After denying the leaked logs, then acknowleding them, then denying them
again, Cryptome edits their own Wikipedia page. *Again.*
https://twitter.com/NatSecGeek/status/652593111881908224
Next time, raise issues on the article's talk page with sources. This isn't
the first time and it's a major breach of protocol for Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest
This is the first time Wikipedia's watchlist has caught an edit I found
interesting.
--Mike
On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 4:51 PM, Michael Best <themikebest@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Here is Cryptome's full set (so far) of post-admission replies. I'm unable
to make anything consistent out of it.
"Admission of leaked logs" is rather generously overstated of what we
specifically understated.
https://twitter.com/Cryptomeorg/status/652581186036989953
Me: You understated things? As in, left something(s) out??
Cryptome: Told what was needed to defuse your exaggeration and resist
your demands to auth visitors.
https://twitter.com/Cryptomeorg/status/652585088912355328
Note that Cryptome doesn't dispute the email that I quoted, which was copy
and pasted in it's entirety.
Rigged and disinfo remain valid. You overstated the disclosure. Leaking is
press exaggeration.
https://twitter.com/Cryptomeorg/status/652581918215684096
Nothing is ever deleted, that is subterfuge to escape culpability. You
ratted Cryptome visitors. Not the first or last.
https://twitter.com/Cryptomeorg/status/652582251805474816
*Note that Cryptome is definitely NOT using subterfuge to escape
culpability or advising users of the data leak/breach/compromise/whatever
spin word Cryptome wants to use.
Still refusing to validate what you faked, rigged and released. And will
not, it's your story, run with it.
https://twitter.com/Cryptomeorg/status/652583921352355840
Our claims remain valid despite the biased cherry-picking so beloved of
childish argumentum ad hominem -- Cicero's bitch.
https://twitter.com/Cryptomeorg/status/652579919340421120
On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 4:45 PM, coderman <coderman@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 10/9/15, Michael Best <themikebest@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
...
Not sure how I was right AND the info is rigged and disinfo...
QUANTUMSQUIRREL casts suspicion, just like shade, too.
