I'm not accusing Mike of misrepresenting his 'findings.' I think that's a clear misread on his part.
-Travis On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 10:40 AM, Shelley <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't recall Mike ever saying the words, "this slide is a fake." > > What is being put forth for discussion and review is the following: > > With the log files that were included in the Cryptome archive, > > *anyone* with access to those files could have made that slide, > > because the data in the log files are from the same time period referred > to in the slide. > > Why is this so hard to comprehend? I feel like this list has branched off > into some alternate timeline where logic and critical thinking do not exist! > > -S > > > On October 12, 2015 7:21:16 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>
