[cryptome] Re: The GCHQ Cryptome slide could be a mockup/disinfo
- From: Shelley <shelley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: Georgi Guninski <guninski@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Michael Best <themikebest@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2015 09:53:56 -0700
On October 8, 2015 8:43:31 AM Georgi Guninski <guninski@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 10:23:12PM -0400, Michael Best wrote:
> A few days ago, a new Snowden slide
> released that appeared to show that the GCHQ was monitoring Cryptome in
Dude, are you calling Snowden liar?
And did you found out that allegedly cryptome shipped their web logs on
usbs to buyers AFTER you called Snowden liar?
Wow, what the hell is going on here?!
I'm replying to all of the posts made thus far on this topic; I'm sorry,
but I don't have the time nor inclination to respond to them individually.
So John finally replies, but feels the need to call this guy an asshole.
Why is that? I don't know him, but going solely by his site and
contributions to archive.org, he is a legitimate researcher. He tried
going through the usual steps before disclosure, just like the rest of us
do. Only brought it to the public for verification and analysis after the
source refused to cooperate: just like the rest of us. Problem?
There are no sacred cows. There is only data, and whatever truth is borne
out of it whether or not it's the answer we wish to see. The scientific
method and all, you know, that most of us hold dear.
Georgi, he didn't outright say Snowden was a liar. He was calling into
question the validity of a slide that Snowden may not have even seen, or
may not have scrutinized.
Also, the journalists releasing the data have an open history of working
with the feds before releasing info - how do we know they wouldn't possibly
alter data under pressure? A decade ago, no less than the venerable NYT
sat on the warrantless wiretapping story for over a year! They caved when
Risen's book was about to be published. That does not exactly inspire
But what if this (or any other claim, backed with evidence) *did* call into
question the rest of the data attributed to the Snowden dumps? Isn't the
truth more important than holding up false ideals? Religion and politics
have the lock on that brand of cognitive dissonance, they don't need our help.
Snowden is not infallible.
Cryptome/JY are not infallible.
Hell, even Ellsberg isn't infallible (as we were recently reminded.)
Best is not infallible, but I haven't seen him claim to be so. Don't judge
the messenger; look at the data and draw your own conclusions, the way we
do with everything else.
This isn't a false controversy, Travis. And some of us do care.
Other related posts: