Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone

   -------- Original message --------
   From: Steve Kinney <admin@pilobilus.net>
   Date: 6/18/17 1:24 PM (GMT-08:00)
   To:
   Cc: cypherpunks@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@pilobilus.net
   > <mailto:admin@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.
   >
   >
   >
   >
   >
   >
   >