I think Snowden has become such a folk hero that some people may leap to defend what seems like an attack on him without taking as much time to look at the data/posts as they would otherwise.
On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 9:46 AM, Shelley <[email protected]> wrote: > On October 12, 2015 6:20:46 AM Michael Best <[email protected]> wrote: > > I tried to list their motives under the GCHQ/UK motives, who would be more >> likely to fake the slide anyway and are the ones alleged of having leaked >> documents to the Independent on behalf of JTRIG, are a fairly likely >> candidate. >> > > Yes, you did list a number of possibilities. It sometimes seems as though > the same few people do not read and/or comprehend responses before replying > to them. > > Faking a slide like this would be a good way to inspire paranoia >> and divide a community, no? It got Cryptome to post a notice on their site >> for a week or two, alerting people to the possibility that they'd been >> targeted by GCHQ by visiting Cryptome. Sounds like JTRIG-ish paranoia, no? >> > > Agreed. It could be an effective way to deter visitors to Cryptome, > possibly to divert attention away from something posted there around the > time this all began. > > -S > > > >> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 9:10 AM, Georgi Guninski <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> > >> > >> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joint_Threat_Research_Intelligence_Group&oldid=670966374 >> > >> > Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group >> > >> > In June 2015, NSA files published by Glenn Greenwald revealed new >> > details about JTRIG's work at covertly manipulating online >> > communities.[6] >> > >> > >> > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 08:58:33AM -0400, Michael Best wrote: >> > > > >> > > > So assuming Snowden "borrowed" the slide from the NSA and he didn't >> get >> > > >> > > owned, the slide is _REAL_. >> > > >> > > >> > > I don't think I understand your mean, if we assuming it's real, it >> > follows >> > > that it's real? I think I walked into a language barrier. >> > > >> > > >> > > > Having in mind Snowden likely have large pile of slides, if he got >> > > > owned, likely all/the majority of them would likely be fake. >> > > > Is this plausible? >> > > >> > > >> > > Not necessarily, that's not how disinfo works a lot of the time. >> > > >> > > And did you missed the us-natsec trolling about the eu appearing to >> > > > trust Snowden's slides (though sometimes they can't prove it)? >> > > >> > > >> > > No, there just wasn't much to respond to. >> > > >> > > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 8:55 AM, Georgi Guninski < >> [email protected]> >> > > wrote: >> > > >> > > > So assuming Snowden "borrowed" the slide from the NSA and he didn't >> get >> > > > owned, the slide is _REAL_. >> > > > >> > > > Having in mind Snowden likely have large pile of slides, if he got >> > > > owned, likely all/the majority of them would likely be fake. >> > > > >> > > > Is this plausible? >> > > > >> > > > And did you missed the us-natsec trolling about the eu appearing to >> > > > trust Snowden's slides (though sometimes they can't prove it)? >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 08:22:37AM -0400, Michael Best wrote: >> > > > > No but as I and others have noted, he didn't look at all of the >> > materials >> > > > > he handed over to journalists and couldn't possibly be expected to >> > > > remember >> > > > > all the ones he did see well enough to possibly be able to ID this >> > one as >> > > > > altered or forged. He was only able to argue against the other >> > documents >> > > > > because he had never been in touch with the outlet releasing them, >> > > > contrary >> > > > > to their apparent belief. >> > > > > >> > > > > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 8:19 AM, Georgi Guninski < >> > [email protected]> >> > > > > wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 07:50:14AM -0400, Michael Best wrote: >> > > > > > > As I think I said in the other thread, less specific charges >> that >> > > > require >> > > > > > > more specific proof and almost never leveled before a trial is >> > set, >> > > > > > because >> > > > > > > it forces the issue to be tried in the court of public >> opinion, >> > > > where a >> > > > > > lot >> > > > > > > of information can't be released lest it spoil an >> investigation >> > or >> > > > > > > potential trial. There's also the fact that there'd be little >> to >> > > > gain at >> > > > > > > this point by alleging that the slides are fake since there >> > would be >> > > > few >> > > > > > > people to believe it, >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > "NSA hasn't said it's fake" doesn't seem like a strong >> argument - >> > > > > > > especially for a non-NSA slide. And again - *Snowden himself* >> has >> > > > accused >> > > > > > > outlets of releasing slides attributed to him that *he says he >> > did >> > > > not >> > > > > > > provide*. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Likely the NSA would distribute fake slides just to discredit >> > Snowden. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Does Snowden deny the authencity of this slide? >> > > > > > >> > > > > > This slide appeared in _too many_ news AFAICT to get unnoticed. >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > >> > > >
