Funder Perception

"I have seen it first hand, we live in a place with an international reputation for advancing this cause and evidence of infiltration was in plain site here two months after it began."

"It is as if the audience is pseudo-investors (at no risk for the capital they control). Rather than the market folks for which they have strong and essentially uninformed opinions."

"Payed handsomely for telling thieves what they want to hear. Is it really that simple? It would not work if the theft was not easy. So, how did we get here?"

As each of them spoke to what they had seen displayed, it was again apparent. All was not as it appeared. It was a manufactured illusion. Entertainment until the food became scarce. 

© 2012 Buzz Hill

Game Change

Not hacked yet. Why?

"Your mission appears noble. Your methods, however, seem a bit fanciful. 

"Old style messaging is something the opposition has learned how to dominate. It is their field of play and they have chosen and are choosing its current rules."

The older asymmetric electronic medium prided itself in being ever more immediate and at-the-scene as technology improved. Implicit in doing so was the widely distributed message would therefore suggest authenticity (deserved or not). But the message itself was still largely chosen by 'authorities' or those who would do their bidding.

Projecting the interest of a powerful few cost-effectively can potentially require an international resource scope. Certain religions have expanded beyond the borders and rules of nation-states. Fueled by technology and ancient ties, networks of considerable capability have emerged. Studying them is made difficult because of the value of secrecy to their operators.

Consider the keywords (and key phrases): missionary, anti-communism, strategic energy, right-to-exist, plantation, liberty.

"Have we outsourced oversight? If so, should we re-consider?"

© 2012 Buzz Hill

Flower Power

"Not so much avoiding the aggression but neutralizing it through mindful integration."

"Those who win conflicts depend on sustaining them. It is their preferred frame of reference. If confidence in the fundamental assumptions are challenged with compassionate scrutiny in an appropriate venue, the need for conflict greatly diminishes.

"KXL, stand your ground, growing market for privatized prisons. Ask them why in publicly visible productive conversations (like comments to posts on Facebook.)

"Does constant vigilance create new crime? If so, does it make sense?"

© 2012 Buzz Hill

Organic Broadcast

"If we could overload their net cloaking, its biggest vulnerabilities might show. Clearly, secrecy was and is one of them. Now the obscuration and misdirection methodologies are becoming visible.

"Campaigns based on deceptive persuasion are constrained by time-consuming preparation. Moving goal posts is their worst nightmare. Think of the implications of scaling the number of fronts up from there."

Conflicting messages from what otherwise appears to be a unified constituency is a prescription for a melt-down. The cascading effect has already become evident as the number of them have increased to counter the latest rapid responses.

The basic propaganda concept has been around for many generations. The modern countermeasure is catching up to its contemporary antagonist. 39401?

© 2012 Buzz Hill

The Quotable Buzz

"Think of it as a litmus test of sorts. The devil himself comes screeching through the locked gate and all watching break out laughing."

"A variation on the Furnace Monster story, then?"

Fear has limited use. Not smart to manufacture, for the most part. The detached ego is lucky to learn the lesson before it is too late.

Once a critical mass of mob members question the wisdom of their unifying obedience, then begin local conversations and start believing in the power of their combined agency, the leadership can no longer rely on deception as an organizing tactic. Loyalty based on errors in perception seldom lead to better outcomes. Going forward, the new game in town will be increasingly competitive.

© 2012 Buzz Hill

Hard Working?

A very large private corporation with a handful of shareholders. Its privacy protections abound, especially for foreign operations. Known for inventing the primary tool used in manipulating energy prices.

Compare this with the largest public company (by street valuation). Widely held with at least thousands if not millions of individual shareholders. Well known to half of US homes.

Because of their size, each company has a large influence on the majority of citizens. As a citizen and other things being equal, which would you trust more? Which is more accountable for the consequences of its behavior? Why?

© 2012 Buzz

Not Illegal Here

"By this online conversation you can see that aspects of the stolen persona technology had moved into primitive chat dialogs on social networks."

"Hello Transylvania.", she smirked.

"Precisely."

The big prize would be in discovering a secret domestic link to the Eastern Europe operation. Common sense would assume a higher than even chance that such a tie would exist. Transnational business operating under the cloak of 'privacy' protection, a logical place to look. Hiding evidence of the link would be somewhere near the top of priorities.

© 2012 Buzz Hill

Fact Central

"Think of it as Themis on your XBox. You need look no further. We have collected the facts so you don't have to. In our world class facility we design stuff that frees up your time for important pursuits.

"Lame adults (like those clowns who call themselves my parents) have golf and old school social. Here is just what you have been looking for, a way to jerk their chain and pretend you are attractive to the opposite sex."

"I can't even pronounce, Râmnicu Vâlcea ..."

"No need, as you will soon see. Have you ever heard of Redmond?"

© 2012 Buzz Hill

Slander Bot

Precious Document

"Who in our nation's capital would have sufficient incentive to actively pursue a solution to sophisticated organized online slander?

"Outsourcing this function by the government to a private contractor can be problematic. Such outsourcing was likely the beginning of the widespread nefarious practice in the first place. In order that protection from the manipulation to be effective, its accountability to a trusted party is necessary. In theory, the electorate in our society was to have provided the answer through the election process.

But over the centuries, the power accrued to subsets of the voting electorate with less inclusive agendas. It in turn, took ever larger pieces of control from 'we the people' and gave it to those that thought it better to trust themselves to direct what belonged to all.

What the team had been investigating over the last two and a half years was the possibility of a democracy-driven private entity with the same privileges and powers afforded to the likes of corporations. Their predictive powers derived from the pursuit of subtle conversation in the soup and on the net, well documented in the log.

NOTE: Some of the foregoing in this BuzzTheHill post is not fictional. Consider its appearance here as a public disclosure and as such, to the degree something novel and not obvious to those skilled in the art has been discussed, the specific intent was/is to put it in the PUBLIC DOMAIN.

© 2012 Buzz Hill

Corruption in the Defense of Ownership

"Let us assume for purposes of this discussion that a private interest is secretly using public resources to surveil a political opponent. Further, that the public resources belong to a jurisdiction's law enforcement.

"A strong trend in the last decade is for cost-constrained governments to contract with private entities for surveillance equipment and the operation of such.

"Has a private and/or political interest piggybacked illegal activity on public protection? Making it illegal is moot if the activity is undetected or ignored."

"Our group of citizens contract with private entities that are above suspicion, - providing a counterweight to the misuse of tracking technology by the corrupted and/or co-opted."

© 2012 Buzz Hill