Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone -------- Original message --------From: Steve Kinney <admin@pilobilus.net> Date: 6/18/17 1:24 PM (GMT-08:00) To: Cc: cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org Subject: Re: What if my hypothesis regarding Snowden is correct? On 06/18/2017 04:18 PM, Wilfred L. Guerin wrote:

"Snowed-In @ Moskow" "David Miranda Writes" "Manning the Deck" FBI CI 101. Same DIA + FBI unit managed and papered those stupid staged events and hundreds more. "Reality Winner"???

To date I have seen no indications that > Manning was set up. Adrian Llamo set him up. A database hacker with a debt to credit card companies as restitution for a hack bust Rr   In terms of impact, Snowden and (especially) Winner could be said to have advanced IC agendas and objectives.  Manning not so much:  Those leaks caused numerous diplomatic incidents with the U.S. a clear loser, and got U.S. forces kicked out of Iraq for quite a while.

The timing of the PRISM release to remove Manning's trial from the news is also an indicator of sorts. :o)

On Sunday, June 18, 2017, Steve Kinney <admin@pilobilus.net <mailto:admin@pilobilus.net>> wrote:

     On 06/18/2017 02:24 AM, Ryan Carboni wrote:

     > The hypothesis being that Snowden is at least a triple agent. Ali      > Mohammed provided material support to Al Qaeda, but that was      because he      > betrayed both the Army and Al Qaeda for the CIA. His sentencing      has been      > on hold for a long time, and it is interesting no one asks questions      > about it.

     My guess is that Snowden was an unwitting agent, spotted early by the      insider threat program and selected for use in a limited hangout.  If      so, he was exposed to scripted events in the workplace to draw his      attention to specific programs, and given e-z access to selected      documents related to those programs.  In the network age, censorship      ranges from difficult to impossible depending on the context; getting      ahead of an adversary and dominating the messaging on a given topic has      gained a new importance.  I think the Snowden Affair may be an example.

     Glenn Greenwald's behavior, selecting a few of Snowden's documents to      publish and burying the rest, is consistent with this model.  So too is      his initiative in pushing the publication date of the (partially      falsified) PRISM pages back to coincide with the first day of the      Manning trial, knocking it all the way out of the news.

     The huge controversy following the release of the first few Snowden      documents produced what results?  It seems that the intel guys won every      engagement, even setting a precedent that senior U.S. intelligence      officials are allowed to lie to Congressional committees under oath with      no penalty of any kind.  The way it all went down suggests to me that      the intel guise had a long lead time to select and prepare for specific      challenges.

     > Snowden's revelations increased the amount of encryption.

     The only place I saw that happen was a significant bump in the use of      SSL by a wider range of website operators.  Given that the SSL key      signing protocol is deeply flawed and the NSA is uniquely well      positioned to conduct MITM attacks negating that particular form of      encryption, no harm done.  The result is an increase in end users'      "false sense of" security - and a small net gain in "national security"      in the sense of making access to network traffic a little harder for      foreign intel and private sector criminal enterprises.

     A casual observer might believe that the Snowden docs caused significant      harm to U.S. interests, most notably when it was revealed the Angela      Merkel's phones were tapped - but those particular documents came from      an as yet unknown source, probably located in Germany.

     I don't "believe" a word of the above analysis.  But I do consider it      more likely than the alternatives I have seen.