WHY make a fake GCHQ slide?

[Michael Best]

>
> IMHO you didn't disprove the slide is real, you are casting doubt over
> it.
>

I agree completely! "In other words, the guilty knowledge implied by the
accuracy of the slide can imply things other than being guilt of
surveillance." Proving that it could be *definitely* doesn't mean that it
*is*.


> If it really was leaked by Snowden, the question is where it came from.


I'd say that question is even more relative if it came from anywhere but
Snowden.

On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 6:46 PM, Michael Best <themikebest at gmail.com> wrote:

> Here's my preliminary list of potential reasons for faking a GCHQ slide. Not meant to be comprehensive, and not every possibility is highly likely. Some are included only for completeness, but I'm sure there are possibilities I missed.
>
> There have been a few incidents already where the slides have been challenged or at least partially debunked. The German prosecutor found a lack of evidence that the NSA was illegally monitoring their government and concluded that the alleged NSA order was a fake. Snowden has also accused The Independent of attributing slides to him that he never gave to them.
>
> The why depends on the who. Candidates include:
>
>
>    - GCHQ
>    - Snowden (included for completeness, but least likely. Why fake this particular slide among many apparently legitimate ones?)
>    - Russian chekist agencies
>    - Chinese intelligence agencies
>    - The Intercept
>    - Intel service X
>    -
>
> If the GCHQ, then there are a few possible reasons:
>
>    1. Part of a proposal/demo
>    2. Disinfo to discourage visitors from going to Cryptome
>    3. Disinfo to create paranoia
>    4. Disinfo to discredit other slides (Snowden suggests something like that here http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/23/uk-government-independent-military-base )
>    5. Disinfo to convince a FIS (foreign intel service) that their capabilities are better/more complete than they are (or were better than they were at the time)
>
> If Snowden:
>
>    1. ???
>    2. Makes no sense as an isolated incident, little evidence to the contrary
>    3. Would not necessarily recognize a fake slide, since he didn't examine all of the ones he passed on
>
> If Russian disinfo:
>
>    1. Discredit the GCHQ
>    2. Discredit western governments and undermine their intelligence agencies
>    3. Inflate the importance of Cryptome prior to attempting to use them to release disinfo
>
> If Chinese disinfo:
>
>    1. Smear British cyber operations as part of their ongoing cyberwar with the west and related cognitive warfare
>    2. Discredit the GCHQ
>    3. Discredit western governments and undermine their intelligence agencies
>    4. Inflate the importance of Cryptome prior to attempting to use them to release disinfo
>
> If The Intercept:
>
>    1. Fame
>    2. Money from being paid to publish a fake by any interested party
>    3. Financial compensation from media attention as suggested by Razer/Rayzer at riseup.net
>
> If Intel service x:
>
>    1. Any of the above
>
> *Juan* juan.g71 at gmail.com
>>
>> <juan.g71%40gmail.com?Subject=Re%3A%20Why%20cryptome%20sold%20web%20logs%20to%20their%20paying%20customers%3F&In-Reply-To=%3C5619825d.361f8c0a.691ce.fffffe96%40mx.google.com%3E>
>> *Sat Oct 10 17:31:29 EDT 2015*>*I still don't get who would make such a
>> fake and why. *
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 8272 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20151011/7a984ef4/attachment-0002.txt>