On October 12, 2015 6:55:04 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.
That's a fair point. That's why it's so dangerous to beatify anyone; it's an all too easy exploit for TLAs and other bad actors to use. It's like screaming into the ether, though...
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
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
get 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. > >