What's new

Honeypots/traps & plausible deniability...

EP - Ethics Particle

Gold Meritorious Patron
I had a flash of insight the other evening involving the two items mentioned in the thread title and linking them in a most amorphous and convoluted way with "conspiracy theories" :unsure:

Some definitions, below, may serve to generate some sharing of observations, opinions and experiences from others on this forum about the forum and scn in general. :confused2: :whistling:

" In espionage, a honeypot, more often called a honeytrap, is a trap set to capture, kill or compromise a person, commonly but not necessarily an opposition agent, officer, or employee, using sex as the lure. There are many ways in which the technique can be used to gain advantage. If the target is genuinely attached to the person who seduces him (see recruitment through friendship or romance), information can be obtained over a long period — the target may trust his or her seducer enough to reveal secrets, or may even change his allegiance due to emotional attachment. Even if the target does not deliberately give information to his seducer, the seducer may accidentally be given opportunities to obtain it herself. A long-term relationship is not necessarily the goal (see casual sex and recruitment), however — the technique can also be used to blackmail those who later regret their actions. Incriminating photographs can be an effective tool of coercion, for example. Sometimes, the technique is nothing more than a means of getting the target to lower his guard so that he may be captured or killed, or getting him to go to a location where this is more easily accomplished. The most common employment of this technique is by women, either female intelligence agents or (if the purpose is simply to obtain material for blackmail) prostitutes. Some intelligence agencies, particularly in the Soviet bloc, are alleged to have agents (called "swallows") specially trained for this purpose. Not all traps are carried out by women, however; sometimes, women are ensnared by male agents, and sometimes same-sex traps are used. (The latter were particularly effective during times, or in countries, where homosexuality was taboo, and the very fact that an agent was homosexual was material suitable for blackmail.) Quite often, alcohol is involved, as any inhibitions the target has will be reduced."

How would you programmatically design a "black net" where peer to peer-like data exchange (file transfer, chat etc) is possible but the anonymity of the seeder/sender(s) is either entirely hidden or at least all participants have 'plausible deniability', meaning their exact involvement and/or knowledge of transactions or activity on the system can't be proven beyond any reasonable doubt?

A conspiracy theory is a term that has come to refer to any tentative theory which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful Machiavellian conspirators, such as a "secret team" or "shadow government".

Jus sayin' :eyeroll:

EP
 

olska

Silver Meritorious Patron
...
"In espionage, a honeypot, more often called a honeytrap, is a trap set to capture, kill or compromise a person, commonly but not necessarily an opposition agent, officer, or employee, using sex as the lure.
...

For example, Monica Lewinski trapping President Bill Clinton in a sexual encounter that was later used in efforts to impeach him.
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
Not sure exactly what you're looking for, but such 'ops' are fairly common for the 'Church' of Scientology. Most notable, Paulette Cooper's 'boyfriend' who was a direct operative of the 'Church' or Jolie Stechart, who, masquerading as Laura Terepin, infiltrated CAN and attempted to infiltrate other groups/circles and developed a wide range of 'friendships' of many natures, including a number of attempted or successful intimate relationships.

But, stick to the 'honey traps', since honey pots are the buckets of human waste common in Asia and used for fertilizer :)

Zinj
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
For example, Monica Lewinski trapping President Bill Clinton in a sexual encounter that was later used in efforts to impeach him.

Nah. That was just stupidity. A honey trap would presume a *deliberate* seduction with malicious intent.

Zinj
 

olska

Silver Meritorious Patron
Nah. That was just stupidity. A honey trap would presume a *deliberate* seduction with malicious intent.

In my opinion, that's exactly what it was.

Ah, men! So easily manipulated!

IMO you (and many many others) were fooled by the actress Lewinsky, who played so well the part of the insecure, "poor little fat girl" from Brentwood, CA who was so "in love," but suddenly woke up and changed her mind about that "love" immediately after obtaining the "evidence."

What woman gets that kind of "evidence" on her dress and then, instead of taking it to the cleaners, hangs it in her closet?

And the "tell all" book (which no one you or anyone else knows ever bought and read) was how she was paid for her performance. Very clever!
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
well, I'm a big fan of conspiracy theories, but Lewinski could have been much more effectively used if there had been one. The 'malicious intent' seems to me to be located much more with Linda Tripp than Monica, and, I don't think she was part of any organized attack; just a nasty bitch doing what she liked to do.

Zinj
 

EP - Ethics Particle

Gold Meritorious Patron
English - homonymic with multiple definitions!

For example, Monica Lewinski trapping President Bill Clinton in a sexual encounter that was later used in efforts to impeach him.

Not sure exactly what you're looking for, but such 'ops' are fairly common for the 'Church' of Scientology.

...snip...

Zinj

Nah. That was just stupidity. A honey trap would presume a *deliberate* seduction with malicious intent.

Zinj

What if the malicious intent was no more ambitious that to stir up petty squabbles, waste everyone's time, cause some to be disgusted and stop participating, etc. :confused2:

The game of life is multi-leveled and many faceted - and Scientology seduced me with words alone...:ohmy: :duh:

My hope is that others are not similarly lured in and fleeced in the deal. :yes:

And yeah - Bill was REALLY stupid. :melodramatic: And also very lucky in that particular instance, in my opinion.
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
Anyway, to get back to your original question, while the 'Church' might well *try* to create its own 'Trojan Forums' they'd have little hope of success, nor is it particularly necessary, because they can play those kinds of 'ops' perfectly well using existing sites, which they have and continue to do. If they did have their *own* sites, that might offer some level of extra information not available when operating elsewhere, but, it would also be an unnecessary liability in offering an actual 'connection' to the 'Church'.

They've got enough problems with their 'religiousfreedumb' type sites and even more, the 'sporge' attack/fiasco on ARS probably scared the shit out of them, once the connection over Jim Rego and Bill Yaude was exposed.

Zinj
 

Carmel

Crusader
A 'tip' for the men

Anyway, to get back to your original question, while the 'Church' might well *try* to create its own 'Trojan Forums' they'd have little hope of success, nor is it particularly necessary, because they can play those kinds of 'ops' perfectly well using existing sites, which they have and continue to do.
<snip>
Yep, existing sites is where they'd do it, and the "honeytrap op" would be one of the most effective ops potentially, because of the "plausible deniability" and because half the people on these sites are men - even the most intelligent of men, can and do get sucked in by the "honeytrap". :yes:

The "operation" of the honeytrap can also be used in everyday life (although it is rare). I recall a situation where there were a group of five couples, with families, who had been together as very good mates for a couple of decades. One of the couples split up, and a new wife came onto the scene. She was very lovable/likeable. Everyone in the group welcomed her with open arms. She never took a step wrong, she never criticised anybody, and she became everyone's buddy. After a couple of years when "trust" was established, she started doing her work (her 'own' "honeytrap op"), although it wasn't evident to anyone within the group at that time. Within a relatively short period of time, that group of mates were in conflict and divided. It was clear to two of the women within the group, what had gone down, but it wasn't clear to any of the others in the group until a couple of years after the various 'storms' had subsided. Even then though, what went down still wasn't clear and/or accepted by the men within the group.

She played the men well, very well. Besides never having a cross word with any of the men, and always flowing them love and admiration, she "third partied" in a very clever way. She didn't just have a quiet word with A and say something like "Did ya know that C who was married to D had a pash with F last week?". She'd more likely turn on tears, so A would come and comfort her. She'd play it so that A would have to pull it out of her, to get what was on her mind. And even then she wouldn't say it straight up. During the 'comfort session' with A though, and during the tears, she'd 'let it slip' that D had a pash with F.

The third party was well hidden (if it wasn't, it wouldn't have been accepted or it would have at least been questioned). Given the way it was presented though, A would take it on board, and keep his mouth shut after an emotional plea from the woman to do so. In this example, D didn't have a pash with F, but why would A doubt it when this loving, non-critical woman, just let it slip during a stream of tears while pouring her heart out? - Nice tactic! Why wouldn't A fall for it hook line and sinker (especially as he was a male an' all :coolwink: ). Well, he would and did fall for her 'act' on several occasions, just like the others in the group did too.

Because "trust" was established with this woman, some 'secrets' were shared with her. Some of these secrets were later 'used' by this woman, as a means to manipulate and dominate a couple of people in the group who became wise to her 'game' - 'Clever' stuff!

Without the "honeytrap" aspect, the "third party" wouldn't have worked and the degree of "trust" wouldn't have been, AND, the old group of friends wouldn't have been in conflict, then divided like they were, as a result of it - In the end, a couple of people in the group 'calling her out' added to the conflict because others in the group considered the "calling her out" to be slander of one of their 'own'.

The "honeytrap op" is a clever one. It's generally not seen till it's too late, and even then, because of the "plausible deniability", it is often still not seen nor accepted. It's one to be aware of in life, on this forum and any other forum - The hardest to see, and the one which can do the most damage, IMO.
 

Mystic

Crusader
Oh baby, sucker me!

But yes, the clams have been using the honeypot for decades. I've even know some of the pots.
 

Carmel

Crusader
Whatever, whichever, whoever......the "honeypot" is a real thing, and the most "undetectable" of all - Definitely something one should be aware of and alert to, if one doesn't wanna get sucked into supporting an 'enemy' (and, whether that "enemy" happens to be OSA or not - One doesn't have ta be OSA to cause havoc).
 
Top