[cryptome] Re: [cryptome]

[Mirimir]

On 10/09/2015 06:22 PM, Shelley wrote:
> On October 9, 2015 4:51:44 PM Jeremy Compton <j.compton at outlook.com> wrote:
> 
>> I am not surprised that GCHQ does what you claim it does.
>>
> 
> Have you read about this from the beginning?  If so, you'd know that
> Mike Best is not the one claiming that the GCHQ slide is real.  He is
> trying to establish whether nearly anyone could have made the slide with
> the logs Cryptome leaked/distributed/whatever, unwittingly or
> otherwise.  That's all, and I don't know how a researcher trying to
> verify data has become a giant shitstorm.

Maybe because Mike _published_ the fucking logs, just because JYA was
doing the mirror shades thing about whether the archive was or was not
genuine? I mean, JYA can be a very funny man. For sure. But does that
justify publishing Cryptome access logs?

> -S
> 
>> Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 19:11:50 -0400
>> Subject: [cryptome]
>> From: themikebest at gmail.com
>> To: cryptome at freelists.org
>>
>> To the original point, the GCHQ Snowden slide. Cryptome accusing me of
>> faking the data was a diversion. Only had to verify it because of the
>> GCHQ slide.
>> From: Jeremy Compton <j.compton at xxxxxxxxxxx>To:
>> "cryptome at xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <cryptome at xxxxxxxxxxxxx>Date: Sat, 10 Oct
>> 2015 12:00:48 +1300So, now you have named and shamed Cryptome for this
>> grievance you have, whereto
>> know?
>>                         
> 
> 
>