WHY make a fake GCHQ slide?

Mon Oct 12 07:11:20 PDT 2015

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>
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 10589 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20151012/d307b5f1/attachment-0002.txt>