WHY make a fake GCHQ slide?

Mon Oct 12 08:17:54 PDT 2015

Shelley,
I'm pointing out that Mike cannot prove or disprove the legitimacy of the
GCHQ slides by pursuing the motivations for doing so. Not that he
misrepresented them as 'legitimate' rather my gripe is that he's trying to
dispose them through a fruitless exercise.

I also don't believe the consequences of establishing that one or more
slides in the disclosure are fictitious would be of any concern.

-Travis

On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 11:14 AM, Shelley <shelley at misanthropia.org> wrote:

>
>
> On October 12, 2015 8:00:55 AM Travis Biehn <tbiehn at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm not accusing Mike of misrepresenting his 'findings.' I think that's a
>> clear misread on his part.
>>
>> -Travis
>>
>
> Really?
>
> > >> 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.
>>
>
> You're contradicting yourself.
>
> What's frustrating is that I know you're not ignorant nor are you a troll
> (which can't be said for everyone inexplicably belaboring this issue.)
>
> *IF* this slide ends up being a fake, you really don't think that is
> significant?  You don't think it's a worthwhile pursuit to investigate
> whether the press is using slides attributed to Snowden without properly
> vetting them, or if there is intentional disinfo and FUD going on?
>
>
>
>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 10:40 AM, Shelley <shelley at misanthropia.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > I don't recall Mike ever saying the words, "this slide is a fake."
>> >
>> > What is being put forth for discussion and review is the following:
>> >
>> > With the log files that were included in the Cryptome archive,
>> >
>> > *anyone* with access to those files could have made that slide,
>> >
>> > because the data in the log files are from the same time period referred
>> > to in the slide.
>> >
>> > Why is this so hard to comprehend?  I feel like this list has branched
>> off
>> > into some alternate timeline where logic and critical thinking do not
>> exist!
>> >
>> > -S
>> >
>> >
>> > On October 12, 2015 7:21:16 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: 19266 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20151012/6bfa784b/attachment-0002.txt>