What if my hypothesis regarding Snowden is correct?

[Steve Kinney]

On 06/18/2017 04:18 PM, Wilfred L. Guerin wrote:
> "Snowed-In @ Moskow" "David Miranda Writes" "Manning the Deck" FBI CI
> 101. Same DIA + FBI unit managed and papered those stupid staged events
> and hundreds more. "Reality Winner"??? 

To date I have seen no indications that Manning was set up.  In terms of
impact, Snowden and (especially) Winner could be said to have advanced
IC agendas and objectives.  Manning not so much:  Those leaks caused
numerous diplomatic incidents with the U.S. a clear loser, and got U.S.
forces kicked out of Iraq for quite a while.

The timing of the PRISM release to remove Manning's trial from the news
is also an indicator of sorts.

:o)



> On Sunday, June 18, 2017, Steve Kinney <admin at pilobilus.net
> <mailto:admin at pilobilus.net>> wrote:
> 
>     On 06/18/2017 02:24 AM, Ryan Carboni wrote:
> 
>     > The hypothesis being that Snowden is at least a triple agent. Ali
>     > Mohammed provided material support to Al Qaeda, but that was
>     because he
>     > betrayed both the Army and Al Qaeda for the CIA. His sentencing
>     has been
>     > on hold for a long time, and it is interesting no one asks questions
>     > about it.
> 
>     My guess is that Snowden was an unwitting agent, spotted early by the
>     insider threat program and selected for use in a limited hangout.  If
>     so, he was exposed to scripted events in the workplace to draw his
>     attention to specific programs, and given e-z access to selected
>     documents related to those programs.  In the network age, censorship
>     ranges from difficult to impossible depending on the context; getting
>     ahead of an adversary and dominating the messaging on a given topic has
>     gained a new importance.  I think the Snowden Affair may be an example.
> 
>     Glenn Greenwald's behavior, selecting a few of Snowden's documents to
>     publish and burying the rest, is consistent with this model.  So too is
>     his initiative in pushing the publication date of the (partially
>     falsified) PRISM pages back to coincide with the first day of the
>     Manning trial, knocking it all the way out of the news.
> 
>     The huge controversy following the release of the first few Snowden
>     documents produced what results?  It seems that the intel guys won every
>     engagement, even setting a precedent that senior U.S. intelligence
>     officials are allowed to lie to Congressional committees under oath with
>     no penalty of any kind.  The way it all went down suggests to me that
>     the intel guise had a long lead time to select and prepare for specific
>     challenges.
> 
>     > Snowden's revelations increased the amount of encryption.
> 
>     The only place I saw that happen was a significant bump in the use of
>     SSL by a wider range of website operators.  Given that the SSL key
>     signing protocol is deeply flawed and the NSA is uniquely well
>     positioned to conduct MITM attacks negating that particular form of
>     encryption, no harm done.  The result is an increase in end users'
>     "false sense of" security - and a small net gain in "national security"
>     in the sense of making access to network traffic a little harder for
>     foreign intel and private sector criminal enterprises.
> 
>     A casual observer might believe that the Snowden docs caused significant
>     harm to U.S. interests, most notably when it was revealed the Angela
>     Merkel's phones were tapped - but those particular documents came from
>     an as yet unknown source, probably located in Germany.
> 
>     I don't "believe" a word of the above analysis.  But I do consider it
>     more likely than the alternatives I have seen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 490 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20170618/11ef79ae/attachment-0002.sig>