The people at GCHQ do take Cryptome seriously: https://prod01-cdn07.cdn.firstlook.org/wp-uploads/sites/1/20... (KARMA POLICE)

The writing could be one (or many) of many things: Leveling, acting, craziness, fooling, making an obscure point, fnords, trolling, an in-joke, a nod to author identification or woolly self-aggrandizing media reporting, being brash and adversarial for the hell of it, attention whoring, readership selection etc.

I don't think it is supposed to make sense, except maybe for a select few of insiders. We had Cryptome vs. Wikileaks, Cryptome vs. Appelbaum and now Cryptome vs. Snowden. Something-something about letting the leaks do the talking, not the money and spin doctors.

Or, given that it's Cryptome, it could be a an attempt to foil stylometry.

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sci-tech/why-hackers-should...

>The people at GCHQ do take Cryptome seriously: https://prod01-cdn07.cdn.firstlook.org/wp-uploads/sites/1/20.... (KARMA POLICE)

I don't think that image signifies that they take cryptome seriously but think that some of the users could be interesting.

I'm sure the people at GCHQ, NSA familiar with cryptome know just as well as anyone else (familiar with cryptome) knows that it's a bit of a joke.

It is about information needing to be free. That is the point not racking up speaking fees or self promotion.

"On the one hand information wants to be expensive, because it's so valuable. The right information in the right place just changes your life. On the other hand, information wants to be free, because the cost of getting it out is getting lower and lower all the time. So you have these two fighting against each other." -Stewart Brand

The full quote is much more nuanced than just 'Info want be free!'

Yes you are right, but you still have to pick a side and I know that I what information to be free. All of it. So you can fight to keep it hidden or you can fight for it to be free. But by trying to hide it you have to know that by its nature it wants to be free and shared. the government relies on the levers influence over the individual be it financial, physical or other means to keep that info out of common knowledge. So you can decide to be part of the solution or part of the problem . The biggest problem people have with Cryptome is they see this in very black and white terms.

snowden doesn't seem like he's very employable at the moment. if he doesn't take speaking fees, what's he going to live on? alms?

Well I think Cryptome is taking more issue with who has the info than with Snowden his only role was in taking it and whom he chose to give it to.

John and Deborah exaggerate sometimes and do sound like "conspiracy theorists" but before Snowden, how much of what he documented would be considered such? So their claims should be taken with a reasonable grain of salt, but the facts they mention are apparently facts and deserve to be discussed, like, who finances Tor is apparently clearly visible in the tax reports? Or what are the intersts of Omidyar.

And if they claim something that's not true, it should be provable that they are wrong.

That is not what the GP post is taking issue with. They are saying that it looks like someone got a new Thesaurus for their birthday and went wild trying to sound smarter than they were.

FWIW I agree with the GP- there's no reason for anyone to talk this way.

> That is not what the GP post is taking issue with

Well, "that" is the answer to GP's:

> Do people take Cryptome seriously?

And I consider it much more important than which specific words were used. Don't shoot the messenger, let's talk about the substance or the truthness of the message.

Fair point

The claim is that "massive funding from the U.S. government, the Pentagon and the national security state."

The first part is based on the fact that University of Minnesota, Georgia Tech and Princeton University, and Georgetown are funding the tor project. The argument is that all of them are receiving their money from the U.S. Government, and even if they claim that they are independent organization they are just fronts used by the government when it comes to funding the tor project. One could also get the impression that the U.S. Government are the only source of funding for those universities, and that the universities gets no research funding elsewhere, demand no tuition from students, and so on.

The Pentagon claim is likely derived from statements that SRI international is a sponsor of the tor project, and they receive funds from US Department of Defense. Again, one must assume that SRI international only gets fund from a single source.

I can only guess that the national security state is a reference to either the U.S. (ie, the above), or the Federal Foreign Office of Germany, or US Department of State Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor.

The cited Guardian source is based on 2013 financial report, and the list of sponsor today is naturally quite different, but I guess thats not an issue.

And Radio Free Asia as the financier, mentioned even by the interviewer? Open technology fund? What's the story?

Specifically:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Free_Asia

> RFA is funded by the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), an independent agency of the United States government responsible for all non-military, international broadcasting sponsored by the U.S government (such as Radio Free Europe), which appoints the board of RFA.

https://www.opentech.fund/project/tor-project

   @torproject Funding to date:
   2013 $600,000
   2014 $900,000

Snowden can just as easily be a pressure value, to allow this sort of things to normalize in the public consciousness in a certain way with a certain narrative. And it has normalized perfectly. Stuff that would make everything seem scary and relatively totalitarian is now normal day to day mater of fact sort of thing.

The founder of Cryptome was educated as an architect (as were some other interesting figures in near-history..). If you read any architecture theory, a lot of it uses this sort of language.

Agreed. As a former architecture student, the field is right up there with critical gender theory for amount of simply-explained ideas transmuted into new, overly-complicated words.

Personal opinion: that language is then used as a litmus test to reject ideas from people without formal education in the field thereby centralizing control of the discourse and perpetuating group-think, but that's neither here nor there.

I believe they are both architects which might explain a bit about their verbose language. I've known a LOT of architects who talk in this manner and to them it's perfectly acceptable.

That wording is worse than absurd. It's comical. Their ability to use a thesaurus does not make them intellectuals, in fact the exact opposite.

The same criticism was leveled against Hegel.

This comment is brilliant. To those who consider Hegel important it says one thing. To those who can't stomach him it says another. Those who have never heard of Hegel will also be partitioned, into those who go to wikipedia and get confused, and those who take it as more support for their feeling that big words aren't so bad.

Based on your comment, I went to the Simple English wikipedia page for Hegel just for laughs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Wilhelm_Friedrich_Hegel

"Hegel's principal achievement is his development of a distinctive articulation of idealism sometimes termed "absolute idealism,"[8] in which the dualisms of, for instance, mind and nature and subject and object are overcome. His philosophy of spirit conceptually integrates psychology, the state, history, art, religion, and philosophy..."

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Wilhelm_Friedrich_He...

"He started Hegelianism and is a part of German Idealism. He influenced many writers and philosophers, including those who agreed with him (Bradley, Sartre, Küng, Bauer, Stirner, Marx), and those who did not agree with him (Kierkegaard, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Schelling). Hegel's books are difficult to read and deal with many different ideas at the same time. He has written about history, politics, religion, art, logic and metaphysics."

I agree that the verbiage in that post is very absurd. When I visit Cryptome I generally go and look at the pdf files of either leaks / interesting publicly available information than the things that they write.

Nobody familiar with cryptome takes it seriously. While some of the data they host is incredibly useful, original content tends to be a joke.

Just read the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptome#History 2015 section (especially the archived sources) and draw your own conclusions.

IMO these guys are far beyond Alex Jones level.

> Cryptome was created by John Young and Deborah Natsios, both highly successful architects.

Regarding their Cryptome's style: it's my understanding that architecture was one of the first disciplines to heavily take up postmodernist philosophy, and postmodernists are known for their ponderous and impenetrable writing style. So Cryptome's writing may just be postmodernist.

I'm moderately familiar and comfortable with postmodernism, and Cryptome still seems bizarre to me. It's not word salad, like some people in this thread imply, but it's not clear to me that we're supposed to take it as serious analysis either. Part of Cryptome's game seems to be riding the border between insight and absurdity.

EDIT: It's definitely a postmodernist writing style, though. You're right about that.

I stopped taking cryptome seriously after their response to thecthulu hosting a mirror. https://www.thecthulhu.com/a-response-to-cryptome/

Going by the name of the PDF, the author was likely francophone.

She may or may not be Francophone, but "Voir Dire" is actually an American legal term for the jury selection process (and is probably also used in other Anglophone countries).

You're not being anti-intellectual, but you're overlooking the fact that it's a precise, technical language, used in post-structuralist philosophy to describe and analyze social reality (e.g. by Deleuze, Foucault et al.), and is very rigorously formulated in the relevant texts. I guess any academic jargon would look "absurd" by a(n in regard to this domain) layperson.

Generally anything not put together by John's wife is pretty good. John's wife is a little out there