Cryptome flip flops then edits their Wikipedia page. Again. (WAS Re: Cryptome admits they leaked their logs)

Michael Best themikebest at gmail.com
Fri Oct 9 14:29:45 PDT 2015


After denying the leaked logs, then acknowleding them, then denying them
again, Cryptome edits their own Wikipedia page. *Again.*
https://twitter.com/NatSecGeek/status/652593111881908224

Next time, raise issues on the article's talk page with sources. This isn't
the first time and it's a major breach of protocol for Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest


This is the first time Wikipedia's watchlist has caught an edit I found
interesting.

--Mike

On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 4:51 PM, Michael Best <themikebest at gmail.com> wrote:

> Here is Cryptome's full set (so far) of post-admission replies. I'm unable
> to make anything consistent out of it.
>
> "Admission of leaked logs" is rather generously overstated of what we
> specifically understated.
> https://twitter.com/Cryptomeorg/status/652581186036989953
> Me: You understated things? As in, left something(s) out??
> Cryptome: Told what was needed to defuse your exaggeration and resist
> your demands to auth visitors.
> https://twitter.com/Cryptomeorg/status/652585088912355328
>
> Note that Cryptome doesn't dispute the email that I quoted, which was copy
> and pasted in it's entirety.
>
>
> Rigged and disinfo remain valid. You overstated the disclosure. Leaking is
> press exaggeration.
> https://twitter.com/Cryptomeorg/status/652581918215684096
>
> Nothing is ever deleted, that is subterfuge to escape culpability. You
> ratted Cryptome visitors. Not the first or last.
> https://twitter.com/Cryptomeorg/status/652582251805474816
> *Note that Cryptome is definitely NOT using subterfuge to escape
> culpability or advising users of the data leak/breach/compromise/whatever
> spin word Cryptome wants to use.
>
> Still refusing to validate what you faked, rigged and released. And will
> not, it's your story, run with it.
> https://twitter.com/Cryptomeorg/status/652583921352355840
>
> Our claims remain valid despite the biased cherry-picking so beloved of
> childish argumentum ad hominem -- Cicero's bitch.
> https://twitter.com/Cryptomeorg/status/652579919340421120
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 4:45 PM, coderman <coderman at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/9/15, Michael Best <themikebest at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > ...
>> > Not sure how I was right AND the info is rigged and disinfo...
>>
>> QUANTUMSQUIRREL casts suspicion, just like shade, too.
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 8406 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20151009/7a8d4346/attachment-0002.txt>


More information about the cypherpunks mailing list