Re: WHY make a fake GCHQ slide?
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
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
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
> 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
didn't get this them, 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>
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 <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
> > 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
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
> > 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
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
didn't get this them, trial is 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>
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 <tbiehn@gmail.com> 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 <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>
-- 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>
Neither goal is achievable? -Travis On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 10:36 AM, Michael Best <themikebest@gmail.com> 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 <tbiehn@gmail.com> 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 <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>
-- 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>
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 <tbiehn@gmail.com> wrote:
Neither goal is achievable?
-Travis
On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 10:36 AM, Michael Best <themikebest@gmail.com> 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 <tbiehn@gmail.com> 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 <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>
-- 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>
I understand what's going on. His style of disruption is quite common on political listservs On 10/12/2015 07:32 AM, Travis Biehn 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.
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
> > 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
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
> > 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
didn't get this them, 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>
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 <shelley@misanthropia.org> 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 <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.
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
Faking a slide like this would be a good way to inspire paranoia 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:
> >
> > 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
> 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
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
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joint_Threat_Research_Intelligence_Group&oldid=670966374 the trial 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>
On October 12, 2015 8:00:55 AM Travis Biehn <tbiehn@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm not accusing Mike of misrepresenting his 'findings.' I think that's a clear misread on his part.
-Travis
Really?
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.
You're contradicting yourself. What's frustrating is that I know you're not ignorant nor are you a troll (which can't be said for everyone inexplicably belaboring this issue.) *IF* this slide ends up being a fake, you really don't think that is significant? You don't think it's a worthwhile pursuit to investigate whether the press is using slides attributed to Snowden without properly vetting them, or if there is intentional disinfo and FUD going on?
On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 10:40 AM, Shelley <shelley@misanthropia.org> 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 <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>
-- 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>
Shelley, I'm pointing out that Mike cannot prove or disprove the legitimacy of the GCHQ slides by pursuing the motivations for doing so. Not that he misrepresented them as 'legitimate' rather my gripe is that he's trying to dispose them through a fruitless exercise. I also don't believe the consequences of establishing that one or more slides in the disclosure are fictitious would be of any concern. -Travis On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 11:14 AM, Shelley <shelley@misanthropia.org> wrote:
On October 12, 2015 8:00:55 AM Travis Biehn <tbiehn@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm not accusing Mike of misrepresenting his 'findings.' I think that's a
clear misread on his part.
-Travis
Really?
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.
You're contradicting yourself.
What's frustrating is that I know you're not ignorant nor are you a troll (which can't be said for everyone inexplicably belaboring this issue.)
*IF* this slide ends up being a fake, you really don't think that is significant? You don't think it's a worthwhile pursuit to investigate whether the press is using slides attributed to Snowden without properly vetting them, or if there is intentional disinfo and FUD going on?
On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 10:40 AM, Shelley <shelley@misanthropia.org> 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 <themikebest@gmail.com> wrote:
times that I've all done is prove that it could be fake. I said it in
I never said I proved the slide is fake, Travis. In fact, I've said several 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>
-- 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>
participants (4)
-
Michael Best -
Razer -
Shelley -
Travis Biehn