/32/ - Psychopolitics

>>1497

like anyone else, the alphabet agencies are ruled by the laws of the universe

>>1318

>>1351

He is undoubtedly still in operation.

>>1458

>Best bet is to become rich, mobile, and discrete. Wait it out, with resources. Try to find some opening you can go through to build a new beginning and a better mode of human life.

SATOSHI NAKAMOTO!!!

>>1318

What about CitizenFour?

Is the whole thing staged or what?

>>1427

Snowden seems to me to throw a wrench in a lot of conspiracy theories. At least as far as /pol/ territory is concerned

>>1416

Nose Pad Buyers Tip #182: Asymmetric glasses nose pads are nose pads that have a right nose pad front surface that is a mirror image of and thus physically different than the left nose pad front surface. When installing replacement asymmetrical nose pads, it is a good idea to replace one nose pad at a time as compared to removing both old nose pads at the same time and then installing both new nose pads. By replacing one nose pad at a time, you can physically inspect an installed nose pad and compare it to its intended replacement to make sure that they have the same shape and are oriented properly. This simple procedure eliminates the possibility of mixing up a right nose pad for the left, as well as installing a nose pad upside down!

>>1408

>>1351

claiming hes without a doubt a limited hang-out reinforces the panopticon theory that the government has absolute control and never makes mistakes.

I don't see any reason to suspect this that wouldn't introduce inordinate levels of complexity. Snowden seems legit.

Russia is going the same road as America in regards to surveillance, which means something isn't right with his intentions.

Anyone with information that would actually hurt the United States of America, would A. Not be on the cover of TIME Magazine. B. Would not be Alive.

>>2349

Pretty fortunate for the powers that be that he agreed to leak information months, years at a time though right?

I wonder what would have happened if he released all the information to the internet...

>>2359

If he's a limited hang out, then the Russian and American intelligence services must be working together. I can actually believe that.

>>2360

https://theweek.com/speedreads/578318/edward-snowden-said-aliens-could-trying-communicate-right-now

He's also posting on Twitter.

The boys in charge of cointel must laughing their fucking asses off, who knew the public at large could so stupid? Just kidding, they know.

Too much info was released for this to be a limited hangout. How many of you guys have actually gone through what was released? It was really extensive, and included information that exposed relationships between all the anglo countries, and complete surveillance of the Bahamas, for example. There is no conceivable way that this was intentional.

>>2364

>US/Britain are swapping cum buckets of intel on all western gubmints

>US has complete surveillance over 3rd world hell holes where the CIA runs drug lines for black market funding

confirmation of conspiracy theory, check

normalization and acceptance, check

passive reaction of populace, check

For the love of Christ, do you really think the USG would allow some nerd and a fag reporter to release everything with minimal reaction? Or allow him to twitter/talk to Magic Science Negro?

>>2366

Yes, because Obama is an unbelievably weak president. Also, having worked in government before, you have to understand how utterly incompetent it is.

>>2368

Would it surprise you if the defense/security departments where they dump billions of dollars is well-organized and very competent?

>>2369

lol I used to work with army. I know exactly how Bradley Manning and Snowden got their docs, it's because doc management is a pain in the goddam ass and people ignore rules. They rely on "soft" protections and dump all the docs in a central location.

Just to be clear, for anyone who is watching, I NEVER broke any rules. But I saw the flaws in person.

I was surprised the public largely didn't care. The gov got lucky that nobody cares about anything unless you can virtue-signal it on Facebook.

>>2371

I don't think the gov got lucky, I think the gov knows pretty damn well that nobody cares about anything.

Again, assuming Snowden was planned, how easy would it be to upload specific docs you'd want him to grab and walk out with?

Wasn't there an IRC chat where he claimed to not give a shit about any of the virtues he claims to expouse now?

>>2372

>Wasn't there an IRC chat where he claimed to not give a shit about any of the virtues he claims to expouse now?

would be interested in seeing this if true, but there are literally years of him posting on Ars Technica with the same sort of right-libertarian viewpoints.

>>2373

Would it not be feasible for a planned operation of this sort to be in the preliminary by establishing credibility in social media?

We've had internet forums/comment sections on the internet for many, many years, or you could even count Usenet/mailing lists if you like. Establishing a character to be held up as a patsy/agent would be as simple as telling a guy "hey, go post on slashdot as a generic right winger".

If this is somehow not the case with Snowden, we're definitely going to start seeing this in the coming years. It's so much easier to set up a narrative digitally, than in real life. Much, much cleaner too.

as for the irc logs, it's out there. too lazy to find it, if someone on /pol/ posts it i'll bring it over.

>>2375

I can't find it now but I have a vague memory of reading something like this. It was like one of those JTRIG leak slides and it mentioned an ability to draw from a 'pool of identities'.

I don't have the link for it (once I started digging into this stuff I ended up with 1000 bookmarks and gave up keeping track) so take this claim with a pinch of salt.

My conclusion was that it referred to astroturfed identities on social media that could then be adopted at a later date. On that note I've seen google hangout accounts with a short bio and single picture which seem suspect.

Here's that Snowden IRC log anyway:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/06/exclusive-in-2009-ed-snowden-said-leakers-should-be-shot-then-he-became-one/3/

I think in his case the backstory would've had to have been done by hand.

>>2376

Notice how strong of a character he's projecting, and the segue into "suspicious/paranoid" type that follows into his public backstory.

Why was his posting history so public? Why so perfectly in-tune with his public backstory?

If we became leakers, and in the public eye how necessarily easy would it be to find our own postings/comments?

He's a character, and has been from the very start.

>>2375

I just think you guys are underestimating how much stuff he leaked. It didn't just affect us. It exposed how the NSA spied on foreign countries. It leaked specific details about electronic bugs down to the supply chain level.

It wasn't on purpose. Yes limited hangouts exist, this wasn't one.

Snoeden didn't leak everything, but he didn't have access to everything. For instance he leaked nothing about specific crypto weaknesses. We learned recently how NSA possibly can decrypt 70% of VPN traffic and it didn't come from any leak at all, but because now people are looking harder at unlikely things because our understanding of what NSA is capable of has expanded greatly.

>astroturfed identities

the docs that talked about this made it clear that this was a menial task that was outsourced to operators who would run multiple identities simultaneously. Not the same thing.

>>2378

Firmware hacks were heard of since at least the late 1980's (according to neckbeard oldfags I've read from), it was thought that they would have incorporated tactics by then. Most people already started avoiding Chink shit when it was obvious not only USG but China was probably putting back doors.

The USG spies on allies is not a surprise, and long suspected.

>It wasn't on purpose. Yes limited hangouts exist, this wasn't one.

It...sounds like a limited hangout though. In fact, literally everything leaked was mere confirmation most people in tech security already knew/long suspected.

>Snoeden didn't leak everything, but he didn't have access to everything. For instance he leaked nothing about specific crypto weaknesses.

He hasn't leaked everything but he's leaking years old intel on a semi-annual basis through a reporter with a terrible track record in journalism. Greenwald is so, so bad, and full of so much fucking disinformation (I studied his articles on WL when that was the big thing) I'm fully convinced he's pure shill.

>NSA can possibly decrypt 70%

Blah blah, dude you do realize everyone thinks most, if not all VPNs are already compromised? I don't know of anyone who knows what they're doing not doing VPN + TOR at a basic level, and all that shit is compromised already..

>the docs that talked about this made it clear that this was a menial task that was outsourced to operators who would run multiple identities simultaneously. Not the same thing.

Think for a second how unusual it is for someone with as much tech knowledge as Snowden operating with minimal security protection with his identity. As was said earlier, why in the world would someone either in the NSA/or about to be in the NSA even be posting publicly with pseudonym?

As I also said before, this is something we're going to be seeing. We're going to see "real people" who's only actual evidence of existing are convienent online identities with strong political/moral convictions to fit a narrative. It started with Snowden, and we will continue to see it.

>>2382

Speaking of which, let me speak on Greenwald. This guy...for the longest time I thought he was just a terrible reporter. Now that I think on it, and looking back on his articles (concerning Wikileaks), it was full of the more inane half-truths, sometimes lies I've ever seen.

And what was hilarious about the whole thing, was that you DON'T NEED TO LIE to back up WL/Assange and make the USG look bad. You really didn't! At the time I was 100% behind Assange, but Greenwald's reporting was outright full of lies. And fuzzy, pointed lies too.

There was no reason for it. Who would back the USG? Even after the trumped up rape charge, who would really attack Assange?

I now realize Greenwald was setting up narrative. If you want to study a real reporter shill, study Greenwald /32/. You have my word. I think he was in on it the entire time, and if Snowden was, Greenwald was setting the pace for narrative.

It matches up timing too, Greenwald is either making shit up/omitting facts, Snowden is posting on ARSTECHNICA (come on!).

Compare coverage of Assange/Snowden to someone like Barret Brown. Who is Barret Brown? Another reporter/whistleblower who got caught up in the Lulzsec crowd trying to leak USG projects. He's rotting away in some prison, unheard of by most people. I think Barret Brown is a fucking retard, but I think he was genuine. Nobody knows about him for one.

>>2382

>Firmware hacks were heard of since at least the late 1980's

Yes but there is a big difference between "this is possible" and "here is exactly how the NSA's bugs work, and what they look like".

>It...sounds like a limited hangout though.

Well yeah, because a limited hangout is deception, so it's supposed to look accidental. I don't think it is beause it leaked far too much actionable stuff. For instance, it tipped off Google that NSA was directly inside their datacenter, so they started encrypting between machines even inside their datacenters.

>he's leaking years old intel on a semi-annual basis through a reporter with a terrible track record in journalism.

It's not that old, but yes. As far as Greenwald, he picked Greenwald because out of all the mainstream people he could pick, GW has been consistently pro-whistleblower, pro-freespeech, and has always had a confrontational relationship with power. It was a good choice even though I don't like Greenwald personally (he's a shithead on Islam for instance.)

>dude you do realize everyone thinks most, if not all VPNs are already compromised?

It's my job, and again there's a big difference between "gov could do this" and "here is exactly how gov is doing this".

>Compare coverage of Assange/Snowden to someone like Barret Brown.

Assange got plenty of coverage. As far as Brown, the scope of his leaks were not anywhere near the breadth of Snowden's.

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but I've heard all this before. There's basically nobody with experience with intel or nsa that thinks Snowden is a plant. They appreciate how damaging the leaks were. Look, even if Americans themselves are too stupid to act on this information, every other government on the planet will act on it. There's an argument that other goverments already know this stuff. Russia I'm sure knows a lot, but there's many other smaller countries that didn't, and now they know exactly how NSA spies on them and can act to prevent it.

>>2391

>Yes but there is a big difference between "this is possible" and "here is exactly how the NSA's bugs work, and what they look like".

The targets of the bugs already knew the how and the why, look at the precautions they have taken over the years. When the targets of the OP are already aware, the damage of public awareness is minimal.

>Well yeah, because a limited hangout is deception, so it's supposed to look accidental. I don't think it is beause it leaked far too much actionable stuff. For instance, it tipped off Google that NSA was directly inside their datacenter, so they started encrypting between machines even inside their datacenters.

For the record, there's no way Mark fucking Zuckerberg is not in on it with the NSA. In the same way that "Merkel nows holds her meetings on a boat", it's all PR. Facebook/Twitter (look at /pol/ for the shadowbanning system as of 10/22), they all work hand-in-hand with the USG, it's just a matter of show for the public, to make the corporates look as if they weren't already complacent all along. If the public still thinks the corporate are independent, the public still thinks it has its freedom.

>It's not that old, but yes. As far as Greenwald, he picked Greenwald because out of all the mainstream people he could pick, GW has been consistently pro-whistleblower, pro-freespeech, and has always had a confrontational relationship with power. It was a good choice even though I don't like Greenwald personally (he's a shithead on Islam for instance.)

Greenwald is a liar. He's "pro-whistleblower", but all his coverage is tainted. You should hate him for far more than his coverage on ragheads. If you're unconvinced, look up his old articles on salon.com and brush up on your knowledge of WL/Assange pre-2011 or so.

>>2391

>Assange got plenty of coverage. As far as Brown, the scope of his leaks were not anywhere near the breadth of Snowden's.

Of course, but as I've said, I'm of the position that Snowden/Assange is a plant. As for Brown, he's some coke addict journalist in with the 2010 anonymous crowd to make a name for himself, but he's much less publicized, and far more believable.

Whereas Snowden is on Arstechnica/Arstechnica IRC, public normalfag techie news (somewhere barely above slashdot on the techie pecking order), Brown was always visible at most times on Twitter/Anonymous related IRC (as I've seen him myself).

>I'm not trying to be a jerk, but I've heard all this before. There's basically nobody with experience with intel or nsa that thinks Snowden is a plant. They appreciate how damaging the leaks were. Look, even if Americans themselves are too stupid to act on this information, every other government on the planet will act on it. There's an argument that other goverments already know this stuff. Russia I'm sure knows a lot, but there's many other smaller countries that didn't, and now they know exactly how NSA spies on them and can act to prevent it.

Which is very understandable, and I believed that myself as well, for a time at least.

But the United States is obviously attempting to put itself in a position of a global surveillance power, and it cannot do so without the world at large being let in on a certain intimation before this is accomplished. Normalization and acceptance must take place. The governments may be mule-headed (or appear to be, working directly with the US on most things: germany, UK, aus for instance), but frankly there is little they can do but take "precautions", probably from internal intel agencies with your usual suspects of US infiltration.

I'm suspicious of every "leak" of the USG, and everyone should take it with a grain of salt. They have us believe they are morons while their objectives are being accomplished before we are aware, years in advance.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/news-room/content/20151022IPR98818/html/Mass-surveillance-EU-citizens%27-rights-still-in-danger-says-Parliament

>By 285 votes to 281, MEPs decided to call on EU member states to "drop any criminal charges against Edward Snowden, grant him protection and consequently prevent extradition or rendition by third parties, in recognition of his status as whistle-blower and international human rights defende

That's right guys, we're fighting against big bad USG by calling him the champion of human rights! Be sure to follow his twitter and listen to everything the bastion of humans rights has to speak! Listen and Believe!

He's CGI.

They can simulate people now, for their non-stop hoaxes.

It's been a month or two and Snowden's been following the general plan of supporting subversive rights in the US on twitter, do people still doubt he isn't a plant?

Anything supporting BLM is a huge red flag, that "movement" was inauthentic from the start, it remains to be seen if Snowden was apart of that false gov signal in the first place though.

>>2394

>IRC

If you mean 'if I remember correctly' then you should use 'IIRC'.

IRC is internet relay chat (a chatroom protocol).

>>2574

Snowden was literally on the Arstechnica IRC channel, I did not mistype that

They have many agents providing many perspectives all pre packaged for the masses.

Snowden was made to look like the average person can just leak a ton of info when in reality, everyone is on a need to know basis. There would absolutely be no reason whatsoever to have this information available to any nsa employee. It is going full retard to give employees this level of access considering they literally have no reason to have this access in the first place.

They pre package these leaks and spread them out in the long term to cause the least amount of damage (most of this stuff was already known in the conspiracy scene anyways). The longer they wait, the less influence these actions have on people.

They also paint the perspective of sides. There are no sides. No competition. It is all one entity with different masks in an effort to bring about global change (inevitably leading to one gov in the long (decades) term-not the short term).

They parade these agents around like superstars, give them a stage to talk on where people who have been exposed to a fraction of the truth are in awe of them. Easily controlled people because "why would they lie?" After all, they did "leak" information right?

This is the basis of popularity. Offer the masses something they like (authors, artist, directers all making their best work in the beg. Before it all goes to shit once they have the audience), and when they have the audience, start feeding them shit.

They built it and people showed up.

Its not that hard to see the inevitable results of actions (good and bad). You just have to throw away any emotional attachment you have to these people and go from there.

Long term goals are accomplished with multiple short term goals.