Retour aux nouvelles

27 juillet 2020 | International, C4ISR

Memes, the pandemic and the new tactics of information warfare

WASHINGTON — The COVID-19 pandemic is evidence that Russia and China have accelerated adoption of their age-old influence and disinformation tactics to the modern era, national security experts and military leaders said.

Those countries are leveraging U.S. laws, social media platforms and divisions within society to their larger strategic advantage and as a way to weaken the United States.

“This pandemic crisis has made it very, very clear that Russia, China and others intend to strategically use cyber-enable information operations against the U.S.,” Lt. Gen. Mary O'Brien, deputy chief of staff for intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance and cyber effects operations, said during a Joint Service Academy Cybersecurity Conference webinar June 11.

“They're injecting disinformation, which is not a new concept in itself, but now by incorporating cyber means, they're reaching millions of people to exacerbate existing tensions within the U.S. and between us, our allies and partners.”

She said these efforts include spreading conspiracy theories and confusing messages about the virus such as its origins and risks.

Such tactics are here to stay.

“Our adversaries have made it very clear that this aspect of strategic competition will be enduring,” O'Brien added.

These tactics, which include waging influence campaigns below the threshold of armed conflict, have forced the military, and U.S. government more broadly, to rethink its strategies and views toward conflict. Traditionally, the United States government has taken a binary view of war and peace, while adversaries such as Russia in particular have viewed conflict on a perpetual continuum.

“In many ways, we have trained ourselves as a service at every Red Flag we've gone to that conflict begins when two fighters engage or we find a target on the battlespace. So we've really trained ourselves that conflict begins at that moment,” Lt. Gen. Timothy Haugh, commander of 16th Air Force, the service's first information warfare command, said at a July 15 Mitchell Institute webcast. Red Flag is the Air Force's premier tactical training event.

“Was the first element really when we got into conflict in the information environment ... the first day that one of our companies was hacked that the intellectual property theft of one of our weapon systems stole?” he said. “Was that really when conflict began? Was it the day that Russian hackers hacked into the DNC? Was that really the day that conflict began for our nation and how we should be thinking about it when the adversaries went to another level of using some level of malign activity that is outside of things that we would consider norms.”

As such, the military is looking at ways to expose this activity abroad when it can.

“Sixteenth Air Force units are focused on developing tactics, techniques and procedures and they're looking to identify, expose and when directed, countering the threat from the state sponsored disinformation campaigns,” O'Brien said. “This is continuing, I think we'll see it again as we address the racial discrimination.”

Adversaries have exploited U.S. laws and principles, such as the freedom of speech with online platforms, which makes outright banning accounts difficult. They've also targeted existing divisions within society such as protests over police tactics and racial equality.

“[Adversaries] also are in a position where they can take advantage of a lot of the disinformation/misinformation that's created right here at home in the United States by actual Americans who understand the language in a way Moscow couldn't at a native level,” Cindy Otis, vice president of analysis at Alethea Group, a start-up that counters disinformation and social media manipulation. told C4ISRNET.

Experts explained that adversaries in many cases don't have to create content, although many choose to.

“At the end of the day they're really just amplifying our existing social divisions. We suspect, especially lately, that they've really done enough amplification that they're just kind of allowing things to snowball now ...There's enough existing division that it really only requires tiny nudges at this point to amplify,” Maj. Jessica Dawson, research lead for information warfare and an assistant professor at the Army Cyber Institute, told C4ISRNET.

One way they do this is called memetic warfare, which involves sharing memes on various social media platforms to stoke a particular reaction from various groups.

“When we think about memetic warfare, what's really happening is we're taking these sort of deep seeded emotional stories and we're collapsing them down into a picture, usually it's something that has a very, very quick emotional punch,” she said. “They're collapsing these narratives down into images that are often not attributed, that's one of the things about memes is they really aren't, someone usually isn't signing them, going ‘I'm the artist.' There [are] these really emotional punches that are shared very, very quickly, they're self replicating in a lot of ways because you see it, you react and then you immediately pass it on.”

While many experts noted that these tactics are nothing new, the difference is the internet.

“The major change throughout history is today they're able to spread and amplify and reach people where they are all over the world in a way that was never possible before,” Otis, who previously was a CIA analyst, said.

Previously, nations such as the Soviet Union had to prop up media outlets and place stories in newspapers around the world hoping they'd be picked up in English language outlets. Now, they just have to tweet.

In some cases, they are overt social media channels and actors might not even hide their origin, but other more covert cases, states might use certain influencers or cut outs to do their bidding.

What's the point?

The goal of these operations varies slightly, but experts said they serve the ultimate purpose of put down the United States compared to their own nations.

“For Russia it all goes back to the desire to undermine United States' global credibility but also show their own population ‘hey, you know that democracy you want, it's actually not a great thing ... look how it's turning out for the United States,‘” Otis said.

She added that Russia tries to undermine the credibility of the United States on issues such as human rights, something the United States is active in promoting on the world stage, by highlighting social divisions such as potential police brutality and racial injustice.

Dawson noted this can also distract from what Russia is doing abroad.

Russia also wants to discourage citizens from voting, Otis said by making large swaths of the population feel disenfranchised. Often times, these actors will play both sides of an issue to maximize reach and discord.

When it comes to China, Dawson noted that they are trying to appear more benevolent on the world stage to present itself as a world power, which is much harder. They are also good at making information disappear online, she said, citing information on the Tiananmen Square massacre.

Otis pointed to Chinese benevolent efforts such as providing medical aid to nations such as Italy during the ongoing pandemic.

Combating these efforts, including those focused internally at domestic populations and undermining government, can be difficult given the existing divisions within society and the broad speech freedoms guaranteed.

Otis explained that the government can sometimes be mired in its own bureaucratic processes, noting it can be its own worst enemy.

She provided the example of Taliban forces in Afghanistan publishing in their media channels that the United States and NATO forces bombed a school killing scores of children. Those stories would go viral in their circles and sometimes make their way to mainstream outlets. When questioned about those claims by reporters, U.S. officials would explain they have to conduct an investigation, which could take months. By the time the investigation is concluded and the claim is found to hold no truth, the damage is already done and the Taliban have successfully recruited against it.

Dawson noted that one way to begin combating disinformation is building trust from the local to the national level while also addressing the underlying domestic problems adversaries are exploiting from abroad.

https://www.c4isrnet.com/smr/information-warfare/2020/07/23/memes-the-pandemic-and-the-new-tactics-of-information-warfare/

Sur le même sujet

  • Pourquoi la Belgique (et d’autres pays européens) préfèrent acheter des avions de chasse américains?

    29 octobre 2018 | International, Aérospatial

    Pourquoi la Belgique (et d’autres pays européens) préfèrent acheter des avions de chasse américains?

    La Belgique, tout comme l'Italie et les Pays-Bas, ont préféré acheter américain plutôt qu'européen pour leur défense aérienne. Et ce n'est ni le prix, ni les capacités techniques du F-35 qui les ont convaincu, mais leurs alliances. Le “contrat du siècle” belge est tombé dans les mains des Américains: jeudi, la Belgique a officialisé le choix de l'avion de chasse F-35 du groupe américain Lockheed Martin pour remplacer sa flotte d'avions de chasse F-16, écartant le Rafale du français Dassault et le Typhoon du consortium européen Eurofighter. Un achat estimé à 3,6 milliards d'euros. Une décision qui passe mal auprès des partenaires européens de la Belgique. Emmanuel Macron a dit dès le lendemain regretter "la décision du gouvernement belge d'acheter des avions de chasse F-35 américains "plutôt qu'une offre européenne", une décision qui "stratégiquement va a contrario des intérêts européens". La Belgique a choisi son allié américain La Belgique n'est pas le premier pays de l'UE a mettre un coup de canif dans l'Europe de la Défense. L'Italie et les Pays-Bas ont déjà fait le choix du F-35 plutôt que d'un avion européen. Si la Belgique justifie son choix pour des raisons techniques: coordination plus simple avec les pays voisins (comme les Pays-Bas), emport de bombes, interopérabilité au sein de l'Otan... la raison serait surtout diplomatique. "Le choix de l'avion de chasse fait partie des achats les plus stratégiques pour un pays. C'est une arme de souveraineté et choisir une technologie, c'est s'engager pour 30 ou 40 ans. Vous êtes ensuite pieds et poings liés avec votre fournisseur", affirme Philippe Plouvier, directeur associé au Boston Consulting Group sur les questions de défense et d'aéronautique. "Si vous faites une carte du monde, des achats d'avions de chasse par pays, c'est très révélateur des alliances. Quand la Belgique choisit le F-35, elle choisit un parapluie de défense américain plutôt que franco-allemand", poursuit-il. Une explication que donne aussi, à demi-mot, ce vendredi le premier ministre belge Charles Michel: "Pour moi les Etats-Unis ne sont pas devenus un ennemi parce que Donald Trump est président". Et malgré les "divergences de vues" avec Washington "la sécurité pour nos petits-enfants sera liée au maintien et au renforcement d'une double alliance, européenne et transatlantique". Un avion très cher et pas encore opérationnel Car mieux vaut rester ami avec le pays qui vous vend des avions de chasse. Le choix du F-35 ferre la Belgique: "que se soit en termes de pièces détachés ou de mise à jour logicielle... Sans les Etats-Unis, les F-35 belges n'iront pas très loin”, concède Philippe Plouvier. Pour justifier leur choix, les Belges ne pourront en tout cas pas brandir l'argument du prix. Le coût du développement du F-35 a explosé les estimations de départ. L'avion collectionne les problèmes techniques et "il n'atteint pas encore les performances prévues initialement, notamment en termes de furtivité", reconnait Philippe Plouvier. Si 300 appareils ont déjà été livrés (principalement aux Etats-Unis, Canada et Royaume-Uni), les tests opérationnels du F-35 se finiront en 2019. Les pays qui l'ont choisi doivent donc s'attendre à voir la facture s'alourdir pour profiter des améliorations futures. "Ce qui est révolutionnaire dans cet avion, ce ne sont ni ses moteurs, ni sa structure, mais son logiciel embarqué. Les mises à jour auront un prix", promet-il. La fin de l'Europe de la défense? Les deux "perdants" du contrat belge n'ont pas tardé à réagir. Le Français Dassault Aviation a évoqué dans un communiqué un "mauvais signal pour la construction de l'Europe de la défense". De son côté d'Airbus, partenaire du programme Eurofighter, regrette "l'opportunité manquée de renforcer la coopération industrielle européenne au moment où l'on demande à l'Union Européenne de s'unir en matière de Défense". Les deux entreprises continuent en tout cas de travailler en commun pour le projet de Système de combat aérien futur (Scaf), voulu notamment par le président français Emmanuel Macron. "L'Europe doit développer une vraie capacité d'industrie de défense européenne, dans tous les pays qui croient à cette aventure. Ma détermination en sort renforcée", a-t-il déclaré vendredi. "Tout n'est pas perdu. La France, l'Allemagne et le Royaume-Uni ont la volonté de créer cet avion européen du futur", juge Philippe Plouvier. Pour le spécialiste, c'est peut-être un mal pour un bien que beaucoup de pays européens ne soient pas concernés. "Il faut reproduire l'exemple réussi du missilier européen MBDA, qui est compétitif, technologiquement haut de gamme et où la France et le Royaume-Uni ont un partage équilibré des responsabilités". Et éviter de reproduire les erreurs des programmes de l'avion de transport militaire A400M et celui de l'Eurofighter "avec des surcoûts, et de l'éparpillement industriel". https://www.bfmtv.com/economie/pourquoi-la-belgique-et-d-autres-pays-europeens-preferent-acheter-des-avions-de-chasse-americains-1552975.html

  • Production of one of the F-35′s most anticipated bombs has been on hold for almost a year

    15 juin 2020 | International, Aérospatial

    Production of one of the F-35′s most anticipated bombs has been on hold for almost a year

    By: Valerie Insinna WASHINGTON — Deliveries of a new precision-guided bomb under development by Raytheon for the F-35 and other fighter jets have been at a standstill for about a year as the company struggles to correct a technical problem involving a key component. A fix for the issue, which brought production of the Small Diameter Bomb II to a halt in July 2019, could be approved by the government as soon as July, said Air Force spokesman Capt. Jake Bailey in response to questions by Defense News. However, a June report by the Government Accountability Office pointed out that continued technical issues have already caused a delay in fielding the munition, with Raytheon forced to redesign a key component and retrofit all 598 bombs already delivered to the Air Force and Navy. The Small Diameter Bomb II — also known as the GBU-53 StormBreaker — was designed with a tri-mode seeker that includes a millimeter wave radar, imaging infrared and semi-active laser that allow the weapon to engage targets in all weather conditions and environments where visibility is obscured by dust and debris. The Air Force and Navy plan to integrate SDB II with a range of fighter aircraft including the F-15, F/A-18 Super Hornet and F-35 joint strike fighter, but the munition has been mired in development for more than a decade. This latest stoppage in production was prompted by internal audits by Raytheon, which found that the clips used to hold the bomb's fins in place “suffered vibration fatigue over long flight hours,” Bailey said. The clips serve “as the backup fin storage device” used to keep the fins in place in case other components fail, noted Bailey, who added that there have been no incidents during tests involving the SDB II fins inadvertently deploying. However, the GAO wrote that the premature deployment of the fins, which help guide the bomb in flight, could damage the weapon as well as cause a safety hazard for the aircraft carrying it. “While this problem could affect all aircraft carrying the bomb, officials said the greatest impact is to the F-35, because the bomb is carried in the aircraft's internal weapons bay and could cause serious damage if the fins deploy while the bomb is in the bay,” the GAO stated. Raytheon declined to comment on this story, directing questions to the Air Force. Raytheon plans on mitigating the issue with a newly designed clip that reduces the vibration of the fins, and will completely pay for developing the fix and retrofitting it on the bombs that have already been delivered, the GAO said. The Air Force confirmed that testing of the new device has already been completed and is going through final reviews. But while Raytheon and the Air Force had hoped to restart production in April, travel restrictions caused by the ongoing global COVID-19 pandemic contributed to further delays. The government now hopes to approve the fix in July, after which production will restart and the retrofit process for existing bombs will begin. “The fin clip failure is the sole reason production was partially halted; once final government approval is obtained, ‘all up round' production can resume,” Bailey said, using a phrase that describes a fully assembled weapon. The Air Force estimates that retrofits will be completed by August, as Raytheon's supplier has already begun manufacturing the replacement component, which are easily installed on the outside of the weapon. “Until production resumes, the total Lot 3 deliveries remain at 204 of the 312 assets on contract,” Bailey said. All this puts initial operational capability at least a year later than the service's original timeline, which predicted IOC would occur in September 2019. The Air Force declined to name a current estimate for when IOC would be achieved, but said it would happen after a separate milestone known as the “initial fielding decision,” which involves the approval of the head of Air Combat Command and is set for the third quarter of 2020. The issue with SDB II's fins is just one of several technical problems with which Raytheon is grappling. The program completed operational tests in 2019, but hardware and software changes are needed after 11 failures were reported. Two hardware fixes have already been put in place, and eight failures were related to software problems that will be addressed in future updates, the GAO said. The sole outstanding issue involves an anomaly with SDB II's guidance system. Fixing it could require Raytheon to redesign the component and conduct retrofits on all bombs already delivered, according to GAO. A review board of the problem is in the “final stages of analysis,” Bailey said. The Air Force and Raytheon plan to establish whether a replacement component is necessary no later than June 30. Although the weapon has not even been officially fielded, some components are already becoming obsolete. A Raytheon subcontractor that makes circuit cards used in the guidance system is expected to stop producing those components years sooner than anticipated. As a result, that the Defense Department may have to order all circuit cards needed for the program of record before December, according to the GAO. That timeline has now been extended to January 2022, “which provides ample time for program office action before the new deadline,” Bailey said. Despite the bomb's ongoing problems, Raytheon continues to rake in contracts for the program. In February, the Defense Department awarded a $15 million increase to a previous SDB II contract for additional technical support. In September, the company received a $200 million contract for lifecycle support during the bomb's engineering and manufacturing development phase. According to a Raytheon news release, the Navy recently completed the first guided release of SDB II from a F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. https://www.defensenews.com/air/2020/06/12/production-of-one-of-the-f-35s-most-anticipated-bombs-has-been-on-hold-for-almost-a-year

  • Where do the US Navy’s top priorities stand in the CNO’s eyes?

    11 septembre 2018 | International, Naval

    Where do the US Navy’s top priorities stand in the CNO’s eyes?

    Where do the US Navy's top priorities stand in the CNO's eyes? https://www.defensenews.com/newsletters/tv-next-episode/2018/09/10/where-do-the-us-navys-top-priorities-stand-in-the-cnos-eyes

Toutes les nouvelles