11–19 of 19 posts
If I was an NSA employee and the Snowden leaks came out, I'd consider it my opportunity to leak information on the projects that had been making my skin crawl too. You could release the documents without attribution and most would assume it's just more Snowden.
This analysis seems OK. Be careful with this blog, though, as the author has shown selective, pro-NSA reporting on Schneier's blog where both he and other leakers frequent. His title is P/K. We've called him out repeatedly for ignoring the bad on one side in the leaks while criticizing Snowden. Blog bias was clear in original content which was just pictures of government, classified gear with fanboy comments. Again,…
What do you mean by P/K?
Called out the blog as NSA fanboy to max then content seemed to change with stuff like this. Given comments, I felt it was to look more objective when seeding disinformation rather than person doing a 180.
This analysis seems OK. Be careful with this blog, though, as the author has shown selective, pro-NSA reporting on Schneier's blog where both he and other leakers frequent. His title is P/K. We've called him out repeatedly for ignoring the bad on one side in the leaks while criticizing Snowden. Blog bias was clear in original content which was just pictures of government, classified gear with fanboy comments. Again,…
What do you mean by P/K?
>>> "without having been attributed to Snowden" 1) Non-attribution does not mean a different source per se. Some documents can be verified without any discussion of their source. (ie the NSA acknowledges their authenticity by demanding their takedown as "classified"). Powers are building cases against Snowden. Those releasing documents don't want to help that process. 2) Attribution to Snowden does is no guarantee th…
Lets look at a radical but more likely proposition: NTBMs [1]. If an international private security organization had these things they could construct LARGE underground installations. They could conduct psychological experiments akin to mk-ultra [2] on isolated populations. The under-people would experience this reality as simply: how things were. They would have always been underground. It would be all they knew. The explanatory pseudo-religion necessary to alleviate their condition wouldn't be that complicated. An agency could use these under-people to perfect it's propaganda methods. The power vectors granted by controlling large hidden facilities are pretty interesting; A significantly advanced and private awareness of causation would allow the manufacture of nearly certain events shrouded by ostensible ignorance. This would be much more effective, over time, if it were coupled with a massive and private surveillance network to close the feedback loop.
This analysis seems OK. Be careful with this blog, though, as the author has shown selective, pro-NSA reporting on Schneier's blog where both he and other leakers frequent. His title is P/K. We've called him out repeatedly for ignoring the bad on one side in the leaks while criticizing Snowden. Blog bias was clear in original content which was just pictures of government, classified gear with fanboy comments. Again,…
This analysis seems OK. Be careful with this blog, though, as the author has shown selective, pro-NSA reporting on Schneier's blog where both he and other leakers frequent. His title is P/K. We've called him out repeatedly for ignoring the bad on one side in the leaks while criticizing Snowden. Blog bias was clear in original content which was just pictures of government, classified gear with fanboy comments. Again,…
I would contest your description of the blogger as an "NSA fanboy." The blog is about secure communications equipment, so that's what he spends most of his wordcount on. It's a technical blog, not a political one.
>>> "without having been attributed to Snowden" 1) Non-attribution does not mean a different source per se. Some documents can be verified without any discussion of their source. (ie the NSA acknowledges their authenticity by demanding their takedown as "classified"). Powers are building cases against Snowden. Those releasing documents don't want to help that process. 2) Attribution to Snowden does is no guarantee th…
Our government's apparent ineptitude is largely a function of their graduated secrecy protocols. Isolating leaks is more important than serving their functions. Snowden knew this and attempted to demonstrate it directly. That's why he released things slowly at first. He tricked significant authorities into contradicting themselves several times as they attempted to firewall his revelations. If anything, my interest i…
coild you describe your point more clearly?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Our government's apparent ineptitude is largely a function of their graduated secrecy protocols. Isolating leaks is more important than serving their functions. Snowden knew this and attempted to demonstrate it directly. That's why he released things slowly at first. He tricked significant authorities into contradicting themselves several times as they attempted to firewall his revelations. If anything, my interest i…
I'm not quite sure how paragraph 2 follows from your first paragraph? coild you describe your point more clearly?
TL;DR: Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean someone isn't out to get me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not quite sure how paragraph 2 follows from your first paragraph? coild you describe your point more clearly?
The existence of whistleblowers doesn't invalidate every possible conspiracy theory. We can't assume comprehensive awareness by proposing: If that were true then it would have been leaked. Every known government secret is eventually revealed. That's a tautology. Generalizing it to every imaginable secret is a failure to understand the limits of inductive reasoning. The people who know how much Snowden knew regularly…