WHY make a fake GCHQ slide?

[Michael Best]

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.
>> > > > > >
>> > > >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 7542 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20151012/2af589a5/attachment-0002.txt>