Conspiracy Theories

Tools    





Ever wonder about all those virus protection features & programs some of us pay for?

Or all those ads for various security / insurance programs they want you to buy to protect against identity theft and various electronic crimes?

I'm not saying there are not actual criminals out there infecting computers, using ransom wear or stealing identities... but did you ever wonder why or how you can't get a virus on an Apple computer or how you don't need virus protection for them? (Seriously, I have no idea how that works... or if people need virus or identity protection for their Smart Phones.)

Maybe... just maybe... the back door was left open on purpose. Create a threat, then charge people to pay the money to protect them from the threat (which basically defines extortion if the victim knows they are being threatened by the same people who will withdraw the threat if they get paid off). But we don't know if the people promising to protect against the threat are the ones who created the threat in the first place.

If some computers that access the Internet don't need virus protection, then why do any of them?

How do we know the companies charging us to protect us from viruses aren't the same people who invented the viruses, or invented the technology, making it purposefully so susceptible to viruses (when apparently they don't need to be)?



It's based on market size. People have often said "there are no viruses for Linux," but that's simply because there's no reason to make a virus for a tiny segment of the computer-using population (and, in Linux's case, a *very* disproportionately tech-savvy segment). It changes as other platforms gain market share.



You ready? You look ready.
Apple does have viruses: it's called Apple Updates.

Linux is not targeted because the people making viruses are usually using Linux to do it. And it is setup in a vastly different way so that, if you're not skilled, someone can get access without even having to hit you with a virus.

Also, most viruses are innocuous annoyances and nothing more, so yeah, it mostly is a bull**** excuse to get your money.

Before Windows 10 was released (it has free anti-virus built-in) I hadn't run an anti-virus program in over 5 years.

But truly, viruses are soooo last century. The thing you really need to be worried about today is social engineering.

__________________
"This is that human freedom, which all boast that they possess, and which consists solely in the fact, that men are conscious of their own desire, but are ignorant of the causes whereby that desire has been determined." -Baruch Spinoza



I (obviously) know little about computer programming or development. I can barely operate one (and I've never used a laptop and if someone hands me a tablet or a smartphone and tells me to feel free to go post on the MoFo site - they might has well have handed me a rock and told me to use it to design a space shuttle). I'm lost without a keyboard - as typing is my one real-world skill I learned in high school.

But your line: "Also, most viruses are innocuous annoyances and nothing more, so yeah, it mostly is a bull**** excuse to get your money." does confirm that I'm not completely off base despite my technical lack of knowledge.

What's disturbing is I've had Windows 10 for a few years now and pay McAfee over $100 a year for protection (should I drop that)?

I'd be scared because I seem to get viruses even with the protection (or is that just McAfee telling me it's blocking them so I continue to pay their "protection money")?

I also had one computer completely destroyed by a virus (according to experts that said my drive was damaged beyond repair) WHILE paying full price for Norton protection.

And what, exactly, do you mean by social engineering? (Does that include things like choosing your baby's eye color and cloning?)



...Linux is not targeted because the people making viruses are usually using Linux to do it. And it is setup in a vastly different way so that, if you're not skilled, someone can get access without even having to hit you with a virus...
That's very true, Linux operates different than Windows and that's the main reason it's much more secure.

Linux desktop usually doesn't have a problem with viruses/malware unless the end user does something wonky. That's because executable files don't run on Linux unless you give it permission by entering your password. I have Linux on my computer and I don't have any virus protection software or malware protection software and I don't need it.

This explains better than I can:
https://easylinuxtipsproject.blogspo.../security.html



....What's disturbing is I've had Windows 10 for a few years now and pay McAfee over $100 a year for protection (should I drop that)?
Yes, you should drop McAfee, but ONLY if you use Windows 10 built in antivirus called Windows Defender instead, as you do need to have some virus protection on your Windows computer. Windows Defender should be preinstalled on your computer and you would need to activate it, it's free and I've heard it's better than McAfee or Norton.
Read this article:
https://www.howtogeek.com/220232/how...on-windows-10/

I also had one computer completely destroyed by a virus (according to experts that said my drive was damaged beyond repair) WHILE paying full price for Norton protection.
I doubt a virus/malware could destroy your hard drive, but it could destroy Windows, that's what back ups are for.

And what, exactly, do you mean by social engineering? (Does that include things like choosing your baby's eye color and cloning?)
Social engineering means fake pop up ads that tricks someone into clicking the wrong thing and ends up downloading a virus/malware.



To add to what CR said, you can also get yourself an adblocker (uBlock origin being among one of the best) and NoScript. All of these combined should keep you mostly safe.



You ready? You look ready.
Windows has come a LONG way. Their Windows Defender app is designed to set the standard for all other apps.

So basically, Windows Defender is the minimum level that is being set by Microsoft and, while some apps might run better, other free apps have to meet this standard for a variety of features to work. I read an interesting article about how Microsoft is using it as a collection tool to improve its performance and thereby setting an increasingly higher level of security every 6 months.

Re: social engineering. So that recent twitter hack with the bitcoin stuff was done by pretending to be an IT worker and redirecting the internal workers to outside sites that were built to look the same to collect their passwords. A lot of these hacks are dependent upon the user giving secure information over freely.

As far as security goes...the safest way to get online is via an up to date mobile device (latest Android OS security updates or latest iOS update).



But your line: "Also, most viruses are innocuous annoyances and nothing more, so yeah, it mostly is a bull**** excuse to get your money." does confirm that I'm not completely off base despite my technical lack of knowledge.
I'm not sure how? It seems totally orthogonal. He's saying viruses aren't a big threat, not that viruses are released in some kind of mafia-protection-style racket, which is what I took to be your implication.

But yeah, I don't pay for antivirus stuff, and I don't know that you should, either, unless you have an unfortunate habit of clicking on links you don't know are from a trusted source or downloading lots of sketchy stuff. If you're moderately careful, the built-in stuff should be plenty. There's no conspiracy, there's just people who are worried and would rather pay than have to think much about it.

And what, exactly, do you mean by social engineering? (Does that include things like choosing your baby's eye color and cloning?)
It means hackers who do things like call your ISP or some other service provider and find ways to wiggle details out of them while pretending to be you, claiming such-and-such thing is lost, blah blah. Basically, human error of some kind though manipulation.



I'm not sure how? It seems totally orthogonal. He's saying viruses aren't a big threat, not that viruses are released in some kind of mafia-protection-style racket, which is what I took to be your implication.

But yeah, I don't pay for antivirus stuff, and I don't know that you should, either, unless you have an unfortunate habit of clicking on links you don't know are from a trusted source or downloading lots of sketchy stuff. If you're moderately careful, the built-in stuff should be plenty. There's no conspiracy, there's just people who are worried and would rather pay than have to think much about it.


It means hackers who do things like call your ISP or some other service provider and find ways to wiggle details out of them while pretending to be you, claiming such-and-such thing is lost, blah blah. Basically, human error of some kind though manipulation.
I think I'm suggesting something more like "planned obsolescence" rather than mafia style extortion.

A flaw is built in (a weakness or something designed to fail) - so then you have to buy more stuff from the same people who put the flaw in there to protect yourself from the flaw = in this case you need to buy the software to protect you from computer viruses.

The only reason I'm thinking along these conspiratorial lines is that it seems like the technology exists to build the protection right in at the start - which would make all the extraneous protection you have to purchase a racket and a mutual profit gain between computer developers (who could build the protection in, but won't) and the protection companies for something that is really unnecessary.

It's kind of like the plot of V for Vendetta!



That's quite a theory. Which is my polite way of saying I think it's pretty out there.

I think antivirus programs are totally on the up-and-up in that sense, I just think they're dying off and/or primarily for people who want to think less about what they click on. There is, sadly, no shortage of real-world risks, so I imagine making things easier for virus creators would be totally unnecessary. Overwhelmingly, the risks are still human error/insufficiently cautious clicking/downloading, to the point where it's hard to imagine there'd be even a noticeable blip in demand even if they wanted to risk their entire company on such a thing.



Operation Northwoods was pretty insane.

Crazy to think the US government planned to attack and murder its own innocent citizens in Miami as a False Flag operation, yet nobody seems to care about that.

Very hard to trust the government about anything after that.



"How tall is King Kong ?"
Very hard to trust the government about anything after that.
Yes. Sad thing is the wackiest conspiracy theorists always have this kind of argument in their favor. "What about Gulf War WMDs", etc. Governmental lies are a thing. They're so big a thing that politicians can lie openly, or even brag about lying, without fearing any loss of support. Whichever their ideological side. "Ends justify means", etc.

So, conspiracies can be wrong, or unlikely. They can be abusively assumed without any genuine grounds for it. But... can they be truly "crazy" ?

And this is the tip of the iceberg. There is no correlation between conspiracy beliefs and intelligence or idiocy, or irrationality. In fact, many radical systems of beliefs stem from "hyper-rationality" (that is : taking one postulate and pushing it faithfully to its logical, inhumane extremes, step by step) and "critical thought" (that is, not taking for granted the words of imposed authorities - even if this often leads to enormous blind spots about selected authorities). This, added to a collection of confirmation biases filtering contradictory information or over-blowing exploitable factoids, often motivated by self-investment, is why they form a closed, coherent system very difficult to dismantle. Intelligent people are actually very, very good at rationalizing their gut feelings (and quick to disqualify others). Manipulative people are very good at making others feel their ideas came from themselves, and this making them "own" these ideas as some intimate identity to defend.

If God exists then it's logical that His Word matters more than any earthly consideration, law or morals, and that any sacrifice of the self or of others in His Name is justified - but most people's own red flags get raised down such train of thoughts. If your Political Theory is truly the way to mankind's eternal happiness, then of course any temporary evil justifies eternal collective bliss. If humanity is endangered by this or that minority (of irredeemably scheming subhumans), then of course any drastic purification is justified for the sake of the Greater Good (the Greater Good !). Showing doubt or pity is just weakness, it's the proof of weak or dishonest beliefs. It is illogical, it is irrational.

And the logical, rational rabbit hole goes far, with a new "IF THEN" at each step. If they lied on this wouldn't they lie on that ? If the Guru guessed your feelings, can't he guess your mind ? If he reads your mind, can't he levitate ? If their goal is to achieve world dominance, would they have qualms about organizing this ? Each logical step is small, along a path which extremities would look absurd to each others. This is why cults try to sever their members' links with relatives still grounded in a different normality. Your reference point must stay your latest former step. "Far fetched" is relative - far from what ?

Ah, what I'm saying is that our relation to reality is fragile and mediate. It doesn't take an abnormal brain to lock itself in a bubble of radically alternative interpretations. Heck, even scientists live in a world of counter-intuitive causalities (anthropologists see cultural constructs in what societies deem "natural", quantum physicists see discontinuous grids of energy where we experience matter, geologists dwarf our notions of duration, biologists see your body as an ecosystem hosting quantities of lifeforms, astrophysicists see time when we see distance, etc). What is common sense ? Where do our worlds overlap, and when ?

This is not without consequences. Murder and destruction is sometimes at the end of these chained leaps of thought. And yet, they are so normal. So encoded in our limited fields of vision and cognitive processes. It frightens me how vulnerable we are to these paths of life. We all, we normal people, we functional human brains. Not the reassuring "them the crazies with their dysfunctional minds".

We the normal people who elected Hitler in Germany and genocided our Tutsi neighbors in Rwanda.



Operation Northwoods was pretty insane.

Crazy to think the US government planned to attack and murder its own innocent citizens in Miami as a False Flag operation, yet nobody seems to care about that.
There's a couple of inaccuracies here.

First, that they "planned" it; it was kind of floated, speculatively, but there's no evidence it was ever really considered, let alone had any chance of being enacted. I'll bet a lot of crazy ideas get merely floated (even just for the sake of analysis) over decades.

Second, the idea was not to "attack and murder its own innocent citizens," it was to fake such an attack. I'm kind of amazed at how many people I've heard misconstrue this part, which unfortunately speaks to the confirmation bias and telephone-esque nature of a lot of conspiracies.



There's a couple of inaccuracies here.

First, that they "planned" it; it was kind of floated, speculatively, but there's no evidence it was ever really considered, let alone had any chance of being enacted. I'll bet a lot of crazy ideas get merely floated (even just for the sake of analysis) over decades.

Second, the idea was not to "attack and murder its own innocent citizens," it was to fake such an attack. I'm kind of amazed at how many people I've heard misconstrue this part, which unfortunately speaks to the confirmation bias and telephone-esque nature of a lot of conspiracies.
It was approved by the joint Chiefs of Staff. The only reason it didn’t happen was because JFK wouldn’t sign off.

And they were going to kill American citizens. They were going to blow up an airliner filled with passengers and shoot and kill people in the streets of Miami.

The documents are all there to view under the Freedom of Information Act. If you feel inclined, have a look.



Re: government lies and conspiracies.

I'm someone who has a very healthy distrust of government, but part of that is about its competence, and doubts about its competence cut directly against its ability to enact (and keep secret) conspiracies.

It's really hard to keep big secrets among any significant number of people. Any conspiracy theory, therefore, has to have a specific explanation (beyond something handwavey about how everybody but the theorists are sheep, or something) about how its managed to avoid exposure, and the more people would have to be in on it, the more robust that explanation has to be.



It was approved by the joint Chiefs of Staff. The only reason it didn’t happen was because JFK wouldn’t sign off.
The document says "preliminary planning," and more to the point, the operation as a whole includes several things that have absolutely nothing to do with U.S. citizens, so to whatever degree it did advance can be said to reflect consideration of those things, and not every single idea mentioned therein. It even specifically says things are to be considered on a "case-by-case basis." Then it says it again later.

And they were going to kill American citizens. They were going to blow up an airliner filled with passengers and shoot and kill people in the streets of Miami.
I have no idea where you're getting this. The actual memo specifically makes reference to "mock funerals" (in the case of a ship) and an "a drone (unmanned)." The reference to a civilian aircraft later, expounding on the latter, specifically details the creation of a duplicate to move the passengers to and a lot of comically convoluted ways of making it seem real.

The documents are all there to view under the Freedom of Information Act. If you feel inclined, have a look.
I have.



I think I'm suggesting something more like "planned obsolescence"
There's plenty of other examples of this. A famous one is when Apple got caught automatically throttling their phones' speed in older models. The excuse was that it helped battery power, but it was clearly meant to coerce customers into buying new phones. Apple paid out 113 million to settle the case.



Yeah, I put Northwoods in the same category as the CIA plot to defoliate Castro's beard.



I don't think I've seen or read through this thread yet.


There's a very good introductory essay at the beginning of Robert Anton Wilson's Everything Is Under Control, an amusing but perfunctory encyclopedia of online conspiracy theory in the late 90s. It deals with the psychology of conspiracy theory, which can manifest as 'conspiracism', which some consider to be a mental illness but is actually a form of other illnesses through the filter of conspiracy beliefs. I enjoy conspiracy theories, whether as intriguing alt-history or as feral entertainment. Going down a rabbit hole is great fun as a creative exercise. And, obvious to anyone with a basic standard of literacy (ie, Machiavelli), there have been and are conspiracies in our midst.


But I think we all probably know somebody who we may call a conspiraholic, someone who simply can't handle the intoxication of revelation. There are those who simply have never met a conspiracy theory that they're incapable of disbelieving, and this usually produces some wildly convoluted mega-theories which are also fun in a mad-libs kind of way. (ex: Obama being a subject of a CIA Martian teleportation study in college.)


I think that the optimal approach to conspiracy research is to avoid belief at all cost. Not that you wouldn't make truth-value assessments at times (another ex: I'm currently inclined to believe the WIV leak theory), but that in such scenarios, we should avoid any absolute convictions. This is not only important in cases where further information may embarrass your premature judgment, but also to prevent the kind of "I Want To Believe" enthusiasms, a zealotry that rivals religious fervor or tribal identity, from taking root. Too many conspiracy theories are engined by such motivated certainty that it's all too easy to dismiss. But good conspiracies are like successful lies, they tend to have a percentage of truth within them, and all too often, in a parallel fallacy of binary absolutism, many people will see a BS shell and discount the authentic kernal.


I wish more people were more wise.