Assange Journalism
Matt Taibbi reports on Assange in Rolling Stone in a one of the more salient grasps of what journalism has missed about WikiLeaks feeding its maw. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/taibbi-julian-assange-ca... A noteworthy observation is how all the risk is taken by leakers not by publishers and journalists -- nor by WikiLeaks and Assange. Nearly every major leak to WikiLeaks (and the media) has led to the leaker being hammered while the publishers are awarded prizes, as with WikiLeaks. That is evident from the number of leakers who have been severly punished while WikiLeaks and Assange is showered with glory.and repetitive news coverage. Wikipedia's WikiLeaks entry is grotesque. That's asymmetric racketeering side of leakage, to the benefit of journalists, publishers, lawyers and public interest organizations, all of whom are granted special privileges by authorities and in many cases handsome donations from fat cats through tax benefits. Its as if by overdoing lauding Assange and WikiLeaks those who have taken the highest risk can be slighted with impunity. Only fools would leak if they knew what is in store for them, not just the brief attention dispensed by outlets. Anonymity, non-tracability and comsec, always, if leak you must. Before proceeding, think twice, thrice, avoid believing the glory stories. Else you're cannon fodder for information generals.
On Sat, Nov 24, 2018 at 02:06:46PM -0500, John Young wrote:
Matt Taibbi reports on Assange in Rolling Stone in a one of the more salient grasps of what journalism has missed about WikiLeaks feeding its maw.
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/taibbi-julian-assange-ca...
A noteworthy observation is how all the risk is taken by leakers not by publishers and journalists -- nor by WikiLeaks and Assange.
Nearly every major leak to WikiLeaks (and the media) has led to the leaker being hammered while the publishers are awarded prizes, as with WikiLeaks.
That is evident from the number of leakers who have been severly punished while WikiLeaks and Assange is showered with glory.and repetitive news coverage. Wikipedia's WikiLeaks entry is grotesque.
That's asymmetric racketeering side of leakage, to the benefit of journalists, publishers, lawyers and public interest organizations, all of whom are granted special privileges by authorities and in many cases handsome donations from fat cats through tax benefits.
Its as if by overdoing lauding Assange and WikiLeaks those who have taken the highest risk can be slighted with impunity. Only fools would leak if they knew what is in store for them, not just the brief attention dispensed by outlets.
Anonymity, non-tracability and comsec, always, if leak you must. Before proceeding, think twice, thrice, avoid believing the glory stories. Else you're cannon fodder for information generals.
Of course. And if you're leaking "for the glory" then pride is definitely the rake about to smack you in the face as you step on it - and deservedly so! Just ask me about humility... Assange is being targetted. Greenwald and the "leaking" Jewish MSM? Please! (((Legacy Stream Media))) are sanctioned since they are well and truly controlled. Assange showed how pretty much anyone with a little determination can operate (as publisher of leaks) outside that cabal ... and so an example must be made of Assange, and has been, continues to be, and looks like shall be soon in a significant way - let's see. Who would duplicate Assange, knowing that some form of prison is most likely to cut you off from the world, your children/ family, etc for a decade? (Well I know a couple of folks, but they're rare as it gets.) We know this much - no matter which foundational principle one stands on, the hordes shall be set upon you, and not just from this realm either, as we're dealing with literal satanists literally doing very evil things. As I understand it John, you personally demonstrated (still do) the precursor to Wikileaks. Jim Bell took a massive hit - double decade long slice from his life, essentially for merely publishing a paper. Assange is 8 years and counting, with his family and children not allowed to visit him. I know some in Australia who've paid the price of their family, and a year or more "at her Majesty's pleasure" (i.e. in jail) for their respective stands for human rights and basic principles. In every single case I know of, from yours to those yet to be published, a significant "price" has always been paid. We can debate the "insufficiency of warnings" from Wikileaks to potential leakers, and you may have a good point, but such "improvements" will never detract from the very real price paid personally by Assange - let's not forget this. Standing on any foundational principle is a damnably tough haul. Anyone thinking otherwise is heartily encouraged to bloody well stand already and show us all how it's -really- done, with true blue balls bro (or ovaries as the case may be). Travel well John, and please excuse any strawmen I just shot down…
On 11/24/18 2:06 PM, John Young wrote:
Matt Taibbi reports on Assange in Rolling Stone in a one of the more salient grasps of what journalism has missed about WikiLeaks feeding its maw.
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/taibbi-julian-assange-ca...
Very impressive article - Matt Taibbi has clearly been paying professional attention to the leakage bizniz. I would guess he did some in depth research based on the question of how he should proceed if offered "red hot" classified docs. Or maybe, after being handed same - in which case he decided to steer clear. I only spotted one error: He attributed the disclosure of NSA tapping Merkel's phones to Snowden, but that was another actor - likely employed at NSA in Germany, and a damn sight better at hide and sneak than good ole Ed.
A noteworthy observation is how all the risk is taken by leakers not by publishers and journalists -- nor by WikiLeaks and Assange.
Nearly every major leak to WikiLeaks (and the media) has led to the leaker being hammered while the publishers are awarded prizes, as with WikiLeaks.
No duh, as they say. I'm about two nines confident that Greenwald's Intercept deliberately burned Reality Winner. Can incompetence alone account for Intercept employees contacting the affected organization to 'fact check' the article in advance of publication by giving away their source's location, then publishing both the serial number of the printer she used, and the date/time she printed the documents? (I pulled the watermarks off an image I downloaded from The Intercept shortly after the story broke, using a freeware image editing program.) Speaking of Greenwald, how about the hatchet job his partner in crime, Laura Poitras, did on both IO Error and Mendax in her Risk film? Random spiteful bitch, or faithful CIA asset? Either way, fat USIC paycheck and/or mega-cred in toxic pseudo-feminist circles accomplished. At least it's a classier way to attention-whore than punching an alt-Reich asshole. We can't leave out Ed Snowden, international man of mystery. How early was he spotted, and to what extent was he manipulated to assure that specific documents would be among those he handed off to a press contact? Hell, DID the published docs come from him? Given the number he claims to have handed off, Ed himself would not be likely to know for sure. How was Snowden's choice of Greenwald assured, and was his life in danger up to the moment he chose the right non-journalist to pass his docs off to? How long did it take him to realize he had been played - or has he even figured that out yet? To date his public presentation in exile remains consistent with making the best of that particular bad situation. A funny thing happened to the allegedly thousands of documents Ed handed to Glenn for publication: After promising Snowden he would release all the docs within ten days of breaking the first big story, Glenn sold them all to the highest bidder, Pierre Omidyar. If Greenwald's claims about how many docs there were are to be believed, over 99% were either destroyed, or locked up securely for blackmail use by his new employer. All I know for sure about the Snoweden Affair is that once the dust settled, the U.S. intelligence community got everything it wanted: Not just authorization to continue illegal domestic surveillance programs, but a clear precedent that U.S. intelligence officials are allowed to tell lies under oath in Congressional hearings, with no consequences other than high-fives back at the office later. "Almost as if" the USIC had lots of advance warning and got to pick the specific battles themselves, with specific purposes in mind. A suggested leaker's protocol: Pardon my language but "fuck journalists." They need have no role until /after/ all your red hot docs are in the public domain. 1) Use an extraordinary physical security protocol to upload an encrypted archive of your docs to the I2P torrent network. Clues: You need a "clean" laptop from a flea market, a home made high gain antenna, and a conveniently located open WiFi hot spot. Don't forget to scramble your MAC address before plugging in the antenna. Include one or more "medium value" docs in the clear, to assure interest in your uploaded archive. In your description of the torrent, promise the key will be published under the same user name within a given time frame. 2) A few days later, use the same security protocol, from a location at least hundreds of miles away from your first upload site, to post the key (a pass phrase, see diceware.com) on the same torrent tracker site in I2P space. 3) Destroy everything used in the above process, and resume your "normal" life. Mission accomplished, you got the docs into more than enough hands to assure public release at /minimal/ personal risk. Better alternatives to this protocol are solicited... And remember, on the day you brag about your success start a countdown timer to your arrest and conviction, if not death by natural causes. :o)
Very nicely put, Steve, thanks for taking such care… Every media personality who "calls out" Assange, i.e. prejudging, without at the very least simultaneously calling out the egregious and heinous evils of the USA empire and its organs of power such as the CIA, NSA, military etc, is a literal shill and tool for the US empire. Such people are prima facie (on the face of it, obviously) evidently compromised, either by employment, by blackmail, by such blindness as demands utter condemnation and excision from the public discourse, or by some other hidden means. A hot topic evidently: Assange Prosecution Will Focus On Chelsea Manning Era Releases, Not DNC Emails https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-11-25/assange-prosecution-will-focus-che... Extra-territoriality of "laws" as claimed by the USA espionage banking and military complex and their (!!) courts, is unlawful on principle. Every purported authority exercising power sans righteousness, is prima facie corrupt. Retrospective/ retroactive laws are unlawful on principle. A jury of "peers" which is actually comprised of the employees, ex-employees, spouses and etc of the CIA, NSA, MIC, DOD (etc) is a prima facie biased and prejudiced jury and can never carry the weight of righteousness nor the gravity of justice, merely some farse of "legal process", injustice, and a manifest evil towards a fellow man, in this case Julian Assange. For starters Assange is an Australian citizen, so his peers would literally have to be Australians at the very least, and perhaps by consent he could agree to have his "peers" include e.g. some of the folks round these parts, John Young perhaps, and or principled journalists (not the many faced and usually lying and deceiving CIA plants who dominate the legacy stream media outlets of course). Just as Colin Powell waved a vial of sand murmering "weapons of mass destruction" to justify a war destroying Iraq (which was supposedly a war against some cave dweller in Afghanistan - Obama Bin Laden) we now have pure revenge campaign against Assange for publishing some facts, embarrassing to the empire but which the public had a right to know and Assange had a right to publish. The Collateral Murder video (USA helicopter gunship gunning down unarmed journalists in Baghdad), and the embarrassment thereof, is the true cause for this steamroller of evil and unrighteous condemnation against Assange. One could take a random stab and guess that Vault7 and vault8 possibly has something to do with the CIA (etc) literal vendetta against Assange too: https://wikileaks.org/vault8/ The (USA) empire is embarrassed and wants revenge by way of making an example of "the suffering and punishment of Julian Assange". Americans, this is your empire.
On Mon, 26 Nov 2018 00:01:39 -0500 Steve Kinney <admin@pilobilus.net> wrote:
I'm about two nines confident that Greenwald's Intercept deliberately burned Reality Winner.
if they did, that's one of the very few things they deserve credit for. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_Winner "the cunt was awarded the Air Force Commendation Medal for "aiding in 650 enemy captures, 600 enemies killed in action and identifying 900 high[-]value targets"." do you understand what that means no? How are you proposing that the cunt pay for her crimes?
Speaking of Greenwald,
he and snowden remain loyal to the US govt.
how about the hatchet job his partner in crime, Laura Poitras, did on both IO Error and Mendax in her Risk film? Random spiteful bitch, or faithful CIA asset? Either way, fat USIC paycheck and/or mega-cred in toxic pseudo-feminist circles accomplished.
pseudo-feminist? Not at all. They all are true feminists and they all are feminazis. Those two words are synonymous.
How was Snowden's choice of Greenwald assured, and was his life in danger up to the moment he chose the right non-journalist to pass his docs off to?
he gave copies to different journos apart from greenwald I believe?
How long did it take him to realize he had been played - or has he even figured that out yet?
played how? snowden constantly parrots that journos have the divine right to filter whatever information reaches the serfs.
To date his public presentation in exile remains consistent with making the best of that particular bad situation.
A funny thing happened to the allegedly thousands of documents Ed handed to Glenn for publication: After promising Snowden he would release all the docs within ten days of breaking the first big story,
did he promise that? That doesn't sound realistic given the fact that snowden supports censorship-by-journo.
Glenn sold them all to the highest bidder, Pierre Omidyar. If Greenwald's claims about how many docs there were are to be believed, over 99% were either destroyed, or locked up securely for blackmail use by his new employer.
well no doubt greenwald is a sellout, and no doubt his employer ebay-paypal has been working for the NSA since day one. As a funny side note, NSA contractor ebay is 3 years older than google. Regardless, I believe/would assume that snowden gave the docs to different redundant parties because 'trusting' a single guy like greenwald is pretty stupid, and snowden is anything but stupid.
All I know for sure about the Snoweden Affair is that once the dust settled, the U.S. intelligence community got everything it wanted:
yeah. Not sure if snowden contributed to that or it's just that his leak was useless in the grand scheme of things.
Not just authorization to continue illegal domestic surveillance programs, but a clear precedent that U.S. intelligence officials are allowed to tell lies under oath in Congressional hearings, with no consequences other than high-fives back at the office later. "Almost as if" the USIC had lots of advance warning and got to pick the specific battles themselves, with specific purposes in mind.
True - that is a possible and lilely scenario.
A suggested leaker's protocol: Pardon my language but "fuck journalists."
indeed
They need have no role until /after/ all your red hot docs are in the public domain.
1) Use an extraordinary physical security protocol to upload an encrypted archive of your docs to the I2P torrent network. Clues: You need a "clean" laptop from a flea market, a home made high gain antenna, and a conveniently located open WiFi hot spot. Don't forget to scramble your MAC address before plugging in the antenna. Include one or more "medium value" docs in the clear, to assure interest in your uploaded archive. In your description of the torrent, promise the key will be published under the same user name within a given time frame.
2) A few days later, use the same security protocol, from a location at least hundreds of miles away from your first upload site, to post the key (a pass phrase, see diceware.com) on the same torrent tracker site in I2P space.
Not sure what the point of publishing the key later is, especially if you first published some stuff in the clear? When you publish stuff in the clear you are marking yourself as a target? The two steps process is to avoid getting caught while uploading the bulk of the data?
On 11/26/18 3:06 PM, juan wrote:
On Mon, 26 Nov 2018 00:01:39 -0500 Steve Kinney <admin@pilobilus.net> wrote:
how about the hatchet job his partner in crime, Laura Poitras, did on both IO Error and Mendax in her Risk film? Random spiteful bitch, or faithful CIA asset? Either way, fat USIC paycheck and/or mega-cred in toxic pseudo-feminist circles accomplished.
pseudo-feminist? Not at all. They all are true feminists and they all are feminazis. Those two words are synonymous.
The "feminazis" you refer to do exist; they originated in the New Left, a USIC political warfare project intended to displace and discredit Pacifist and Liberal voices in broadcast media during the Vietnam War. The folks who started the "feminazi" bullshit were from that same crew. The project was successful, and after the war the New Left never went away. They kept working their professional networks and press contacts, and re-emerged as the Progressives in the late 70s - early 80s. They now own and operate the DNC, and through that org, most of the Democratic Party. Real feminists also exist. They typically associate with anarchists and their ilk, and one finds plenty of them in Occupy-related activist orgs. Check Emma Goldman, Lucy Parsons and Simone de Beauvoir for background on "real" feminism.
How was Snowden's choice of Greenwald assured, and was his life in danger up to the moment he chose the right non-journalist to pass his docs off to?
he gave copies to different journos apart from greenwald I believe?
If so, neither he nor anyone else has ever said so. The Snowden Saga, if at all factual, leaves no room for that to have happened.
How long did it take him to realize he had been played - or has he even figured that out yet?
played how? snowden constantly parrots that journos have the divine right to filter whatever information reaches the serfs.
Played how? Spotted early by the fairly massive Insider Threat programs at NSA, initiated in response to Chelsea Manning's work. They may have fed him specific documents, kept away from others, transferred him from job to job as necessary to facilitate that process. He may have also been monitored and/or manipulated through his girlfriend, who has joined him in exile - which makes little sense, unless she had something to hide, and/or run from, here in the U.S. I figure Snowden for too dumb to 'leak correctly,' but too smart not to play along once he became an object of property physically passed around between ruling class factions.
A funny thing happened to the allegedly thousands of documents Ed handed to Glenn for publication: After promising Snowden he would release all the docs within ten days of breaking the first big story,
did he promise that? That doesn't sound realistic given the fact that snowden supports censorship-by-journo.
So at least one article published within days of the Prism release said. Over the next week the reported number of documents given to Greenwald rose very fast, as Greenwald's story changed. I kept very close track of available information during that time frame; this article I wrote back then be of some historical interest: http://www.globalresearch.ca/nsa-deception-operation-questions-surround-leak... "By his own account, Snowden often discussed perceived Agency wrongdoing with his co-workers, which suggests that he should have been profiled and flagged as a potential leaker by the NSA’s internal surveillance process."
Regardless, I believe/would assume that snowden gave the docs to different redundant parties because 'trusting' a single guy like greenwald is pretty stupid, and snowden is anything but stupid.
To date, no "missing" Snowden docs have turned up anywhere. Considering their cash value to any reporter who has an "exclusive" on any of them, that seems very unlikely if any did exist.
All I know for sure about the Snoweden Affair is that once the dust settled, the U.S. intelligence community got everything it wanted:
yeah. Not sure if snowden contributed to that or it's just that his leak was useless in the grand scheme of things.
Anything but useless: Whether or not Snowden was in on the game, the Snowden Affair accomplished important IC objectives, solidifying their power as an autocratic branch of government answerable to no one but themselves.
1) Use an extraordinary physical security protocol to upload an encrypted archive of your docs to the I2P torrent network. Clues: You need a "clean" laptop from a flea market, a home made high gain antenna, and a conveniently located open WiFi hot spot. Don't forget to scramble your MAC address before plugging in the antenna. Include one or more "medium value" docs in the clear, to assure interest in your uploaded archive. In your description of the torrent, promise the key will be published under the same user name within a given time frame.
2) A few days later, use the same security protocol, from a location at least hundreds of miles away from your first upload site, to post the key (a pass phrase, see diceware.com) on the same torrent tracker site in I2P space.
Not sure what the point of publishing the key later is, especially if you first published some stuff in the clear? When you publish stuff in the clear you are marking yourself as a target?
The two steps process is to avoid getting caught while uploading the bulk of the data?
Mostly to create extra interest in the archive's contents: Woo, big mystery! The leaker can passively observe activity on the tracker(s) and in related forums, and release the key when it appears that the docs have spread too far to hunt down and eradicate. In a case where the content of the archive would constitute a "national emergency" in the eyes of our intelligence services, best to avoid starting that firestorm until they are in at least dozens of hands, scattered around the world, to light that fire. Anyone clever enough to do any of the above, will find ways to improve on it: For instance nested encrypted archives, where peeling each layer open yields more valuable documents than the layer before. What new wonders will the next key reveal?! One could even SELL the last key for a healthy chunk of BTC, although (nyah ha) maybe that last zip.gpg archive only has PDFs of some old MAD Magazines, as a gesture of contempt for anyone willing to pay big money for an "exclusive." It may be possible to sell /several/ copies of the same key to competing bidders. Nobody in a position to pay would be in a big hurry to tell the world they got chumped. :o)
On Mon, 26 Nov 2018 17:48:22 -0500 Steve Kinney <admin@pilobilus.net> wrote:
How was Snowden's choice of Greenwald assured, and was his life in danger up to the moment he chose the right non-journalist to pass his docs off to?
he gave copies to different journos apart from greenwald I believe?
If so, neither he nor anyone else has ever said so. The Snowden Saga, if at all factual, leaves no room for that to have happened.
hm I must be misremembering. - I'll search for the 'official story' later.
How long did it take him to realize he had been played - or has he even figured that out yet?
played how? snowden constantly parrots that journos have the divine right to filter whatever information reaches the serfs.
Played how? Spotted early by the fairly massive Insider Threat programs at NSA, initiated in response to Chelsea Manning's work. They may have fed him specific documents, kept away from others, transferred him from job to job as necessary to facilitate that process. He may have also been monitored and/or manipulated through his girlfriend, who has joined him in exile - which makes little sense, unless she had something to hide, and/or run from, here in the U.S.
well, according to snowden, his girlfriend moved to russia because "she loves him". That claim can be doubted on purely human grounds, but it can also be taken at face value without assuming that his girlfriend is an agent or somesuch. Maybe she has enough moral integrity to choose snowden over life in good old amerikkka. Anyway, yes, what you describe is materially possible, so I should have asked "played, why?". What would the 'leaders' of the NSA gain by having snowden leak some stuff they previously selected/curated? Obviously they would not allow the leak of anything 'really top secret'. And coincidentally snowden's stuff simply confirmed what people with half a brain suspected. Massive surveillance. Wait, not even suspected but knew about it before snowden (like ATT fiber taps) One scenario I can think off the top of my head is that they allowed snowden to get hold of some not-really-secret stuff to justify 'tighter security' inside the NSA? But as a bigger political game, I'm not sure what their motives could be. But more below.
I figure Snowden far too dumb to 'leak correctly,' but too smart not to play along once he became an object of property physically passed around between ruling class factions.
Hmm. Snoden doesn't strike me as dumb. At least not so dumb that he was unable to publish stuff anonymously if he wanted. Especially considering that his job description was pretty much to track 'enemies of the state'.
A funny thing happened to the allegedly thousands of documents Ed handed to Glenn for publication: After promising Snowden he would release all the docs within ten days of breaking the first big story,
did he promise that? That doesn't sound realistic given the fact that snowden supports censorship-by-journo.
So at least one article published within days of the Prism release said. Over the next week the reported number of documents given to Greenwald rose very fast, as Greenwald's story changed. I kept very close track of available information during that time frame; this article I wrote back then be of some historical interest:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/nsa-deception-operation-questions-surround-leak...
well the fact that google, facebook and all the rest of 'silicon valley' scum are just spies on the payroll of uncle sam isn't controversial, and that's what the prism slides illustrated, regardless of them being 'authentic top-secret' or some watered down version for people with a 'lower clearence' or whatever the pertinent jargon is. so although I agree that the snowden stuff isn't really 'top secret' that doesn't mean it's fake - it's quite possible that snowden himself chose stuff that didn't really 'harm' his bosses since he believes the american nazi state is a legitimate murdering organization and american 'national security' a legitimate aim, etc.
"By his own account, Snowden often discussed perceived Agency wrongdoing with his co-workers, which suggests that he should have been profiled and flagged as a potential leaker by the NSA’s internal surveillance process."
Maybe...not? I assume that people working in such criminal organizations are a 'tight knit' mafia. They don't really suspect each other. They are all american heroes fulliling their divine role : making the world safe for goldman sachs and raytheon. Also, if somebody inside the NSA says "we must protect the Privacy of Americans", he can't be 'flagged' based on that, because that sort of bullshit is basic 'patriotic' propaganda. In other words, all or most NSA criminals could say that sort of bullshit while still being 100% 'loyal' to uncle sam. You say they have 'insider threat' programs but who knows how they actually run them. Although in 1984 world it seemed as if anybody could be suspected, in reality the party members mostly have to 'cooperate' and 'trust' each other.
Regardless, I believe/would assume that snowden gave the docs to different redundant parties because 'trusting' a single guy like greenwald is pretty stupid, and snowden is anything but stupid.
To date, no "missing" Snowden docs have turned up anywhere. Considering their cash value to any reporter who has an "exclusive" on any of them, that seems very unlikely if any did exist.
I assume the documents were given to a few selected 'organizations' which are as corrupt as greenwald. Like the graudian and der spiegel. But I need to look into that again, maybe I'm just making stuff up.
All I know for sure about the Snoweden Affair is that once the dust settled, the U.S. intelligence community got everything it wanted:
yeah. Not sure if snowden contributed to that or it's just that his leak was useless in the grand scheme of things.
Anything but useless: Whether or not Snowden was in on the game, the Snowden Affair accomplished important IC objectives, solidifying their power as an autocratic branch of government answerable to no one but themselves.
Not sure how the snowden affair accomplished that. If anything it was a half hearted attempt on the part of snowden and greenwald to do something against mass surveillance but since they are after all loyal statists, they failed. I guess one can see snowden and greenwald as controlled opposition. They are allowed to criticize uncle sam because their criticism is not a real threat, and the govt can brag about its 'tolerance' for 'dissent'. Well, except that snowden is exiled, such tolerance. But the jew lawyer and millionaire greenwald is doing well I believe. So to what degree they are sincere opposition and to what degree they are controlled opposition isn't completely clear. So...maybe they acted as a decoy. The media was kinda critical of mass surveillance, but in the end govcorp got away with it. But I still don't see a too direct link between those two things.
1) Use an extraordinary physical security protocol to upload an encrypted archive of your docs to the I2P torrent network. Clues: You need a "clean" laptop from a flea market, a home made high gain antenna, and a conveniently located open WiFi hot spot. Don't forget to scramble your MAC address before plugging in the antenna. Include one or more "medium value" docs in the clear, to assure interest in your uploaded archive. In your description of the torrent, promise the key will be published under the same user name within a given time frame.
2) A few days later, use the same security protocol, from a location at least hundreds of miles away from your first upload site, to post the key (a pass phrase, see diceware.com) on the same torrent tracker site in I2P space.
Not sure what the point of publishing the key later is, especially if you first published some stuff in the clear? When you publish stuff in the clear you are marking yourself as a target?
The two steps process is to avoid getting caught while uploading the bulk of the data?
Mostly to create extra interest in the archive's contents: Woo, big mystery!
Oh I thought it was something opsec related. OK.
The leaker can passively observe activity on the tracker(s) and in related forums, and release the key when it appears that the docs have spread too far to hunt down and eradicate. In a case where the content of the archive would constitute a "national emergency" in the eyes of our intelligence services, best to avoid starting that firestorm until they are in at least dozens of hands, scattered around the world, to light that fire.
Anyone clever enough to do any of the above, will find ways to improve on it: For instance nested encrypted archives, where peeling each layer open yields more valuable documents than the layer before. What new wonders will the next key reveal?!
One could even SELL the last key for a healthy chunk of BTC, although (nyah ha) maybe that last zip.gpg archive only has PDFs of some old MAD Magazines, as a gesture of contempt for anyone willing to pay big money for an "exclusive." It may be possible to sell /several/ copies of the same key to competing bidders. Nobody in a position to pay would be in a big hurry to tell the world they got chumped.
:o)
On 11/26/2018 08:27 PM, juan wrote:
On Mon, 26 Nov 2018 17:48:22 -0500 Steve Kinney <admin@pilobilus.net> wrote:
How was Snowden's choice of Greenwald assured, and was his life in danger up to the moment he chose the right non-journalist to pass his docs off to?
he gave copies to different journos apart from greenwald I believe?
If so, neither he nor anyone else has ever said so. The Snowden Saga, if at all factual, leaves no room for that to have happened.
hm I must be misremembering. - I'll search for the 'official story' later.
I also recall reading that. But then, maybe he gave them copies, but not decryption keys. Or maybe he used nested encryption, and only provided keys to subsets. Maybe just samples.
How long did it take him to realize he had been played - or has he even figured that out yet?
played how? snowden constantly parrots that journos have the divine right to filter whatever information reaches the serfs.
It's pretty clear that loved America, and saw himself as serving true "American" values. That's clear in chat logs from when he worked for the CIA in Geneva. He's a fucking Boy Scout ;) <SNIP>
On 11/26/18 10:27 PM, juan wrote:
On Mon, 26 Nov 2018 17:48:22 -0500
Anyway, yes, what you describe is materially possible, so I should have asked "played, why?". What would the 'leaders' of the NSA gain by having snowden leak some stuff they previously selected/curated? Obviously they would not allow the leak of anything 'really top secret'. And coincidentally snowden's stuff simply confirmed what people with half a brain suspected. Massive surveillance. Wait, not even suspected but knew about it before snowden (like ATT fiber taps)
One scenario I can think off the top of my head is that they allowed snowden to get hold of some not-really-secret stuff to justify 'tighter security' inside the NSA?
But as a bigger political game, I'm not sure what their motives could be. But more below.
If we ask what specific domestic surveillance activities had already caused the most controversy, and had the biggest potential for blowback if exposed to full public view, "the first two Snowden releases" provides a pretty good answer: Bulk surveillance of U.S. telephone and Internet traffic. Programs that large will eventually become public knowledge. Picking how and when that happens, and preparing responses for the press, Congress and the Courts in advance, presents significant advantages. This permits developing and implementing strategies for influencing specific individuals who would play key roles in determining the outcome in publicity, political and legal dimensions (reporters and editors, Senators and DemoPublican Party officials, Fedeeral Prosecutors and Judges). During and after the initial releases from the Snowden Saga, the intelligence community won nearly every battle over who can break what laws, when, etc. without consequences. The Snowden Affair removed many potential liabilities by establishing that "we are allowed to do this, that and the other thing."
I figure Snowden far too dumb to 'leak correctly,' but too smart not to play along once he became an object of property physically passed around between ruling class factions.
Hmm. Snoden doesn't strike me as dumb. At least not so dumb that he was unable to publish stuff anonymously if he wanted. Especially considering that his job description was pretty much to track 'enemies of the state'.
Available biographical information, and his extraordinary access to numerous "sensitive compartments", indicates his job was most likely senior IT administrator and troubleshooter at facilities handling classified communications and databases. Then again, available biographical information indicates that the guy with the "pencil neck geek" physique volunteered for and was accepted for training for Special Forces while before he completed Basic Training - which does not happen. He then supposedly received a medical discharge after breaking both legs in a training accident, which again does not happen except where the such injuries qualify as disabling. That's why I call Snowden an International Man Of Mystery rather than any other title: Not only is he a living legend, what we can see of that life looks like a "legend" in the sense of an intelligence officer's fake back story related to a particular assignment. Why did Snowden pick attorney and political commentator Glenn Greenwald to hand his documents off to, instead of a journalist? Why not contact John Young, Sibel Edmonds, an old timer like Daniel Ellsberg - or ANYONE with applicable knowledge and experience? Did he fail to look into the history of leaks like the one he was considering, and available venues for same - or was he directed to specific people spotted, recruited and handled by the same employer who spotted, developed and handled him? I doubt that we will never know.
"By his own account, Snowden often discussed perceived Agency wrongdoing with his co-workers, which suggests that he should have been profiled and flagged as a potential leaker by the NSA’s internal surveillance process."
Maybe...not? I assume that people working in such criminal organizations are a 'tight knit' mafia. They don't really suspect each other. They are all american heroes fulliling their divine role : making the world safe for goldman sachs and raytheon.
Snowden said: “When you see everything, you see them on a more frequent basis and you recognize that some of these things are actually abuses, and when you talk about them in a place like this, were this is the normal state of business, people tend not to take them very seriously and move on from them. But over time that awareness of wrongdoing sort of builds up and you feel compelled to talk about it, and the more you talk about it, the more you’re ignored, the more you’re told it’s not a problem...”
You say they have 'insider threat' programs but who knows how they actually run them. Although in 1984 world it seemed as if anybody could be suspected, in reality the party members mostly have to 'cooperate' and 'trust' each other.
Security axiom: "A trusted party is one who can break your security mode." The covert services consider "trust" a valuable and dangerous commodity, and ration it with exceptional care. Snowden apparently had exceptionally broad access to classified documents stored on computer systems, so whatever his job description it would qualify him for additional scrutiny compared to those who are permitted only to see information directly related to their specific assignments. The Presidential directive establishing the Insider Threat Program, nearly two years before the Snowden Affair: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2011/10/07/executive-o...
Regardless, I believe/would assume that snowden gave the docs to different redundant parties because 'trusting' a single guy like greenwald is pretty stupid, and snowden is anything but stupid.
To date, no "missing" Snowden docs have turned up anywhere. Considering their cash value to any reporter who has an "exclusive" on any of them, that seems very unlikely if any did exist.
I assume the documents were given to a few selected 'organizations' which are as corrupt as greenwald. Like the graudian and der spiegel. But I need to look into that again, maybe I'm just making stuff up.
Somebody gave Spiegel some very interesting docs, including materials apparently dating after Snowden's releases and exile. As a night vs. day difference, the docs published by Spiegel included materials describing NSA tools in considerable detail, and information exposing U.S. surveillance of the Chancellor's phones. Clueless mainstream journalists and the public at large have "assumed" that these documents somehow came from Ed Snowden. Spook watchers know better: These docs alerted the world to previously unknown "hacking" techniques used by NSA and its government customers, and they did significant damage to U.S. political and influence operations in progress. :o)
On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 19:37:59 -0500 Steve Kinney <admin@pilobilus.net> wrote:
If we ask what specific domestic surveillance activities had already caused the most controversy, and had the biggest potential for blowback if exposed to full public view, "the first two Snowden releases" provides a pretty good answer: Bulk surveillance of U.S. telephone and Internet traffic.
bulk surveillance of internet traffic wasn't news https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A as to phones... https://www.wired.com/2007/08/wiretap/ "The FBI has quietly built a sophisticated, point-and-click surveillance system that performs instant wiretaps on almost any communications device" that's from 2007... this is before snowden too https://www.wired.com/2012/03/ff-nsadatacenter/ "The NSA Is Building the Country's Biggest Spy Center (Watch What You Say)" so, arguably, snowden's 'revelations' didn't reveal anything that wasn't already known or trivially suspected...
Programs that large will eventually become public knowledge.
more like, they had been public knowledge for years...
During and after the initial releases from the Snowden Saga, the intelligence community won nearly every battle over who can break what laws, when, etc. without consequences.
yes, but that's not "because of snowden" is it? I mean, not meaning to sound like a broken record but the US is a fascist cesspool and has always been. "COINTELPRO" the 'intelligence community' which is obviously just an arm of the United Rogue States gets to do whatever they want because that's what being the state means - unrestrained power.
The Snowden Affair removed many potential liabilities by establishing that "we are allowed to do this, that and the other thing."
I don't see the causal link there. There were the leaks, and then the govt kept doing whatever the fuck they want. The events may be 'correlated' but that can be all.
I figure Snowden far too dumb to 'leak correctly,' but too smart not to play along once he became an object of property physically passed around between ruling class factions.
Hmm. Snoden doesn't strike me as dumb. At least not so dumb that he was unable to publish stuff anonymously if he wanted. Especially considering that his job description was pretty much to track 'enemies of the state'.
Available biographical information, and his extraordinary access to numerous "sensitive compartments", indicates his job was most likely senior IT administrator and troubleshooter at facilities handling classified communications and databases.
That's a possibility. Snowden on the other hand says he was a 'senior analyst' or something like that.
Then again, available biographical information indicates that the guy with the "pencil neck geek" physique volunteered for and was accepted for training for Special Forces while before he completed Basic Training - which does not happen. He then supposedly received a medical discharge after breaking both legs in a training accident, which again does not happen except where the such injuries qualify as disabling.
I remembered only one broken leg =P - Regardless, I don't think the story is too implausible. And if it's made up, I'm not sure for what purpose?
That's why I call Snowden an International Man Of Mystery rather than any other title: Not only is he a living legend, what we can see of that life looks like a "legend" in the sense of an intelligence officer's fake back story related to a particular assignment.
But that means snowden is still 'assigned'?
Why did Snowden pick attorney and political commentator Glenn Greenwald to hand his documents off to, instead of a journalist?
greenawald IS a journo =P
Why not contact John Young, Sibel Edmonds, an old timer like Daniel Ellsberg -
not sure if choosing greenwald was particularly bad (at least without hindsight). Then again, snowden could and should have simply dumped everything so...
or ANYONE with applicable knowledge and experience? Did he fail to look into the history of leaks like the one he was considering, and available venues for same - or was he directed to specific people spotted, recruited and handled by the same employer who spotted, developed and handled him?
I doubt that we will never know.
"By his own account, Snowden often discussed perceived Agency wrongdoing with his co-workers, which suggests that he should have been profiled and flagged as a potential leaker by the NSA’s internal surveillance process."
Maybe...not? I assume that people working in such criminal organizations are a 'tight knit' mafia. They don't really suspect each other. They are all american heroes fulliling their divine role : making the world safe for goldman sachs and raytheon.
Snowden said:
“When you see everything, you see them on a more frequent basis and you recognize that some of these things are actually abuses, and when you talk about them in a place like this, were this is the normal state of business, people tend not to take them very seriously and move on from them. But over time that awareness of wrongdoing sort of builds up and you feel compelled to talk about it, and the more you talk about it, the more you’re ignored, the more you’re told it’s not a problem...”
well, that suggests he wasn't suspected, simply ignored. It doesn't sound unlikely.
You say they have 'insider threat' programs but who knows how they actually run them. Although in 1984 world it seemed as if anybody could be suspected, in reality the party members mostly have to 'cooperate' and 'trust' each other.
Security axiom: "A trusted party is one who can break your security mode."
Agreed =) - But the fact remains - the only reason 'the state' has power is because it's the biggest group of self-organized psychos. The state is based on cooperation and 'trust' between criminals. So, there can be unsuspected 'traitors' and snowden can be one in principle.
The covert services consider "trust" a valuable and dangerous commodity, and ration it with exceptional care. Snowden apparently had exceptionally broad access to classified documents stored on computer systems, so whatever his job description it would qualify him for additional scrutiny
compared to those who are permitted only to see information directly related to their specific assignments.
The Presidential directive establishing the Insider Threat Program, nearly two years before the Snowden Affair:
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2011/10/07/executive-o...
yes, the programs exist on paper but I'd argue they are as effective as 'good' cops investigating 'corrupt' 'bad' cops. Anyway, I don't dismiss the possibility of there being a few fishy aspects to the snowden affair.
Regardless, I believe/would assume that snowden gave the docs to different redundant parties because 'trusting' a single guy like greenwald is pretty stupid, and snowden is anything but stupid.
To date, no "missing" Snowden docs have turned up anywhere. Considering their cash value to any reporter who has an "exclusive" on any of them, that seems very unlikely if any did exist.
I assume the documents were given to a few selected 'organizations' which are as corrupt as greenwald. Like the graudian and der spiegel. But I need to look into that again, maybe I'm just making stuff up.
Somebody gave Spiegel some very interesting docs, including materials apparently dating after Snowden's releases and exile. As a night vs. day difference, the docs published by Spiegel included materials describing NSA tools in considerable detail, and information exposing U.S. surveillance of the Chancellor's phones.
OK here we go : http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/cover-story-how-nsa-spied-on-mer... "Research by Spiegel reporters in Berlin and Washington, talks with intelligence officials and the evaluation of internal documents of the US' National Security Agency and other information, most of which comes from the archive of former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, lead to the conclusion that the US diplomatic mission in the German capital has not merely been promoting German-American friendship. On the contrary, it is a nest of espionage. " So according to the spiegel themselves they did get information from snowden docs. And https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/01/der-spiegel-edward-snowden-nsa_n_3... "...The blockbuster Der Spiegel article widens the small circle of news outlets known to have reviewed documents obtained by Snowden." that bit is what I remembered about journos apart from greenwald having access to snowden docs, though granted it's not clear to how many docs, etc.
Clueless mainstream journalists and the public at large have "assumed" that these documents somehow came from Ed Snowden.
and that's more or less the spiegel says too.
Spook watchers know better: These docs alerted the world to previously unknown "hacking" techniques used by NSA and its government customers, and they did significant damage to U.S. political and influence operations in progress.
:o)
On 11/28/18 11:40 PM, juan wrote:
On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 19:37:59 -0500 Steve Kinney <admin@pilobilus.net> wrote:
If we ask what specific domestic surveillance activities had already caused the most controversy, and had the biggest potential for blowback if exposed to full public view, "the first two Snowden releases" provides a pretty good answer: Bulk surveillance of U.S. telephone and Internet traffic.
[...]
Programs that large will eventually become public knowledge.
more like, they had been public knowledge for years...
Not at all. Spook Watchers and political dissidents knew about them, through bits and pieces of hard data and well informed speculation. The broader general public had moderately paranoid suspicions, but it was all conveniently deniable until The Snowden Affair. Ed himself modeled the desired public reaction perfectly, almost as if coached in advance: "Grave concern" with just a slight touch of outrage, in a context assuming that "the government should" obey the law.
During and after the initial releases from the Snowden Saga, the intelligence community won nearly every battle over who can break what laws, when, etc. without consequences.
yes, but that's not "because of snowden" is it? I mean, not meaning to sound like a broken record but the US is a fascist cesspool and has always been. "COINTELPRO"
the 'intelligence community' which is obviously just an arm of the United Rogue States gets to do whatever they want because that's what being the state means - unrestrained power.
The Snowden Affair removed many potential liabilities by establishing that "we are allowed to do this, that and the other thing."
I don't see the causal link there. There were the leaks, and then the govt kept doing whatever the fuck they want. The events may be 'correlated' but that can be all.
Precedents set and settled by the Snowden Affair: - Bulk surveillance of 'private' U.S. communication is legal - Breaking into the computers of Congressional staff during an investigation of IC criminal conduct is not prosecuted - Lying under oath during Congressional hearings is not prosecuted. ... all in the name of National Security.
Available biographical information, and his extraordinary access to numerous "sensitive compartments", indicates his job was most likely senior IT administrator and troubleshooter at facilities handling classified communications and databases.
That's a possibility. Snowden on the other hand says he was a 'senior analyst' or something like that.
Could be. Doesn't matter much though...
Then again, available biographical information indicates that the guy with the "pencil neck geek" physique volunteered for and was accepted for training for Special Forces while before he completed Basic Training - which does not happen. He then supposedly received a medical discharge after breaking both legs in a training accident, which again does not happen except where the such injuries qualify as disabling.
I remembered only one broken leg =P - Regardless, I don't think the story is too implausible. And if it's made up, I'm not sure for what purpose?
Not so much implausible as impossible: Violations of policy and procedure, because recruit Snowden was so special... why?
That's why I call Snowden an International Man Of Mystery rather than any other title: Not only is he a living legend, what we can see of that life looks like a "legend" in the sense of an intelligence officer's fake back story related to a particular assignment.
But that means snowden is still 'assigned'?
Unless his legend really is true, which seems very unlikely to me, probably so.
Why did Snowden pick attorney and political commentator Glenn Greenwald to hand his documents off to, instead of a journalist?
greenawald IS a journo =P
He's an attorney by trade, Progressive political policy advocate by vocation. As far as I know, he has never been employed by any news organization, and has never gathered information in the field or written a published report. My one item published at Global Research makes me more of a "journalist" than him, LOL.
Why not contact John Young, Sibel Edmonds, an old timer like Daniel Ellsberg -
not sure if choosing greenwald was particularly bad (at least without hindsight). Then again, snowden could and should have simply dumped everything so...
or ANYONE with applicable knowledge and experience? Did he fail to look into the history of leaks like the one he was considering, and available venues for same - or was he directed to specific people spotted, recruited and handled by the same employer who spotted, developed and handled him?
I doubt that we will never know.
"By his own account, Snowden often discussed perceived Agency wrongdoing with his co-workers, which suggests that he should have been profiled and flagged as a potential leaker by the NSA’s internal surveillance process."
Maybe...not? I assume that people working in such criminal organizations are a 'tight knit' mafia. They don't really suspect each other. They are all american heroes fulliling their divine role : making the world safe for goldman sachs and raytheon.
Snowden said:
“When you see everything, you see them on a more frequent basis and you recognize that some of these things are actually abuses, and when you talk about them in a place like this, were this is the normal state of business, people tend not to take them very seriously and move on from them. But over time that awareness of wrongdoing sort of builds up and you feel compelled to talk about it, and the more you talk about it, the more you’re ignored, the more you’re told it’s not a problem...”
well, that suggests he wasn't suspected, simply ignored. It doesn't sound unlikely.
In the wake of the Manning scandal, someone with Snowden's apparent all-access back stage pass would not likely be ignored, if as he said he had a habit of talking about what his employers were doing as "abuses". Especially not when the Insider Threat program was new and, itself, a topic of concern at the activities Snowden worked for. Still, I agree he might have been ignored. "Military intelligence is a contradiction in terms."
OK here we go :
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/cover-story-how-nsa-spied-on-mer...
"Research by Spiegel reporters in Berlin and Washington, talks with intelligence officials and the evaluation of internal documents of the US' National Security Agency and other information, most of which comes from the archive of former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, lead to the conclusion that the US diplomatic mission in the German capital has not merely been promoting German-American friendship. On the contrary, it is a nest of espionage. "
So according to the spiegel themselves they did get information from snowden docs.
[...]
Clueless mainstream journalists and the public at large have "assumed" that these documents somehow came from Ed Snowden.
and that's more or less the spiegel says too.
Ya got me there, I'm gonna have to do some digging one of these days to check whether I do recall correctly about some of those docs' content indicating they were dated after Snowden's exile. Not being a 'journalist' myself, I rarely keep detailed notes and often discard them after use when I do. :o)
Supplementary Insider Threat dox, hosted by JYA: http://cryptome.org/2014/05/insider-threat-warfare.htm Intimately related, from Julian Assange - also hosted by JYA: https://cryptome.org/0002/ja-conspiracies.pdf Insider access and exfiltration is the true "universal decryption key." Even benchtop Quantum Computing, anticipated here in 1992... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5bAa6gFvLs ... will not crack large one time pads. OTPs are still used for materials considered "worth the trouble" of really locking down. The more things change, the more they don't. "Let a thousand flowers bloom." - Mao Tse Tung :o)
On Fri, 30 Nov 2018 03:01:03 -0500 Steve Kinney <admin@pilobilus.net> wrote:
Intimately related, from Julian Assange - also hosted by JYA:
the "Conspiracy as Governance" article is unfinished?
To Steve K. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUhFf6K-SU8 minute 55:10 snowden says that the jew york times, der spiegel, washington post and the intercept all have many unpublished documents from his 'stash'(not sure if that's the word he uses) anyway, at this point nothing of what snowden says is 100% to be trusted, but at any rate that matches what I remembered about the documents being sort of 'distributed'....among a bunch of journo scumbags. For what it's worth.
On 12/7/18 11:53 PM, juan wrote:
To Steve K.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUhFf6K-SU8
minute 55:10 snowden says that the jew york times, der spiegel, washington post and the intercept all have many unpublished documents from his 'stash'(not sure if that's the word he uses)
anyway, at this point nothing of what snowden says is 100% to be trusted, but at any rate that matches what I remembered about the documents being sort of 'distributed'....among a bunch of journo scumbags. For what it's worth.
I recall Snowden saying that he gave all the documents he had to Greenwald, explaining that he did not consider himself qualified to determine which were of "legitimate" public interest, or where to send them for publication. Greenwald distributed the PRISM documents to several press outlets, at least one of which edited them before release per side by side comparison of published versions. (Or, more than one version was distributed by Greenwald for whatever reason.) So it seems likely that Snowden got his information about how and where the documents were forwarded to news outlets from Greenwald himself. Given The Intercept's track record, I know that Greenwald can not be trusted (check how The Intercept deliberately burned Reality Winner), and his changing stories early in the Snowden Affair indicate either incompetence or lies. This leaves us to speculate about what documents were sent where, based on information filtered through one (Greenwald > Public) or two (Greenwald > Snowden > Public) unreliable sources. :o/
On Sat, 8 Dec 2018 13:44:22 -0500 Steve Kinney <admin@pilobilus.net> wrote:
On 12/7/18 11:53 PM, juan wrote:
To Steve K.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUhFf6K-SU8
minute 55:10 snowden says that the jew york times, der spiegel, washington post and the intercept all have many unpublished documents from his 'stash'(not sure if that's the word he uses)
anyway, at this point nothing of what snowden says is 100% to be trusted, but at any rate that matches what I remembered about the documents being sort of 'distributed'....among a bunch of journo scumbags. For what it's worth.
I recall Snowden saying that he gave all the documents he had to Greenwald, explaining that he did not consider himself qualified to determine
yes, the bit about snowden kowtowing to the enlightened authority of journos is something he constantly parrots. As to who originally got the documents, I'm not sure, but in that video snowden says that other people apart from greenwald have them now. I don't think that makes much of a difference either way, except perhaps to illustrate the kinda obvious fact that the 'mainstream media' are part of any conspiracy there may be.
which were of "legitimate" public interest, or where to send them for publication.
Greenwald distributed the PRISM documents to several press outlets, at least one of which edited them before release per side by side comparison of published versions. (Or, more than one version was distributed by Greenwald for whatever reason.)
So it seems likely that Snowden got his information about how and where the documents were forwarded to news outlets from Greenwald himself.
I didn't see evidence for that.
Given The Intercept's track record, I know that Greenwald can not be trusted (check how The Intercept deliberately burned Reality Winner),
'burning' that murderous cunt is the only good thing the intercept ever did. Regardless, I don't think that would be the main evidence of greenwald being completely untrustworthy. What actually gives greenwald's game away is the fact that the intercept is nothing but a mouthpiece for the worst factions of the 'democratic' party.
and his changing stories early in the Snowden Affair indicate either incompetence or lies.
This leaves us to speculate about what documents were sent where, based on information filtered through one (Greenwald > Public) or two (Greenwald > Snowden > Public) unreliable sources.
Well, if we are going to speculate (which is kinda pointless I guess), then snowden's sayings should be taken into account? Anyway, if judged by its results the Snowden Affair is pretty much a farce played while the US govcorp (hello reason.com!) continues on its glorious march to world enslavement.
:o/
On 12/8/18 3:41 PM, juan wrote:
On Sat, 8 Dec 2018 13:44:22 -0500 Steve Kinney <admin@pilobilus.net> wrote:
Greenwald distributed the PRISM documents to several press outlets, at least one of which edited them before release per side by side comparison of published versions. (Or, more than one version was distributed by Greenwald for whatever reason.)
So it seems likely that Snowden got his information about how and where the documents were forwarded to news outlets from Greenwald himself.
I didn't see evidence for that.
Because Snowden's tale includes how he failed to find a journalist, any journalist, who was interested in his materials /and/ capable of communicating via an encrypted channel. So he had to settle for film maker Poitras, and attorney & partisan political talking head Greenwald - just because Poitras was willing/able to use TOR and/or GPG. Before delivering docs to Greenwald, nobody in the news biz would talk to Snowden, at least not on his terms. After, he had no opportunity to do any more handoffs. Snowden's tale of how "journalists" should decide what to release strikes me as a cover story, explaining away his failure to send the docs to Wikileaks and have done with them, vs. throwing away his entire life, more or less, via contrived-looking cloak and dagger bullshit. :o/
On Sat, 8 Dec 2018 19:26:46 -0500 Steve Kinney <admin@pilobilus.net> wrote:
On 12/8/18 3:41 PM, juan wrote:
On Sat, 8 Dec 2018 13:44:22 -0500 Steve Kinney <admin@pilobilus.net> wrote:
Greenwald distributed the PRISM documents to several press outlets, at least one of which edited them before release per side by side comparison of published versions. (Or, more than one version was distributed by Greenwald for whatever reason.)
So it seems likely that Snowden got his information about how and where the documents were forwarded to news outlets from Greenwald himself.
I didn't see evidence for that.
Because Snowden's tale includes how he failed to find a journalist, any journalist, who was interested in his materials /and/ capable of communicating via an encrypted channel.
Yes but that doesn't add up.
So he had to settle for film maker Poitras, and attorney & partisan political talking head Greenwald - just because Poitras was willing/able to use TOR and/or GPG.
The story I remember is that he wanted to contact greenwald and that greenwald was too retarded to know how to use pgpg.
Before delivering docs to Greenwald, nobody in the news biz would talk to Snowden, at least not on his terms. After, he had no opportunity to do any more handoffs.
Snowden's tale of how "journalists" should decide what to release strikes me as a cover story, explaining away his failure to send the docs to Wikileaks
by 'failure' you mean he just didn't want to send them to wikileaks because wilileaks would actually publish the stuff? I guess in the end it doesn't matter if he gave the docs only to greenwald or to a couple more journos. But granted, if only greenwald got them in the first place then yes, that's even more suspect.
and have done with them, vs. throwing away his entire life, more or less, via contrived-looking cloak and dagger bullshit.
You mean he could have leaked the docs without being detected? Maybe, I guess.
:o/
Very little from Snowden's many years as CIA employee prior to short-term as NSA contractor has been revealed. Turf battles between the two agencies are legendary, including planting their spies in each other's innards. CIA favors human agents, NSA technology. This suggests Snowden was a CIA implant to out (selective) NSA technology. If so, it certainly worked, at least for a while until NSA used the operation to beef up funding for new and possibly stronger technology. Just look at its vast construction of MD tech temples and recruiting at universities. To be sure all the 9/11-fattened spies benefited from Snowden's operation, and in that his op is hardly new, the spies have been running breaches for decades to enhance funding and deepening secrecy. They all work in concert at this, exchanging tips and perks with foreign spies. Leaks, aka unauthorized disclosures, have been part of this from day one of spying, not just modern, but also ancient, even neanderthal. Spies beget spies, secrecy begets secrecy, ostensible betrayals beget ostensible betrayals. Favored journalists beget favored journalists. Outlaw mavericks beget the same. The sanctimonious name "national security" is a relatively new moniker, circa 1947 in he US, but so are nations rather than royalties and theocracies. One way to tell who runs the shows is by looking at their self-vaunting monuments. In the case of CIA and NSA, look at their infrastructure for humans and technology, respectively. Digital technology is an NSA operation, for example, journalism and academia run by CIA. Division between the two established by the National Security Act of 1947. CIA remained ostentatously above board, NSA hiding behind No Such Agency. I assume Snowden is still working for CIA, bound by a secrecy agreement until he dies, not the secrecy-porous for NSA contractors. Presumbably Moscow assesses him this way, and will persistently suck his mind and blood as they run his worldwide recruiting operation in cahoots with CIA, NSA hot on their heels but winded by obesity. Greenwald is a vain, useful idiot in this charade. So too Assange. Mammon bless their Oscar-winning entertaining foolhardiness, aka "influence." Both tailoring bespoke regalia for Trump's royalist "L'état, c'est moi." At 08:27 PM 12/8/2018, juan wrote:
On Sat, 8 Dec 2018 19:26:46 -0500 Steve Kinney <admin@pilobilus.net> wrote:
On 12/8/18 3:41 PM, juan wrote:
On Sat, 8 Dec 2018 13:44:22 -0500 Steve Kinney <admin@pilobilus.net> wrote:
Greenwald distributed the PRISM documents to several press outlets, at least one of which edited them before release per side by side comparison of published versions. (Or, more than one version was distributed by Greenwald for whatever reason.)
So it seems likely that Snowden got his information about how and where the documents were forwarded to news outlets from Greenwald himself.
I didn't see evidence for that.
Because Snowden's tale includes how he failed to find a journalist, any journalist, who was interested in his materials /and/ capable of communicating via an encrypted channel.
Yes but that doesn't add up.
So he had to settle for film maker Poitras, and attorney & partisan political talking head Greenwald - just because Poitras was willing/able to use TOR and/or GPG.
The story I remember is that he wanted to contact greenwald and that greenwald was too retarded to know how to use pgpg.
Before delivering docs to Greenwald, nobody in the news biz would talk to Snowden, at least not on his terms. After, he had no opportunity to do any more handoffs.
Snowden's tale of how "journalists" should decide what to release strikes me as a cover story, explaining away his failure to send the docs to Wikileaks
by 'failure' you mean he just didn't want to send them to wikileaks because wilileaks would actually publish the stuff?
I guess in the end it doesn't matter if he gave the docs only to greenwald or to a couple more journos. But granted, if only greenwald got them in the first place then yes, that's even more suspect.
and have done with them, vs. throwing away his entire life, more or less, via contrived-looking cloak and dagger bullshit.
You mean he could have leaked the docs without being detected? Maybe, I guess.
:o/
On Sat, Nov 24, 2018 at 8:28 PM Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
On Sat, Nov 24, 2018 at 02:06:46PM -0500, John Young wrote:
Who would duplicate Assange, knowing that some form of prison is most likely to cut you off from the world, your children/ family, etc for a decade? (Well I know a couple of folks, but they're rare as it gets.)
The terminally ill,
We know this much - no matter which foundational principle one stands on, the hordes shall be set upon you, and not just from this realm either, as we're dealing with literal satanists literally doing very evil things.
Steve
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 02:57:52PM -0800, Steven Schear wrote:
On Sat, Nov 24, 2018 at 8:28 PM Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
On Sat, Nov 24, 2018 at 02:06:46PM -0500, John Young wrote:
Who would duplicate Assange, knowing that some form of prison is most likely to cut you off from the world, your children/ family, etc for a decade? (Well I know a couple of folks, but they're rare as it gets.)
The terminally ill,
Time for a new app: terminal for publishing "empire embarrassing" leaks to the world, dynamic on demand hidden services/ servers, distributed file store with timeouts if passwords not made available in a set time, high latency mixnet style password, key and link distribution.
We know this much - no matter which foundational principle one stands on, the hordes shall be set upon you, and not just from this realm either, as we're dealing with literal satanists literally doing very evil things.
Steve
On Sat, 24 Nov 2018 14:06:46 -0500 John Young <jya@pipeline.com> wrote:
Matt Taibbi reports on Assange in Rolling Stone in a one of the more salient grasps of what journalism has missed about WikiLeaks feeding its maw.
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/taibbi-julian-assange-ca...
I'm going to take a look at that - and mention that rolling stone is a high ranking outlet for left-wing 'progressive' fascist propaganda.
A noteworthy observation is how all the risk is taken by leakers not by publishers and journalists -- nor by WikiLeaks and Assange.
Seems you don't like assange which is of course fine. But considering the fact that assange has been jailed for years and is about to be lynched by the US govt, the 'observation' that he took no risks isn't exactly based on reality...
participants (6)
-
John Young -
juan -
Mirimir -
Steve Kinney -
Steven Schear -
Zenaan Harkness