Spoken like a true researcher, free of fatalism, beyond bias and too pure to prejudge an issue.
On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 10:45 AM, Travis Biehn <[email protected]> wrote: > 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> >
