Neither goal is achievable? -Travis
On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 10:36 AM, Michael Best <[email protected]> wrote: > 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> >> > > -- 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>
