On 10/09/2015 06:22 PM, Shelley wrote: > On October 9, 2015 4:51:44 PM Jeremy Compton <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I am not surprised that GCHQ does what you claim it does. >> > > Have you read about this from the beginning? If so, you'd know that > Mike Best is not the one claiming that the GCHQ slide is real. He is > trying to establish whether nearly anyone could have made the slide with > the logs Cryptome leaked/distributed/whatever, unwittingly or > otherwise. That's all, and I don't know how a researcher trying to > verify data has become a giant shitstorm.
Maybe because Mike _published_ the fucking logs, just because JYA was doing the mirror shades thing about whether the archive was or was not genuine? I mean, JYA can be a very funny man. For sure. But does that justify publishing Cryptome access logs? > -S > >> Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 19:11:50 -0400 >> Subject: [cryptome] >> From: [email protected] >> To: [email protected] >> >> To the original point, the GCHQ Snowden slide. Cryptome accusing me of >> faking the data was a diversion. Only had to verify it because of the >> GCHQ slide. >> From: Jeremy Compton <j.compton@xxxxxxxxxxx>To: >> "cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>Date: Sat, 10 Oct >> 2015 12:00:48 +1300So, now you have named and shamed Cryptome for this >> grievance you have, whereto >> know? >> > > >
