WHY make a fake GCHQ slide?

[Michael Best]

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. 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?

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.
> > > > >
> > >
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 5594 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20151012/99c7eb73/attachment-0002.txt>