[cryptome] Re: [cryptome]

  • From: Jeremy Compton <j.compton@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2015 13:29:14 +1300

Well, what l can see is that GCHQ is keeping tabs on people accessing this
information that is posted on this website.
It is controversial because of the information posted. I have been on the list
for a great no of years.

From: shelley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; cypherpunks@xxxxxxxxxx
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 17:22:21 -0700
Subject: [cryptome] Re: [cryptome]

On October 9, 2015 4:51:44 PM Jeremy Compton <j.compton@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I am not surprised that GCHQ does what you claim it does.

Have you read about this from the beginning? If so, you'd know that Mike
Best is not the one claiming that the GCHQ slide is real. He is trying to
establish whether nearly anyone could have made the slide with the logs
Cryptome leaked/distributed/whatever, unwittingly or otherwise. That's
all, and I don't know how a researcher trying to verify data has become a
giant shitstorm.


Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 19:11:50 -0400
Subject: [cryptome]
From: themikebest@xxxxxxxxx
To: cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

To the original point, the GCHQ Snowden slide. Cryptome accusing me of
faking the data was a diversion. Only had to verify it because of the GCHQ
From: Jeremy Compton <j.compton@xxxxxxxxxxx>To: "cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx"
<cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2015 12:00:48 +1300So, now you
have named and shamed Cryptome for this grievance you have, whereto

Other related posts: