Re: The GCHQ Cryptome slide could be a mockup/disinfo
On October 8, 2015 8:43:31 AM Georgi Guninski <guninski@guninski.com> wrote:
On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 10:23:12PM -0400, Michael Best wrote:
A few days ago, a new Snowden slide
<https://theintercept.com/2015/09/25/gchq-radio-porn-spies-track-web-users-online-identities/>
was released that appeared to show that the GCHQ was monitoring Cryptome in
Dude, are you calling Snowden liar?
And did you found out that allegedly cryptome shipped their web logs on usbs to buyers AFTER you called Snowden liar?
Wow, what the hell is going on here?! I'm replying to all of the posts made thus far on this topic; I'm sorry, but I don't have the time nor inclination to respond to them individually. So John finally replies, but feels the need to call this guy an asshole. Why is that? I don't know him, but going solely by his site and contributions to archive.org, he is a legitimate researcher. He tried going through the usual steps before disclosure, just like the rest of us do. Only brought it to the public for verification and analysis after the source refused to cooperate: just like the rest of us. Problem? There are no sacred cows. There is only data, and whatever truth is borne out of it whether or not it's the answer we wish to see. The scientific method and all, you know, that most of us hold dear. Georgi, he didn't outright say Snowden was a liar. He was calling into question the validity of a slide that Snowden may not have even seen, or may not have scrutinized. Also, the journalists releasing the data have an open history of working with the feds before releasing info - how do we know they wouldn't possibly alter data under pressure? A decade ago, no less than the venerable NYT sat on the warrantless wiretapping story for over a year! They caved when Risen's book was about to be published. That does not exactly inspire confidence. But what if this (or any other claim, backed with evidence) *did* call into question the rest of the data attributed to the Snowden dumps? Isn't the truth more important than holding up false ideals? Religion and politics have the lock on that brand of cognitive dissonance, they don't need our help. Snowden is not infallible. Cryptome/JY are not infallible. Hell, even Ellsberg isn't infallible (as we were recently reminded.) Best is not infallible, but I haven't seen him claim to be so. Don't judge the messenger; look at the data and draw your own conclusions, the way we do with everything else. This isn't a false controversy, Travis. And some of us do care. -Shelley
Mike Best should keep digging, hardly scratched the surface of yards way too fenced by secrecy.
Who cares about these personalities and their websites? Who cares if JYA is jerk/whacko/nerd/wizard mage? You should assume he is an attacker, just like everyone else. Getting caught up in this he-said-she-said is totally, ultimately, absurdly pointless. Who cares about cryptome keeping server logs? If you're worried about showing up in logs then you ought to be using TAILS. JYAs logs are just less accurate copies of what the TLAs, his hosting provider, their upstream peers, the guys on the lower floor at the PX & the memory scrapers implanted on his server already keep. -Travis On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 1:28 PM, John Young <jya@pipeline.com> wrote:
Mike Best should keep digging, hardly scratched the surface of yards way too fenced by secrecy.
-- 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 8, 2015 10:44:02 AM Travis Biehn <tbiehn@gmail.com> wrote:
Who cares about these personalities and their websites? Who cares if JYA is jerk/whacko/nerd/wizard mage? You should assume he is an attacker, just like everyone else.
Getting caught up in this he-said-she-said is totally, ultimately, absurdly pointless.
Who cares about cryptome keeping server logs? If you're worried about showing up in logs then you ought to be using TAILS. JYAs logs are just less accurate copies of what the TLAs, his hosting provider, their upstream peers, the guys on the lower floor at the PX & the memory scrapers implanted on his server already keep.
-Travis
You're right about the privacy aspect, but still missing the entire point. I don't care about showing up in server logs, although my personal security practices are much different now than they were six years ago. I may have spotted my own information in the data, and I might be able to prove it (the Palm Pre is in a box 'o bits & crap somewhere.) The bigger picture is not why Cryptome appears to be distributing old log files, but validity of the GHCQ slide in question. That's why all the data is being put up for scrutiny, and we are losing sight of the importance of it with all the noise. Doesn't matter if JY is a fed asset. Doesn't matter if Best is a troll with a personal vendetta against JY/Cryptome (neither of which I believe to be true, but still.) A slide was presented as being part of the Snowden dump. A researcher has shown that with these log files, anyone could have made this slide. This is a Big Fucking Deal with possibly numerous implications about a much larger dataset. Forget about who is saying what and just look at the data and draw your own conclusions. We are better than this. -Shelley
On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 1:28 PM, John Young <jya@pipeline.com> wrote:
Mike Best should keep digging, hardly scratched the surface of yards way too fenced by secrecy.
-- 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>
It has no implications other than Mr. Best has too much time on his hands. It is not a big deal in any way. I don't think anyone's missing the point. The mass of dumps are yet another datapoint that confirms the ethos, the integrity of the slides, whether there are false flags, etc, doesn't matter in the least. Did the GCHQ drink too much to evade KD fingerprinting while writing the slides, and instead scraped together a photoshopped screenie? I am amused by the theory that this is all an elaborate troll, in 10 years Snowden will declare he personally made it up in one epic last disclosure, with a dickbutt on the last slide. There's one message: Whatever is technically possible will happen. It will continue to happen, whether they be your government, someone else's government a corporation that handles your data or by criminals. Build systems that are secure from what is technically possible; not because you've deleted the logs - but because there is no data to grab. -Travis On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 2:10 PM, Shelley <shelley@misanthropia.org> wrote:
On October 8, 2015 10:44:02 AM Travis Biehn <tbiehn@gmail.com> wrote:
Who cares about these personalities and their websites? Who cares if JYA is
jerk/whacko/nerd/wizard mage? You should assume he is an attacker, just like everyone else.
Getting caught up in this he-said-she-said is totally, ultimately, absurdly pointless.
Who cares about cryptome keeping server logs? If you're worried about showing up in logs then you ought to be using TAILS. JYAs logs are just less accurate copies of what the TLAs, his hosting provider, their upstream peers, the guys on the lower floor at the PX & the memory scrapers implanted on his server already keep.
-Travis
You're right about the privacy aspect, but still missing the entire point.
I don't care about showing up in server logs, although my personal security practices are much different now than they were six years ago. I may have spotted my own information in the data, and I might be able to prove it (the Palm Pre is in a box 'o bits & crap somewhere.)
The bigger picture is not why Cryptome appears to be distributing old log files, but validity of the GHCQ slide in question. That's why all the data is being put up for scrutiny, and we are losing sight of the importance of it with all the noise.
Doesn't matter if JY is a fed asset. Doesn't matter if Best is a troll with a personal vendetta against JY/Cryptome (neither of which I believe to be true, but still.)
A slide was presented as being part of the Snowden dump. A researcher has shown that with these log files, anyone could have made this slide. This is a Big Fucking Deal with possibly numerous implications about a much larger dataset.
Forget about who is saying what and just look at the data and draw your own conclusions. We are better than this.
-Shelley
On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 1:28 PM, John Young <jya@pipeline.com> wrote:
Mike Best should keep digging, hardly scratched the surface of yards way too fenced by secrecy.
-- 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 8, 2015 1:19:58 PM Travis Biehn <tbiehn@gmail.com> wrote: [Snip]
There's one message: Whatever is technically possible will happen. It will continue to happen, whether they be your government, someone else's government a corporation that handles your data or by criminals.
Build systems that are secure from what is technically possible; not because you've deleted the logs - but because there is no data to grab.
-Travis
On that much, we are in agreement.
I am amused by the theory that this is all an elaborate troll, in 10 years Snowden will declare he personally made it up in one epic last disclosure, with a dickbutt on the last slide.
Dickbutt, heh. Snowden was probably a /b/tard too, would claim it was all for the epic lulz. -Shelley
On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 2:10 PM, Shelley <shelley@misanthropia.org> wrote:
On October 8, 2015 10:44:02 AM Travis Biehn <tbiehn@gmail.com> wrote:
Who cares about these personalities and their websites? Who cares if JYA is
jerk/whacko/nerd/wizard mage? You should assume he is an attacker, just like everyone else.
Getting caught up in this he-said-she-said is totally, ultimately, absurdly pointless.
Who cares about cryptome keeping server logs? If you're worried about showing up in logs then you ought to be using TAILS. JYAs logs are just less accurate copies of what the TLAs, his hosting provider, their upstream peers, the guys on the lower floor at the PX & the memory scrapers implanted on his server already keep.
-Travis
You're right about the privacy aspect, but still missing the entire point.
I don't care about showing up in server logs, although my personal security practices are much different now than they were six years ago. I may have spotted my own information in the data, and I might be able to prove it (the Palm Pre is in a box 'o bits & crap somewhere.)
The bigger picture is not why Cryptome appears to be distributing old log files, but validity of the GHCQ slide in question. That's why all the data is being put up for scrutiny, and we are losing sight of the importance of it with all the noise.
Doesn't matter if JY is a fed asset. Doesn't matter if Best is a troll with a personal vendetta against JY/Cryptome (neither of which I believe to be true, but still.)
A slide was presented as being part of the Snowden dump. A researcher has shown that with these log files, anyone could have made this slide. This is a Big Fucking Deal with possibly numerous implications about a much larger dataset.
Forget about who is saying what and just look at the data and draw your own conclusions. We are better than this.
-Shelley
On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 1:28 PM, John Young <jya@pipeline.com> wrote:
Mike Best should keep digging, hardly scratched the surface of yards way too fenced by secrecy.
-- 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 10/8/15, Travis Biehn <tbiehn@gmail.com> wrote:
Who cares about these personalities and their websites? Who cares if JYA is jerk/whacko/nerd/wizard mage? You should assume he is an attacker, just like everyone else.
Getting caught up in this he-said-she-said is totally, ultimately, absurdly pointless.
i find this reply un-characteristic of the Travis Biehn who is a legitimate researcher and cares deeply about the integrity of the Cryptome.org webserver and the logs which are generated by clients making HTTP requests of it over plain-text. given the KINKY SMURF'ing going on in the other threads, i think it is safe to say this sentiment is <FALSEHOOD CLASSIFICATION LABEL EXPANDED HERE>.
Who cares about cryptome keeping server logs? If you're worried about showing up in logs then you ought to be using TAILS.
the real Travis Biehn rolls his own Whonix Qubes respin with Address Sanitizer enabled userspace, and would recommend nothing less to others! tbiehn@gmail.com has been JTRIG'ed :o best regards,
Could be, You know, if your movement has no figureheads or sacred cows there's 'nobody for a jtrig to attack.' Then again, I don't sign my emails. YMMV Travis On Thu, Oct 8, 2015, 10:28 PM coderman <coderman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/8/15, Travis Biehn <tbiehn@gmail.com> wrote:
Who cares about these personalities and their websites? Who cares if JYA is jerk/whacko/nerd/wizard mage? You should assume he is an attacker, just like everyone else.
Getting caught up in this he-said-she-said is totally, ultimately, absurdly pointless.
i find this reply un-characteristic of the Travis Biehn who is a legitimate researcher and cares deeply about the integrity of the Cryptome.org webserver and the logs which are generated by clients making HTTP requests of it over plain-text.
given the KINKY SMURF'ing going on in the other threads, i think it is safe to say this sentiment is <FALSEHOOD CLASSIFICATION LABEL EXPANDED HERE>.
Who cares about cryptome keeping server logs? If you're worried about showing up in logs then you ought to be using TAILS.
the real Travis Biehn rolls his own Whonix Qubes respin with Address Sanitizer enabled userspace, and would recommend nothing less to others!
tbiehn@gmail.com has been JTRIG'ed :o
best regards,
On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 1:37 PM, Travis Biehn <tbiehn@gmail.com> wrote:
Who cares about cryptome keeping server logs? If you're worried about showing up in logs then you ought to be using TAILS. JYAs logs are just less accurate copies of what the TLAs, his hosting provider, their upstream peers, the guys on the lower floor at the PX & the memory scrapers implanted on his server already keep.
+1 for truth. Beware hosters, ISP's, and cables.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 On Thu, 08 Oct 2015 09:53:56 -0700 Shelley <shelley@misanthropia.org> wrote:
There are no sacred cows. There is only data, and whatever truth is borne out of it whether or not it's the answer we wish to see. The scientific method and all, you know, that most of us hold dear.
This is the Internet! You can't say something reasonable! J'accuse! <grin>
Snowden is not infallible. Cryptome/JY are not infallible. Hell, even Ellsberg isn't infallible (as we were recently reminded.)
This. So much this. - -- The Doctor [412/724/301/703/415] [ZS] PGP: 0x807B17C1 / 7960 1CDC 85C9 0B63 8D9F DD89 3BD8 FF2B 807B 17C1 WWW: https://drwho.virtadpt.net/ "Hell hath no fury like a LISP fan scorned." --Aaron Swartz -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJWFq7AAAoJED1np1pUQ8Rk8hUP/0XiiyIqxO/f5AnlNTdFD6uo l7OOxfMqN3YEC5tP0P4qhbv2EFWXMHJqAA2n8LlbIF9BjZmNE4m/et2FX5oZ66dr k4aOMnCH/jgTHIwdnz/8675VFsEEVP75FDrl8fV1wNP+mwRZTHf0zuJSrCiVy4yy i7Xlaqjv4U9/etPfSECqL4/7TnU/+Il0/RmCe6pFu1l0JBFrTyxOR/uIvmqAS40U D+kcRZa3qlLnyuIeIgAajojvhefhqpjxQ2frMDW5qseEWJimgnft3VpvKUgDBFfn rXYcuA5zWkRAjuMiKmksN5LYsLFoeec4l8Rmh4sn6iSy2KVmiJ6hMMbxUn+RNdDS sFbc3Iebp+qWObMyYPgObiY/B0KFzfgkquvvEpBRwPdDISt+hp+vYMZ9ESSJMbg2 MtTUC6jPMI+sSoKgqTEPKSHdYBkWG/pXdyRaoRGVERtm5ifILg9NBpmuCeRTsPf/ 6HqIfypdED82QjvKy5wYDNztE99cI5VdkcH8EWzl+X+E+g6dsac8tifhyxJ1mr/n scHu5bYjoZ4sO8aBCrVD2N6GoAFJp+nNhBxIJiRiWIEOfxc42d1wCxbicYB69raQ v0z4yI2siTJm/W3vjJFjNI1Xf4zEtTNoWMPkf/iAgj+nlQCuR8ZnYsrpkpUKfkxG T+pR3qu0NrzXmMVq96uB =UWKL -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 10/08/2015 01:58 PM, The Doctor wrote:
On Thu, 08 Oct 2015 09:53:56 -0700 Shelley <shelley@misanthropia.org> wrote:
There are no sacred cows. There is only data, and whatever truth is borne out of it whether or not it's the answer we wish to see. The scientific method and all, you know, that most of us hold dear.
This is the Internet! You can't say something reasonable! J'accuse!
<grin>
Snowden is not infallible. Cryptome/JY are not infallible. Hell, even Ellsberg isn't infallible (as we were recently reminded.)
This. So much this.
And all because somebody got bent out of shape over comments made re attempting to challenge the attribution of a "leaked" document? That amounts to less than an ant fart in a tornado, in context? Lest we forget, the original PRISM slides were, at minimum, heavily altered by the Guardian and/or Post. Everyone who was paying any real attention at the time knows it. No firestorm of controversy followed. http://electrospaces.blogspot.nl/2013/06/are-nsas-prism-slides-photo shopped.html ... although it did influence my own early conclusions about the Snowden Affair, which have evolved a bit in response to subsequent events. Even so, I'm not the least embarrassed by any mistakes I may have made: http://www.globalresearch.ca/nsa-deception-operation-questions-surro und-leaked-prism-documents-authenticity :o) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJWF7pwAAoJEDZ0Gg87KR0LDbYQAMdPAmv/b1pCoFpgfCad0UJk tZONmNYA+9LKm76fC2diLc7Cs4qsyJ5zLZPdNXEbxYhhBt7rPY4G2+7RGePW0+rq Oc3yZgkMSR0pknzTkBi5l0YpC45YUzTnI2WptHuCtVcvlTKhDkYbE4GQIO5RvFDb eIfP0AL7POXVCxwX/Lyh7LNpsU8Hfig5CL4+9pAr5roGcW9TXhOca+f6QvPXsq/F j9W3pfjqfPttQu/kRftP0BXsnPIOziVvp1kLr1MdkJ5glIW4xTQ3+lYTNG0J42VD 1D0vyGTv+tqb52uy/HyUMBL4dtGNLKwyQEN2pb43D6E5PkonYCfJ4rY+1rZxLdhr C9aqhUXMkPzUaf9tz3yFbRPfT8r7EHl/cybDAFacBU9VDBkD7/vEZ5vi0SU0CXf9 UIU9S/gdBFEC5gMmSzrGujt5r2dirFdQ+kfePlyvPlImtLassJTjWyFfwt9lwLqU 2wK3ztEcUherWSX5SsVXVnzMfvCI6vfKS3DwSX+FeWUg5ZFLI4SgHJNJQtcNhSLi ZgSd5XI+gySL12emmHZhNY1YyZM+CyyqCawJ5uQso9qV/uJNxJ6ofUrK7J1Necui LRgzE4LiTrTNLL59iA9AAHy2uEfvOfk1/Vx7z6TMNhvNeItBMpwRdHQ3VmthwluK PpTGusLjWwATGWZQ8v1/ =khsS -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 09:00:35AM -0400, Steve Kinney wrote:
And all because somebody got bent out of shape over comments made re attempting to challenge the attribution of a "leaked" document? That amounts to less than an ant fart in a tornado, in context?
Lest we forget, the original PRISM slides were, at minimum, heavily altered by the Guardian and/or Post. Everyone who was paying any real attention at the time knows it. No firestorm of controversy followed.
http://electrospaces.blogspot.nl/2013/06/are-nsas-prism-slides-photo shopped.html
... although it did influence my own early conclusions about the Snowden Affair, which have evolved a bit in response to subsequent events. Even so, I'm not the least embarrassed by any mistakes I may have made:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/nsa-deception-operation-questions-surro und-leaked-prism-documents-authenticity
:o)
Have you ever thought who profits from JYA selling already sniffed logs and someone fabricating a GCHQ slide? If Snowden is just fabricater/photoshoper why wikipedia claims: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Snowden&oldid=684683260 --- Criminal charge Theft of government property, unauthorized communication of national defense information, and willful communication of classified intelligence to an unauthorized person (June 2013). --- Why they don't charge Snowden for fabricating/photoshoping?
On 10/09/2015 06:00 AM, Steve Kinney wrote:
Lest we forget, the original PRISM slides were, at minimum, heavily altered by the Guardian and/or Post.
Certainly didn't affect people understanding the threat to civil society.
Meet Jack. Or, What The Government Could Do With All That Location Data
“…just a taste of what this powerful new (NSA) system is capable of. We look forward to working with your department for many years to come in our mutual efforts to keep America a safe and controlled place where no one, no matter where they are, can commit wrongdoing.”
We now know that the NSA is collecting location information en masse. As we’ve long said, location data is an extremely powerful set of information about people. To flesh out why that is true, here is the kind of future memo that we fear may someday soon be uncovered:
^^^^^^^^^^^
Dear commissioner:
Now that we have finalized our systems for the acquisition and processing of Americans’ location data (using data from cell phone and license plate readers as well as other sources), I wanted to give you a quick taste of our new system’s capabilities in the domestic policing context.
As you can see in this screen shot from our new application, an individual by the name of Jack R. Benjamin yesterday was flagged as a potential DUI risk…
Full PowerPoint Presentation, NSA/police agency style, At The ACLU. https://www.aclu.org/feature/meet-jack?redirect=meet-jack-or-what-government...
On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 9:00 AM, Steve Kinney <admin@pilobilus.net> wrote:
That amounts to less than an ant fart in a tornado, in context?
I am having difficulty quantifying this ratio. Can you supply some peer reviewed research data? Preferably as compared to "needle in a haystack" or "flatter than Kansas".
Ok i read it all see no fucking ask of this community for help on the matter I am not interested in purity coffins for cryptome or anyone but i am interested in respect of community as others have stated here There are issues then there are deeper concerns re structural mindset ... base shit people love to ignore so they can fuck with shit on accounta Coming to the list with a question is not what occured here - coming to the list with an ask is not what occured This space is not cut throat dont pretend On Oct 10, 2015 8:50 AM, "grarpamp" <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 9:00 AM, Steve Kinney <admin@pilobilus.net> wrote:
That amounts to less than an ant fart in a tornado, in context?
I am having difficulty quantifying this ratio. Can you supply some peer reviewed research data? Preferably as compared to "needle in a haystack" or "flatter than Kansas".
participants (10)
-
Cari Machet -
coderman -
Georgi Guninski -
grarpamp -
John Young -
Razer -
Shelley -
Steve Kinney -
The Doctor -
Travis Biehn