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 <themikebest@gmail.com> 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 <tbiehn@gmail.com> 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 <themikebest@gmail.com>
> 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 <shelley@misanthropia.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On October 12, 2015 6:20:46 AM Michael Best <themikebest@gmail.com>
>>> 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 <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.
>>>> > > > > >
>>>> > > >
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --

> 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>
>