Since the source document is from GCHQ (Britain's NSA, if you like) it seems valid to ask whether similar workarounds by internationalisation are in place for disinfo (which this manifestly is about, right?) as seem to be in place for collection.

Which is to say that US netizens are quite likely among the prime targets here.

The practices alluded to - a battery of psychological techniques designed to influence group dynamics of, and disrupt the sharing of information by, online communities - seem at least as suitable for controlling dissent as for action against overtly illegal activities. How does destroying the reputation of a company help with the latter, for example?

I'll tell you what though, fascinating though this is, I wish we had got the 'real poop' - materials which must surely exist for the training alluded to, fleshing out the practical details, with illustrative examples!

Frankly, even though this is clear proof of what ANY informed person SHOULD HAVE ALREADY KNOWN...I want the REAL raw information.

I want the data on false flag stuff and covert James Bond missions.

Snowden needs to drop the REAL gems.

I agree.

Hey, any GCHQ 'magicians' here? C'mon, the cat's out of the bag... Lighten up! Strut your magic here and show us how it's done!

You know that story about the soccer match between the trenches.. This could be that, right?

The Christmas Truce is a fascinating subject. See eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_truce (I can recommend http://www.amazon.de/Der-kleine-Frieden-Gro%C3%9Fen-Krieg/dp... if you can read German.)

Please don't forget that Snowden gave all his documents away and is no longer in possession of them or disseminating them (other than his rumored insurance file). Future documents rely upon the few people he gave the documents too.

As a side note, this has been standard practice since the time of Hammurabi, where political asylum was granted but only if the seeker stopped agitating against his original state.

The whole point is that the targets of this activity have not been caught "doing illegal crap online." If they had been caught, the government would actually charge them with a crime.

Also note that the article is about the GCHQ, so anyone in the U.S. is "abroad" to them.

About your point 2:

You say it's fine if it's applied abroad. But assume that someone abroad is applying it to what is to them "abroad", that is, what to us is domestically. But it's a foreign operation trying to influence domestic policy. That is, to apply this against foreign operators, it may well need to be applied domestically.

Now, the gotcha: I see the need. But do I trust the NSA/CIA/FBI/whoever to apply it only against foreign-controlled domestic operations? No, I don't.

First, these people have not necessarily done anything illegal.

But let's say your facebook suddenly has "accidental" porn searches for "big black gay cocks". Or your picture mysteriously turns up in a set of pictures for Occupy Wall Street (dirty hippy!) even when you were not there.

However, the only good about this is that the more revelations come out the more courts and people will ignore internet "evidence". And that's as it should be.

> this is actual spy-craft and when applied abroad, I have NO qualms about using it to the USA's advantage

This is from the British spies. So using it abroad would be eg against the US.

(And why are foreigners worth less caring than Americans anyway?)