What if my hypothesis regarding Snowden is correct?

[g2s]

Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
-------- Original message --------From: Steve Kinney <admin at pilobilus.net> Date: 6/18/17  1:24 PM  (GMT-08:00) To:  Cc: cypherpunks at lists.cpunks.org Subject: Re: What if my hypothesis regarding Snowden is correct? 


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.
Adrian Llamo set him up. A database hacker with a debt to credit card companies as restitution for a hack bust
Rr
  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: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 6093 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20170618/2363b3de/attachment.txt>