Talk:IntelCenter

Untitled

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

__________________________________________

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)[reply]

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" (www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2007/020807tapesdoctored.htm and 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 (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)[reply]

--This is contradicted by Zetter's "3rd update" (above).

--Responses by Frank Freeman (talk) 10:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

---

To reiterate from Zetter's "3rd update": "... 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." http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/08/researchers-ana.html

You are claiming that this statement is false?

Frank Freeman (talk) 09:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Frank Freeman,

As I previously stated, you appear to be placing more emphasis on a misunderstanding during an interview than on the published presentation materials she was reporting on. (See her first paragraph at http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/08/researchers-ana.html)

While she does say that she has me recorded as giving an affirmative, I also believe the same recording shows her asking variations of the same question many times and with different incorrect statements or conclusions AND I corrected her each of the other times. It is my belief that the interview technique was intended to trip me up, and that she successfully did so.

While intentionally tripping up sources is ethically questionable, there are other ethically questionable items here. For example, in the comments (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/08/researchers-ana.html, Posted by: Kim Zetter | Aug 6, 2007 4:30:55 PM), Zetter wrote: "I don't generally like speaking to sources through public comments". However, this is effectively what she was doing in the updates to her story (see "3rd UPDATE" in the article). From my viewpoint, the IntelCenter contacted Zetter/Wired about the inaccuracy, and Zetter went on a cover-your-ass rampage.

I should also point out that after Zetter's report, I received a communication from Ben Venzke at the IntelCenter. He asked whether Zetter's report accurately represented my presentation. What I told him:

Hi Ben Venzke,

I just got back home.  (No internet access for the last week since I
don't trust the BlackHat or Defcon networks.)

Kim Zetter misunderstood me.  (She was shooting random questions at me
and had a hard time understanding that I presented different analysis
techniques with different images.  She says she has me on tape saying "Yes".
I'm sure that she had me thoroughly confused.  I am also sure that she has
me on tape correcting her dozens of times about different pictures that
I analyzed.)

What I emphasized in my talk, slides, and paper:

  - USA Today used the wrong image for this story.  The story describes
    one video, but the sample image is from a different video.  This is
    a case of a misleading image.  I do not know if it was intentional
    or not.  (USA Today has taken offense at this, but on this matter, I
    am positive that they got it wrong.)
    http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-12-20-al-qaeda-palestinians_x.htm

  - The image was cropped.  Likely by USA Today since IntelCenter does not
    crop their own logo.

  - Before the crop, the IntelCenter added their logo.  This is also likely
    when the image's color was adjusted and the focus was fixed.

  - Before that, the As-Sahab logo and subtitles appear to have been
    added.  (Notice my frequent used of "appears" and "likely" -- I'm not
    fond of absolute statements during profiling.)

  - Before that, it appears that Al-Zawahiri was added.  Also, someone
    seems to have added text to the banner behind him.

The above is effectively a chronological list of modification made to
the image -- from most recent (top of list) to earliest change (bottom
of the list).

Freeman: while you can continue to reference the Zetter updates to the article, it is nonetheless inaccurate and only being propagated by conspiracy theorists who do not want to hear the truth. (Why let the truth get in the way of a good conspiracy?) I strongly recommend that this be chalked up to a misunderstanding during an interview rather than some conspiracy theory that is contradicted by the conference materials. Here are some better (and accurate) reports related to my presentation: http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9753090-7.html, http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/08/al-qaeda-videos.html, http://news.cnet.com/A-picture-worth-a-thousand-lies/2008-1046_3-6199869.html, and http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/25389. As an aside, if I had said the incorrect statement in my presentation and/or materials, wouldn't these other news sites have picked it up?

Finally, you still have not contacted the real "Dr. Neal Krawetz" directly in order to validate that I am me and not some impersonator.

--Hackerfactor (talk) 15:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

> As I previously stated, you appear to be placing more emphasis on a misunderstanding during an interview than on the published presentation materials she was reporting on. (See her first paragraph at http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/08/researchers-ana.html)

To reiterate from Zetter's "3rd update": "... 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." http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/08/researchers-ana.html

Ah, right, so now it's a "mistunderstanding", is it? Frank Freeman (talk) 09:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why removing reference to interview with Ian Clark?

Well, why?--221.239.225.113 (talk) 15:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Every question has an answer, it seems. The user Billinghurst is said to be employed by IntelCenter. May someone please take action against that user?--207.126.92.2 (talk) 10:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

<laughing> yep sure, and if that is your belief, we should truly not be using anything that you source and treat as evidence. Find an alternate and credible source for the statement, taliban.no is neither credible or authoritative for an encyclopaedia, see Wikipedia:Citing sources. For your information, I am the penguin's representative to Middle Earth. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]