Thursday, November 01, 2018

SIGINT Epistemology

""LOOPS OF LIES RE ‘SIGINT’" by David Habakkuk", and his own comment.  A little confusing to read but:
  1. Marco Giannangeli and the ‘Sunday Express’ have a history of passing off disinformation;
  2. the disinformation appears to be from the Mossad, as explained by Murray's recognition that the the British didn't, but should have had, the same intercepts that the Americans claimed to have, the explanation being that the Mossad made them up and funneled them through the Americans:  "The Troodos Conundrum";
  3. Giannangeli has had 'scoops' on both Khashoggi and Ghouta (the facts on Ghouta were actually the opposite of what we've been told, with express instructions in the Syrian military not to use chemical weapons - just as you would expect, as such use would only hurt the position of the Syrian government - and unjustified panic that these instructions may not have been followed), and appears to be actively working to directly rebut claims of Mossad involvement, pretty much as if he is a Mossad asset working on direct orders to attempt to counter any outbreaks of the truth as they occur;
  4. the sheer volume of Panopticon data gathering means that governments don't actually know what they have until well after the fact (if ever), but Giannangeli's consistent shtick is that British agents are able to zero in on just the information that incriminates Syria or Russia right at the time such information is needed;
  5. ". . . there are three distinct kinds of analysis of the vast mass of material which contemporary ‘SIGINT’ facilities can intercept and store.  One is where crucial messages can be selected so as to give ‘ex ante’ warning of an event;  another where a search through stored messages is made, which is not uncommonly in attempting to understand some unanticipated event;  a third where a search is made, in order to ‘cherry pick’ material in favour of an interpretation decided upon in advance.

    In relation to Ghouta, the point ‘sasa wawa’ – aka Saar Wilf, and perhaps also ‘sushi’ – was making was that it had been attempted to suggest that the exercise performed had been of the first kind, when it had clearly been of the third.  As the ‘doctored’ version appeared on 24 August, it would seem quite likely that the – accurate – version on which it was based was the product of the second kind of exercise.";
  6. Giannangeli falls into the same nexus of disinformation which covers Ghouta and Khashoggi, but also Steele (Russiagate) and the Skripals (both of which involve purported analysis of signals intelligence, and, in the case of the Skripal attack, involve odd missing pieces of information which presumably aren't made public as they don't fit the narrative);
  7. there seems to be tension within western intelligence agencies on how to handle both the dossier and MbS, which leads to contradictions in the messaging (of course, I think the removal of MbS is a purely Khazar thing, with western governments unsure if the removal is worth the risk of a general destabilization of Saudi Arabia);
  8. on Seth Rich's leak to Assange:  ". . . I made the suggestion that a lot of evidence might fit into a coherent picture, if one hypothesised that the leak was originally identified, not by monitoring of information coming out at the Washington end, but rather of monitoring of information coming into Assange, which would almost certainly have been conducted, not by the NSA and CIA, but by GCHQ and MI6.  Among relevant information, of course, is the surprise resignation of Hannigan in January last year.";
  9. the comment concerns Mifsud, who "was working for the FBI, in a conspiracy orchestrated together with MI6 and the Australians", and raises the idea that the dossier and the later parts of its contents may have been produced in a panic at the implications of the Rich murder
There is a complicated epistemological conundrum for intelligence agencies when we know that they have all the information, at least in the form of raw data, but still attempt to manipulate public opinion using various plays of what they knew, and when they knew it.

Mifsud is one of these types who keeps reinventing himself, disappearing, and being taken very seriously by various groups who should know better, over and over again, leading to the inescapable conclusion that his pull comes from powerful people in the background:  "Malta academic in Trump probe has history of vanishing acts" (Satter) (note that .Habakkuk discusses Satter's father, and note also the weird photo-hunt for Mifsud published at Bellingcat, which only deals in intelligence disinfo).
blog comments powered by Disqus