Talk:IntelCenter
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Business and Economics WikiProject. | |
| Stub | rated as stub-Class on the assessment scale | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale. | |
Why I Started this page:
:Hi I started this page, because I'm getting increasingly frustrated with the difficulty in getting even the slightest insight into how these tapes are produced and disseminated. The URLs and websites on which they are published are closely gaurded secrets here in the United States, but they "are" on the internet, and so I am sure that they can be seen by anybody. It's simply not acceptable for the government to be allowed to pretend that there is a justification for this kind of secrecy. Furthermore, even if there is, in theory, a justification for this kind of secrecy, it would still be irresponsible to extend it to people whose families have been involved in this game for centuries. There is too much bad blood in Washington for me to feel comfortable with nearly anyone who currently holds office, much less let them protect their position through secrecy. No No No. That goes against the spirit of the gentlemen who founded this country. So it is that I believe, that by starting this page, I will be adding to the information available on the web, necessary to the public, to assist them to search and weigh for themselves this propagated threat, from this purported enemy.
Tone
- I'm a little confused about the Tone tag. Obviously, I know that the tone I use on the talk page informal and inappropriate for use in an article, so I am sure that is not what the tag refers to. perhaps, what it refers to is the way in which I make mention of IntelCenter's recent media referencing - I admit its a little conspiratory (or whatever the word is you would use), but I am honestly quite confused about what this company does, how it is funded, where it gets its information from, and why it is referenced so much in the media. I am obliged to anyone who can help make this a better article, and am thankful to whoever added the stub tag at the bottom. This is something I should have added when I started the page.
-
- Since no one has responded, I'm taking the tag off. hayadel 2:30, 2 October 2006 UTC
A few more Intelcenter/Qaeda videos added. Frank Freeman 10:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] What the hell
I reverted this article to the last semblence of objectivity it had. Wikipedia is not a forum for you to whine and complain about your perceptions of a company - its an encyclopedia. That means, just the facts, ditch all the opinion crap. If you think what was written before even comes close to encyclopedic, why don't you get 10 big wikipedia editors down here and have them give their opinions. 65.210.107.101 22:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
__________________________________________
Nice little double act going on here. One "contributor" inserts drivel ("scumbags", etc), and another removes factual contribution along with the crap.
I've reverted the article to my last edit (before mischief began).
If you have *valid* edits, of course do them. Otherwise, leave well alone, thanks. Frank Freeman 12:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Question of authenticity
I am the Neal Krawetz cited in this wikipedia entry.
--So you say ...
Zetter misquoted me. My Black Hat Briefings presentation materials, white paper, and recorded presentation clearly state that the Intelcenter's logo was added AFTER the As-Sahab logo.
--Assuming the quoted PDF files are a true reproduction of your original presentation, of course ...
They were not added at the same time. The "mysterious reversal" by me was simply Zetter correcting the quote.
--To quote Zetter ("3rd update"):-
--"I was finally able to reach Neal Krawetz at the BlackHat conference to respond to the questions about the IntelCenter and As-Sahab logos ... He now says that the error levels on the IntelCenter and As-Sahab logos are different and that the IntelCenter logo was added after the As-Sahab logo. **However, in a taped interview I conducted with him after his presentation, he said the logos were the same error levels and that this indicated they were added at the same time. Additionally, after I'd written the first blog entry about his presentation, I asked him to read it to make sure everything was correct. He did so while sitting next to me and said it was all correct.** [My emphasis.]" http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/08/researchers-ana.html
The continual spread of the false statement can be traced to a conspiracy forum called the "Prison Planet" (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2007/020807tapesdoctored.htm and http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2007/030807_reverses_stance.htm). They are much more interested in spreading conspiracies than any truth.
Prior to my presentation, the Prison Planet claimed that the IntelCenter was actually creating the Al Qaeda videos (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2007/180707oldfootage.htm). They do not seem to understand that organizations like the IntelCenter, SITE, and Laura Mansfield acquire terrorist media from various public and online forums and analyze them. In the event that they clean up the videos (IntelCenter frequently sharpens and recolors videos to make them more intelligible to analysts), they apply their logo to the video. The logos (IntelCenter, SITE, and Laura Mansfield) indicate who post-processed the already-released media.
Even after being informed of their inaccuracies, the Prison Planet has continued to repeat the false statement (http://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/115-Conspiracy-Crossing.html).
Since I am the subject discussed in this wikipedia article, I will leave the editing to someone else -- I don't want to introduce my own bias into the article. However, there is no conspiracy and I did not "went back on his original statement". My original statement is that the IntelCenter added their logo AFTER the As-Sahab logo was added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hackerfactor (talk • contribs) 13:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
--This is contradicted by Zetter's "3rd update" (above).
--Responses by Frank Freeman (talk) 10:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Frank Freeman,
You state "Assuming the quoted PDF files are a true reproduction of your original presentation". The PDF files were provided to the conference MONTHS before the conference. The conference also records all presentations. You can purchase the video of the presentation and I am certain that it shows me repeating the same information found in the PDF documents. (http://www.blackhat.com/html/bh-multimedia-archives-index.html) I would have been publicly criticized by my peers if I said something that was countered by my conference materials.
You also question that I am really me ("I am the Neal Krawetz cited in this wikipedia entry." "So you say"). Considering that this is an online forum and impersonations are rampant, I am pleased to see this kind of skepticism. I strongly recommend that you contact the real Dr. Neal Krawetz (see http://www.hackerfactor.com/ for the contact email address) and see if I respond.
Just to make sure I'm understanding this: you are placing more emphasis on a reporter's misquote than the person she interviewed and the published presentation material (https://www.blackhat.com/presentations/bh-usa-07/Krawetz/Presentation/bh-usa-07-krawetz.pdf and https://www.blackhat.com/presentations/bh-usa-07/Krawetz/Whitepaper/bh-usa-07-krawetz-WP.pdf). Clearly, you have never been interviewed by Kim Zetter.
Zetter is the only reporter who has ever actually yelled at me. She shouted at me at a public conference because I do not carry around a cell phone. (According to her aide, Zetter is known for yelling at people, "Don't take it personally.") When Zetter wrote "I was finally able to reach Neal Krawetz at the BlackHat conference", it is because I do not carry around a cell phone.
I could write about how Zetter's interview technique intentionally tries to trip up interviewees, but I'd rather not bad-mouth the reporter who yelled at me. It is sufficient to say that I will not interview with her again.
However, I should point out other questionable actions by Zetter. For example, Zetter's article included pictures cut-n-pasted from the white paper that I released. My 30-second peek of her article prior to publication was mainly me checking the pictures and giving approval for her to use them; her laptop was not even sitting in front of me, it was in front of her and I could barely read the screen from a few feet away and at an angle. (The whole reason I sat down with her the second time was so that she could ask more questions, and not for reviewing the article. That's why the "review" was only about 30 seconds.) Normally reporters ask permission before including pictures in their stories, but Zetter did not. This is why Zetter has blurry pictures and ABC News has sharp pictures (http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/08/al-qaeda-videos.html); Zetter did captures from a PDF document, while ABC News asked for permission and I offered them higher quality pictures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hackerfactor (talk • contribs) 13:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
