The GCHQ Cryptome slide could be a mockup/disinfo

Georgi Guninski guninski at guninski.com
Fri Oct 9 06:49:45 PDT 2015


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?



More information about the cypherpunks mailing list