WHY make a fake GCHQ slide?

[Shelley]

On October 12, 2015 6:55:04 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.


That's a fair point.  That's why it's so dangerous to beatify anyone; it's 
an all too easy exploit for TLAs and other bad actors to use.  It's like 
screaming into the ether, though...


>
> 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.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >