Social engineering has been used since long before the internet, to garner interest in various topics. Come the connected age of the internet, and the speed at which information can be disseminated, we’ve seen social engineering take on a life of its own – whether used for good or for bad.
A good example is the Anna Kournikova Virus, a computer virus which was spread via email in 2000, by inferring that an attachment was in fact a picture of Russian tennis star of the time, Anna Kournikova. Given the attention that men in particular gave to Kournikova, clicking what might be a hot picture of her was an enticing proposition.
That’s how it works. That’s social engineering. Exploiting a common mindset to get people to take notice of what you are doing or trying to say.
It was with interest that I read this tweet this morning, purporting – (or at least suggesting) – that the Australian Greens had made what would be a massive policy backflip, and reversed their opposition to the proposed mandatory internet filter.
The article it refers to – (linked below) – was from technology blog Gizmodo, and was written by Australian Sex Party candidate, Fiona Patten.
| Classification and Internet Censorship as an Election Issue |
The interesting paragraph in this article is as follows:
“It was this sudden faltering of the Greens on the issue that caused me to run against them in that election. In the Higgins by election, the Labor, Coalition and Greens candidates all backed an internet filtering scheme and only the Sex Party stood against it. To understand the real intent and nature of the internet filtering scheme requires an understanding of how the Christian right has infiltrated politics in Australia and how they deal with Labor, the Coalition and the Greens.”
While the article does make inferences as to the Greens true feelings towards this policy point, I don’t think it any way tries to suggest that the Greens have reversed their position. Fiona Patten is merely putting forward her view on this policy, and presenting what is presumably the position of the Australian Sex Party. In a democratic society going through the process of a federal election, it is great to see a candidate/party engaging with the public in appropriate forums – as Gizmodo is for a technology-based policy.
What really irked me was that the original tweet – obviously designed to get an emotional response from the anti-filter community – was retweeted by any number of people. In this day and age of social networking, a retweet is a “vote” for the content of the original tweet, however it seems that many of the retweeters did not actually read the article – and therefore did not confirm to themselves – that the Greens had made a policy backflip.
Which of course they hadn’t. I quickly questioned both Senator Scott Ludlam and candidate for the seat of Melbourne Adam Bandt if they could publicly reiterate their position. Bandt categorically responded that no change in policy had occurred. Ludlam responded with a query as to where the thought had come from.
The original tweeter used the very emotive issue of the internet filter to try and scare people into thinking there had been a significant change in policy. The vote of the Greens in the senate will have a very real effect on the success or failure of the filter legislation.
Merely by making the suggestion through a “trusted” information source as the #nocleanfeed / #openinternet campaign, that a change had occurred, a social engineering effort made any number of people take it at face value that the policy had changed, and retweeted it.
Just as many people were caught out looking at the Anna Kournikova virus at face value, and were very seriously caught out. The Greens do not support mandatory internet filtering, and nothing has changed.