WHY make a fake GCHQ slide?

Travis Biehn tbiehn at gmail.com
Mon Oct 12 07:45:34 PDT 2015


Neither goal is achievable?

-Travis

On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 10:36 AM, Michael Best <themikebest at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Asking to help explore the possibility and look for evidence that could
> either prove it or disprove it, more like.
>
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 10:32 AM, Travis Biehn <tbiehn at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Mike,
>>
>> Nice troll,
>>
>> My point is that specifically the value of this 'navel gazing' or
>> hypothetical conversation is very limited. Since you have not proven it,
>> what data do you ask us to look at? This entire conversation asks us to
>> suspend our disbelief in order to discuss the possible motivations of an
>> unnamed attacker who faked a GCHQ slide.
>>
>> From the beginning I've maintained it was asinine and pointless, at worst
>> you're riling up the neophytes who don't understand what's going on.
>>
>> -Travis
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 10:11 AM, Michael Best <themikebest at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 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>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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>
>>
>
>


-- 
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: 13544 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20151012/3e8df1a1/attachment-0002.txt>


More information about the cypherpunks mailing list