WHY make a fake GCHQ slide?

Michael Best themikebest at gmail.com
Mon Oct 12 07:36:11 PDT 2015


Asking to help explore the possibility and look for evidence that could
either prove it or disprove it, more like.

On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 10:32 AM, Travis Biehn <tbiehn at gmail.com> wrote:

> Mike,
>
> Nice troll,
>
> My point is that specifically the value of this 'navel gazing' or
> hypothetical conversation is very limited. Since you have not proven it,
> what data do you ask us to look at? This entire conversation asks us to
> suspend our disbelief in order to discuss the possible motivations of an
> unnamed attacker who faked a GCHQ slide.
>
> From the beginning I've maintained it was asinine and pointless, at worst
> you're riling up the neophytes who don't understand what's going on.
>
> -Travis
>
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 10:11 AM, Michael Best <themikebest at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I never said I proved the slide is fake, Travis. In fact, I've said
>> several times that I've all done is prove that it could be fake. I said it
>> in the mailing list and in the original posts on my site.
>>
>> *Please* try to read what you're criticizing/arguing/responding to. I
>> know it can be hard, or boring, or frustrating, but it's essential to a
>> dialogue that you respond to what the other person/side/position said and
>> not confabulate something (as is human nature) or worse yet, build a
>> strawman.
>>
>> Forcing your targets to *ahem* 'go dark' by instilling paranoia is
>>> exactly the opposite of what 'an IA / TLA' wants.
>>
>>
>> So categorical, monolithic and single minded! One might even say "overly
>> so" lol
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 10:02 AM, Travis Biehn <tbiehn at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Mike,
>>> You haven't proven that they were fake. Being able to counterfeit a
>>> dollar bill does not all dollar bills counterfeit make. It's been one giant
>>> navel gazing exercise.
>>>
>>> These disclosures only serve to further confirm opsec procedures long
>>> recommended and employed. This slide is an advertisement for Tor (which
>>> some hold to be a government honeypot, I do not.)
>>>
>>> Forcing your targets to *ahem* 'go dark' by instilling paranoia is
>>> exactly the opposite of what 'an IA / TLA' wants.
>>>
>>> -Travis
>>>
>>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 9:55 AM, Michael Best <themikebest at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think Snowden has become such a folk hero that some people may leap
>>>> to defend what seems like an attack on him without taking as much time to
>>>> look at the data/posts as they would otherwise.
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 9:46 AM, Shelley <shelley at misanthropia.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On October 12, 2015 6:20:46 AM Michael Best <themikebest at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I tried to list their motives under the GCHQ/UK motives, who would be
>>>>>> more
>>>>>> likely to fake the slide anyway and are the ones alleged of having
>>>>>> leaked
>>>>>> documents to the Independent on behalf of JTRIG, are a fairly likely
>>>>>> candidate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, you did list a number of possibilities.  It sometimes seems as
>>>>> though the same few people do not read and/or comprehend responses before
>>>>> replying to them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Faking a slide like this would be a good way to inspire paranoia
>>>>>> and divide a community, no? It got Cryptome to post a notice on their
>>>>>> site
>>>>>> for a week or two, alerting people to the possibility that they'd been
>>>>>> targeted by GCHQ by visiting Cryptome. Sounds like JTRIG-ish
>>>>>> paranoia, no?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Agreed.  It could be an effective way to deter visitors to Cryptome,
>>>>> possibly to divert attention away from something posted there around the
>>>>> time this all began.
>>>>>
>>>>> -S
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 9:10 AM, Georgi Guninski <
>>>>>> guninski at guninski.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joint_Threat_Research_Intelligence_Group&oldid=670966374
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > In June 2015, NSA files published by Glenn Greenwald revealed new
>>>>>> > details about JTRIG's work at covertly manipulating online
>>>>>> > communities.[6]
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 08:58:33AM -0400, Michael Best wrote:
>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>> > > > So assuming Snowden "borrowed" the slide from the NSA and he
>>>>>> didn't get
>>>>>> > >
>>>>>> > > owned, the slide is _REAL_.
>>>>>> > >
>>>>>> > >
>>>>>> > > I don't think I understand your mean, if we assuming it's real, it
>>>>>> > follows
>>>>>> > > that it's real? I think I walked into a language barrier.
>>>>>> > >
>>>>>> > >
>>>>>> > > > Having in mind Snowden likely have large pile of slides, if he
>>>>>> got
>>>>>> > > > owned, likely all/the majority of them would likely be fake.
>>>>>> > > > Is this plausible?
>>>>>> > >
>>>>>> > >
>>>>>> > > Not necessarily, that's not how disinfo works a lot of the time.
>>>>>> > >
>>>>>> > > And did you missed the us-natsec trolling about the eu appearing
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> > > > trust Snowden's slides (though sometimes they can't prove it)?
>>>>>> > >
>>>>>> > >
>>>>>> > > No, there just wasn't much to respond to.
>>>>>> > >
>>>>>> > > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 8:55 AM, Georgi Guninski <
>>>>>> guninski at guninski.com>
>>>>>> > > wrote:
>>>>>> > >
>>>>>> > > > So assuming Snowden "borrowed" the slide from the NSA and he
>>>>>> didn't get
>>>>>> > > > owned, the slide is _REAL_.
>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>> > > > Having in mind Snowden likely have large pile of slides, if he
>>>>>> got
>>>>>> > > > owned, likely all/the majority of them would likely be fake.
>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>> > > > Is this plausible?
>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>> > > > And did you missed the us-natsec trolling about the eu
>>>>>> appearing to
>>>>>> > > > trust Snowden's slides (though sometimes they can't prove it)?
>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>> > > > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 08:22:37AM -0400, Michael Best wrote:
>>>>>> > > > > No but as I and others have noted, he didn't look at all of
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> > materials
>>>>>> > > > > he handed over to journalists and couldn't possibly be
>>>>>> expected to
>>>>>> > > > remember
>>>>>> > > > > all the ones he did see well enough to possibly be able to ID
>>>>>> this
>>>>>> > one as
>>>>>> > > > > altered or forged. He was only able to argue against the other
>>>>>> > documents
>>>>>> > > > > because he had never been in touch with the outlet releasing
>>>>>> them,
>>>>>> > > > contrary
>>>>>> > > > > to their apparent belief.
>>>>>> > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 8:19 AM, Georgi Guninski <
>>>>>> > guninski at guninski.com>
>>>>>> > > > > wrote:
>>>>>> > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 07:50:14AM -0400, Michael Best
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> > > > > > > As I think I said in the other thread, less specific
>>>>>> charges that
>>>>>> > > > require
>>>>>> > > > > > > more specific proof and almost never leveled before a
>>>>>> trial is
>>>>>> > set,
>>>>>> > > > > > because
>>>>>> > > > > > > it forces the issue to be tried in the court of public
>>>>>> opinion,
>>>>>> > > > where a
>>>>>> > > > > > lot
>>>>>> > > > > > > of information can't be released lest it spoil an
>>>>>> investigation
>>>>>> > or
>>>>>> > > > > > > potential trial. There's also the fact that there'd be
>>>>>> little to
>>>>>> > > > gain at
>>>>>> > > > > > > this point by alleging that the slides are fake since
>>>>>> there
>>>>>> > would be
>>>>>> > > > few
>>>>>> > > > > > > people to believe it,
>>>>>> > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > "NSA hasn't said it's fake" doesn't seem like a strong
>>>>>> argument -
>>>>>> > > > > > > especially for a non-NSA slide. And again - *Snowden
>>>>>> himself* has
>>>>>> > > > accused
>>>>>> > > > > > > outlets of releasing slides attributed to him that *he
>>>>>> says he
>>>>>> > did
>>>>>> > > > not
>>>>>> > > > > > > provide*.
>>>>>> > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > Likely the NSA would distribute fake slides just to
>>>>>> discredit
>>>>>> > Snowden.
>>>>>> > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > Does Snowden deny the authencity of this slide?
>>>>>> > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > This slide appeared in _too many_ news AFAICT to get
>>>>>> unnoticed.
>>>>>> > > > > >
>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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>
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 12636 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20151012/e98254a9/attachment-0002.txt>


More information about the cypherpunks mailing list