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. 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? On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 9:10 AM, Georgi Guninski <guninski@guninski.com> 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 <guninski@guninski.com> 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 < guninski@guninski.com> 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.