Astroturfing, sockpuppets & crowd renting: ft. Crowds On Demand & Weiner plus HBGary vs Anonymous & WikiLeaks This submission stems from research I undertook a while back, regarding the following article: zerohedge.com - Paid Protest Firm "Crowds On Demand" Sued In $23 Million Extortion Plot (v/QRV) The article briefly discusses paid protesters in relation to the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings, but the main focus was Crowds On Demand, so what I did was research them further. Yes, this could be considered old news, but I think it's highly relevant and valuable reading given what's been going on around here recently and over the last few years.   [1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowds_on_Demand | https://archive.vn/L4MIh]: Just before the November 2012 election, company founder Swart said that the company was considering a request by a candidate for a staged political protest.[2] According to an article in the New York Post, Anthony Weiner paid Crowds on Demand actors to attend campaign rallies during his 2013 campaign for mayor of New York City.[7] 1: [2]: https://archive.vn/GLlwu 1: [7]: https://archive.vn/auGfe So far, I've not seen any debunking of the NY Post article & the only denial of the allegations came from a spokeswoman for Weiner. [1: 7]: Crowds on Demand had no comment. Weiner’s camp denied employing the company. “We’ve never heard of this company and certainly never used them,” said spokeswoman Barbara Morgan. “We are proud we’ve always had the biggest and most fired-up crowds. That’s enthusiasm the other campaigns just can’t buy.” Soon after that statement, the campaign released a new commercial using interns to pose as regular New Yorkers who support the long-shot candidate. So, while this situation regarding Weiner's 2013 mayoral run is not yet fully confirmed by me, there's little reason to believe the statement released by Barbara Morgan and as yet, nobody has come out to completely disprove the article. I would say there's a high probability that Weiner's campaign did hire Crowds On Demand. Also from the Crowds On Demand wiki[1], mentioned in the zerohedge article: In May 2018, the outfit made New Orleans news as word got out that energy firm Entergy had used "astroturfing" tactics - paid actors - to speak at a March city council hearing in support of a proposed controversial natural gas power plant, and in opposition to solar and wind power.[9][10] 1: [9]: https://archive.vn/EUNxX There's that word, "astroturfing";   First, we'll look at the definition & techniques. Then look at a relevant case study involving attacks against WikiLeaks. Note that software does exist to aid in astroturfing and the use of sockpuppets. [2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing | https://archive.vn/mF8Nh]: Astroturfing is the practice of masking the sponsors of a message or organization (e.g., political, advertising, religious or public relations) to make it appear as though it originates from and is supported by grassroots participants. It is a practice intended to give the statements or organizations credibility by withholding information about the source's financial connection. The term astroturfing is derived from AstroTurf, a brand of synthetic carpeting designed to resemble natural grass, as a play on the word "grassroots." The implication behind the use of the term is that instead of a "true" or "natural" grassroots effort behind the activity in question, there is a "fake" or "artificial" appearance of support. See also: "Definition" section.[2] Use of one or more front groups is one astroturfing technique. These groups typically present themselves as serving the public interest, while actually working on behalf of a corporate or political sponsor.[24] Front groups may resist legislation and scientific consensus that is damaging to the sponsor's business by emphasizing minority viewpoints, instilling doubt and publishing counterclaims by corporate-sponsored experts.[3] Fake blogs can also be created that appear to be written by consumers, while actually being operated by a commercial or political interest.[25] Some political movements have provided incentives for members of the public to send a letter to the editor at their local paper, often using a copy and paste form letter that is published in dozens of newspapers verbatim.[26] Another technique is the use of sockpuppets, where a single person creates multiple identities online to give the appearance of grassroots support. Sockpuppets may post positive reviews about a product, attack participants that criticize the organization, or post negative reviews and comments about competitors, under fake identities.[16][27] Astroturfing businesses may pay staff based on the number of posts they make that are not flagged by moderators.[22] Persona management software may be used so that each paid poster can manage five to seventy convincing online personas without getting them confused.[23][28]~ In the 2nd paragraph above, we see mention of "sockpuppets"; [3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_(Internet) | https://archive.vn/Xxsom]: A sockpuppet is an online identity used for purposes of deception. The term, a reference to the manipulation of a simple hand puppet made from a sock, originally referred to a false identity assumed by a member of an Internet community who spoke to, or about, themselves while pretending to be another person.[1] The term now includes other misleading uses of online identities, such as those created to praise, defend or support a person or organization,[2] to manipulate public opinion,[3] or to circumvent a suspension or ban from a website. A significant difference between the use of a pseudonym[4] and the creation of a sockpuppet is that the sockpuppet poses as an independent third-party unaffiliated with the puppeteer. Sockpuppets are unwelcome in many online communities and may be blocked.   In the "Detection" subsection of the "Techniques" section of the Astroturfing wiki[2], we see: Persona management software can age accounts and simulate the activity of attending a conference automatically to make it more convincing that they are genuine.[32] At HBGary, employees are given separate thumb drives that contain online accounts for individual identities and visual cues to remind the employee which identity they are using at the time.[32]~ [4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HBGary | https://archive.vn/LsjnH]: In 2010, Aaron Barr, CEO of HBGary Federal, alleged that he could exploit social media to gather information about hackers.[3] In early 2011, Barr claimed to have used his techniques to infiltrate Anonymous,[3][11][12] partly by using IRC, Facebook, Twitter, and by social engineering.[3][13] His e-mails depict his intention to release information on the identities of Anonymous members at the B-Sides conference and to sell it to possible clients,[3][14] including the FBI.[15] In the e-mails, Barr explained that he identified his list of suspected Anonymous "members" by tracing connections through social media, while his main programmer criticized this methodology.[3][16] In a communiqué, Anonymous denied association with the individuals that Barr named.[17][18] On February 5–6, 2011, Anonymous compromised the HBGary website, copied tens of thousands of documents from both HBGary Federal and HBGary, Inc., posted tens of thousands of both companies' emails online, and usurped Barr's Twitter account in apparent revenge.[13][19][20] Anonymous also claimed to have wiped Barr's iPad remotely, though this act remains unconfirmed.[3][14][21][22] The Anonymous group responsible for these attacks would go on to become LulzSec.[23] Some of the documents taken by Anonymous show HBGary Federal was working on behalf of Bank of America to respond to WikiLeaks' planned release of the bank's internal documents.[4][24] "Potential proactive tactics against WikiLeaks include feeding the fuel between the feuding groups, disinformation, creating messages around actions to sabotage or discredit the opposing organization, and submitting fake documents to WikiLeaks and then calling out the error."[25] In additional emails published in November 2016 by Wikileaks, two employees of HBGary referenced a blog post that endorsed manipulating translation software in order to 'mitigate' damaging content within information leaks.[26] Emails indicate Palantir Technologies, Berico Technologies, and the law firm Hunton & Williams (recommended to Bank of America by the US Justice Department)[15] all cooperated on the project.[25] Other e-mails appear to show the U.S. Chamber of Commerce contracted the firms to spy on and discredit unions and liberal groups.[27][28] The conflict with Anonymous caused substantial public relations damage. As a result, the involved organizations took steps to distance themselves from HBGary and HBGary Federal 2 notable 'steps' include[4]: