control, forums, opinions and  polls on the Internet. Valid opinion and information in a forum discussing the Egyptian crisis, for instance, can be forced onto page three or ridiculed with offensive abuse by one person operating a multitude of personas in a matter of minutes. The sock puppets can also make a particular point of view look foolish in order to generate negative sentiment against it. In this context they typically behave in an unintelligent, uninformed, or racist manner and advance arguments or theories that can be easily refuted and/or discredit more rational arguments.

Sock puppets can also be used in stealth marketing where the marketer creates a number of  accounts, each one claiming to be owned by a different supporter of the sponsor's product so as to build up acceptance of that product. 

Internet Filters

The UK government has proposed plans to crack down on internet pornography by forcing internet service providers to enable filters by default. Regardless of the numerous arguments on the practicalities or mechanisms of this, it raises the important question of the legalities of filtering legal content. It is understandable that Illegal content such as child abuse should be filtered but the filtering of legal content by a government may lead to  future government interpretations on what is "appropriate" content. With the ever growing list of what constitutes terrorist behaviour, including anti government sentiment, it is not drawing a long bow to envision a future where all information at odds with mainstream media is deemed "inappropriate" and filtered from our Internet. 

Internet Access

It has recently been reported that the US will move access to their health system to online access only. To maintain security, it is planned to establish an ID management system to minimise fraudulent use of electronic health records.. The system will require anyone who wants to access healthcare in the US, to produce ID first. It is expected that the user will need to provide a three-factor authentication: a password, a smart card/phone and a biometric character. Biometric characters such as an iris scan, a face recognition or a fingerprint are preferred because they cannot be lost, stolen, or counterfeited. 

Is this the first step to limit access to many parts of the Internet to those not having a full three point ID? And what would be the next logical step for a government? Science Fiction writers have been predicting biometric identification systems for decades and it now seems the technology is at hand. 

Big Brother

Recent months, thanks to whistleblower Edward Snowden, have brought to the surface the extent that our Internet usage is monitored and tracked. Emails, web history, dates, times and even locations are all captured and stored. This information is filtered and screened and used in secret for secretive purposes. Anonymity is fast disappearing. These factors combine to ensure that we consciously or subconsciously self control our internet usage. We are aware that the data we post, the comments we leave, the sites we visit and the messages we send can all be tracked and traced back to us. We understand that the laws have been changed to now allow police or worse direct entry into our homes to search and take any evidence they deem necessary to prove we are terrorists. The definition of terrorist is constantly being updated to include factors such as "government dissent" which further erodes our freedoms to speak. 

Smarter Tech

Recently, naked pictures of an unsuspecting woman (Miss Teen USA, Cassidy Wolf) were taken via a Remote Administration Tool (RAT) and used in an extortion attempt. The RAT software gives a remote user access to a computer’s screen, files, microphone, and more. It also allows the "hacker" to turn on the camera of a PC or laptop (and presumably a smart phone) and record its vision. 

With the constant updates that we all accept from our software providers, there is a regular download of software onto our computers. We may sometimes review the details of what is being downloaded but often, I suspect, we do not. Regardless, if an organisation wanted to download a RAT, I am sure they wouldn't list it in the details and with the ever increasing complexities of their Privacy Policies we are asked to click OK to, they may well be allowed to download it anyway. 

The Internet has been, and still is, an invaluable tool for news, information and communication but with the growing fears for security, the increased tech and the manipulations by governments and organisations, we run the real risk of losing many of the benefits the Internet provides. Until we find an alternative, the Internet provides individuals with a freedom to discover, discuss and seek their own truths. Lets hope the hijacking doesn't change that.