Asking to help explore the possibility and look for evidence that could either prove it or disprove it, more like.
On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 10:32 AM, Travis Biehn <[email protected]> wrote: > Mike, > > Nice troll, > > My point is that specifically the value of this 'navel gazing' or > hypothetical conversation is very limited. Since you have not proven it, > what data do you ask us to look at? This entire conversation asks us to > suspend our disbelief in order to discuss the possible motivations of an > unnamed attacker who faked a GCHQ slide. > > From the beginning I've maintained it was asinine and pointless, at worst > you're riling up the neophytes who don't understand what's going on. > > -Travis > > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 10:11 AM, Michael Best <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> I never said I proved the slide is fake, Travis. In fact, I've said >> several times that I've all done is prove that it could be fake. I said it >> in the mailing list and in the original posts on my site. >> >> *Please* try to read what you're criticizing/arguing/responding to. I >> know it can be hard, or boring, or frustrating, but it's essential to a >> dialogue that you respond to what the other person/side/position said and >> not confabulate something (as is human nature) or worse yet, build a >> strawman. >> >> Forcing your targets to *ahem* 'go dark' by instilling paranoia is >>> exactly the opposite of what 'an IA / TLA' wants. >> >> >> So categorical, monolithic and single minded! One might even say "overly >> so" lol >> >> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 10:02 AM, Travis Biehn <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Mike, >>> You haven't proven that they were fake. Being able to counterfeit a >>> dollar bill does not all dollar bills counterfeit make. It's been one giant >>> navel gazing exercise. >>> >>> These disclosures only serve to further confirm opsec procedures long >>> recommended and employed. This slide is an advertisement for Tor (which >>> some hold to be a government honeypot, I do not.) >>> >>> Forcing your targets to *ahem* 'go dark' by instilling paranoia is >>> exactly the opposite of what 'an IA / TLA' wants. >>> >>> -Travis >>> >>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 9:55 AM, Michael Best <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> 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. >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Twitter <https://twitter.com/tbiehn> | LinkedIn >>> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/travisbiehn> | GitHub >>> <http://github.com/tbiehn> | TravisBiehn.com >>> <http://www.travisbiehn.com> | Google Plus >>> <https://plus.google.com/+TravisBiehn> >>> >> >> > > > -- > Twitter <https://twitter.com/tbiehn> | LinkedIn > <http://www.linkedin.com/in/travisbiehn> | GitHub > <http://github.com/tbiehn> | TravisBiehn.com <http://www.travisbiehn.com> | > Google Plus <https://plus.google.com/+TravisBiehn> >
