Difference between revisions of "IntelCenter and al Qaeda videos"
(No difference)
|
Latest revision as of 09:00, 21 September 2014
IntelCenter is an American company that studies and provides information on terrorist groups. They regularly provide al Qaeda videos to the media, for instance. In early 2010 their web site "About" page contained the following details on the company.
It is impossible to prevent every act of terrorism. We are no sooner likely to wipe it out then we are to rid the world of hate and crime. We can, however, reduce the frequency with which it occurs. We can make the land that terrorists operate in hostile to their presence. When the inevitable day comes and an attack occurs, we can be ready to respond and save lives.
For more than 16 years, offerings from IntelCenter and its sister company, Tempest Publishing, have been designed to assist professionals in furthering this goal. All of our products are designed to achieve real results for the operator, analyst or first responder.
Our focus as a company is on studying terrorist groups and other threat actors and disseminating that information in a timely manner to those who can act on it. We look at capabilities and intentions, warnings and indicators, operational characteristics and a wide variety of other points in order to better understand how to interdict terrorist operations and reduce the likelihood of future attacks.
The results of this work is then disseminated in a variety of Alert, Current Intelligence and Analytical Resource services. It also provides the foundation for our field books such as the "First Responder Chem-Bio Handbook." Our primary client base is comprised of military, law enforcement and intelligence agencies in the US and other allied countries around the world.
If there is any way we can improve what we do or develop a new offering that will help you, please email me at benv@intelcenter.com. May we be ever vigilant and never lose our clarity of purpose in this gravest of conflicts.
Sincerely,
Ben N. Venzke
CEO
However, some believe IntelCenter don't simply locate and distribute al Qaeda videos - they claim the company is involved in creating them in the first place. Here's InfoWars:
January 6, 2010 by Infowars Ireland
Here’s a snippet from an excellent Signs of the Times article about the mysteries of the infamous Flight 253 patsy entitled “The Underwear Bomber – Crushing Freedom With Phony Arab Terrorism”.
Initially, all we had was a Nigerian youth and a misguided effort to detonate what we are told was an explosive compound. Within 24 hours however, IntelCenter, a group of US ex-military and intelligence officials who over the years have somehow managed to produce many of the “al-Qaeda” videos and messages that they serendipitously find on “jihadist websites”, produced a picture of Mutallab with what they claim is the flag of the media arm of “al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula” and a message from the group claiming Mutallab as one of their own:
“We tell the American people that since you support the leaders who kill our women and children … we have come to slaughter you (and) will strike you with no previous (warning), our vengeance is near,” the statement said
Scared yet? Well, the people at Intelcenter really hope you are. They put a lot of effort into producing these messages and videos and images. For example, a 2006 ‘al-qaeda’ video featuring al-Zawahiri released by Intelcenter was analyzed by Neal Krawetz, a researcher and computer security consultant. During a presentation he gave at the BlackHat security conference in Las Vegas in 2007 about analyzing digital photographs and video images for alterations and enhancements, Krawetz showed that the video had been altered in a very interesting way.
Using a program he wrote (and provided on the conference CD-ROM) Krawetz could print out the quantization tables in a JPEG file (that indicate how the image was compressed) and determine the last tool that created the image – that is, the make and model of the camera if the image is original or the version of Photoshop that was used to alter and re-save the image.
Krawetz took an image ... from the 2006 video of al-Zawahiri showing the Mr Magoo look-alike sitting in front of a desk and banner with writing on it. After conducting his error analysis Krawetz was able to determine that the writing on the banner behind al-Zawahiri’s head was added to the image afterward and at the same time as the logo of IntelCenter, which released the video. In short, it seems very likely that IntelCenter produced the writing on the banner, and probably the entire video, from whole cloth.
Despite this evidence, we are being asked to believe that the latest message and photo from ‘al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula’ that IntelCenter just happened to find on a “Jihadist internet message board” that links Mutallab with ‘al-Qaeda in Yemen’ is authentic!http://web.archive.org/web/20100109111312/http://info-wars.org/2010/01/06/did-intelcenter-photoshop-alqaeda-logo-on-mutallab-photo/
The key point appears to be Krawetz claiming that both the banner behind Zawahiri, and the IntelCenter logo, were added at the same time. So is this real evidence of fakery involving IntelCenter, then? Perhaps not. As usual, InfoWars are leaving out some crucial details.
For example, while it's true that the original Wired article that made this claim said they had both been added at the same time, some updates have subsequently appeared.
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 (Krawetz doesn’t have a cell phone on him so finding him at the conference took a while). 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. He apologizes now for the error and the confusion it caused.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2007/08/researchers-ana/
The author of the work has clearly said that the IntelCenter logo was added later, then. Of course some will simply want to expand the conspiracy further, suggest that he's "lying" or "been leaned on" - so is there any way to verify his claim? Fortunately, yes.
You might have noticed in the piece above that Dr Krawetz's claim arose because he was making a presentation to the 2007 Black Hat conference. These presentations are frequently made available in PDF form, and it turns out this one was, too - there's even a link to it on the original Wired article. A text version on Krawetz's site explains how he believes the Zawahiri image was modified.
- Cropped. The last change was the image being cropped.
- IntelCenter. The IntelCenter added their logo.
- Recolored. The image was recolored and sharpened, modifying the error rate along the image.
- As-Sahab. The As-Sahab logo and subtitle text were added.
- Al Zawahiri. Zawahiri was added to the picture. ELA clearly shows a crisp error level change between him and the background. This type of error-level halo is common for chroma-key (green screen) images. In particular, there is a distinctive error level feature generated by chroma-key replacements: since most chroma-key replacement algorithms are based on hue and not saturation or brightness, the different color channels along the seams are at different error levels.
- Banner. Just as text can be added to a blank sign (Section 2.2), someone appears to have added the text to the banner behind Zawahiri.
The PC1 and wavelet analysis for this image also supports these findings. The background office appears to be one layer that was saved several times. The text of the banner was likely added around the same time Zawahiri was added, and the As-Sahab logo and subtitles were added last.
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/files/bh-usa-07-krawetz.pdf [Google Drive]
The presentation clearly states that the IntelCenter logo was added after As-Sahab's text, just as Krawetz said. His work provides no evidence that IntelCenter were involved in the creation of the original videos. And to emphasise that, perhaps the last word should go to Dr Krawetz, who posted the following on his blog in November 2007:
Watson seems to not understand how terrorist monitoring organizations operate. In July 2007, Watson accused an organization called the IntelCenter of being behind the release of Al Qaeda videos. The IntelCenter gathers up Al Qaeda videos released in various mediums, analyzes them, and then releases reports on their findings. Along with the reports, the IntelCenter redistributes the actual videos. (As reporting groups go, I have more respect for reports generated by the IntelCenter than other terrorist monitoring groups. The IntelCenter strives for accuracy and limits reporting biases.) It appears that Watson saw the video distributed by the IntelCenter and did not notice that it was also distributed in other forums. Watson claims that the IntelCenter is a "middleman" for Al Qaeda. (The term "middleman" is his term, not mine.)
Unfortunately, about a month later I was misquoted in Wired about when the IntelCenter's logo was added to a specific video. Watson immediately hyper-focused on the misquote. Although Wired quickly corrected the error (under 24 hours), Watson interpreted this as a conspiracy rather than good journalism. (Good journalists try to get their stories as correct as possible.)
So here are some real easy ways to tell truth from Watson's fiction:
1.Ask the source. I am the source of the video analysis. I say that I was misquoted in Wired and I say that the IntelCenter did not add their logo at the same time as the As-Sahab logo.
2.Review the data. I made my statement at the Black Hat Briefings security conference. My conference paper (alternate location) and slides are available for review. Both my paper and slides explicitly state that the IntelCenter's logo was added after the As-Sahab logo.
And before any conspiracy morons (Watson, are you listening?) make any claims that these documents are "doctored", remember this: they were burned onto the conference CD-ROM before the conference. Thus, I have never changed my statement.
3.Look at the time line. While the SITE Institute intercepted and released videos before As-Sahab, The IntelCenter has never done that. In fact, the IntelCenter seems to get their data at the same time as other anti-terrorist groups.
4.Look at the logos. Logos are added to videos as a form of credit. There are no instances of an As-Sahab video not having an As-Sahab logo; they want to give themselves credit. Similarly, videos by the Al-Qassam Brigades has the Al-Qassam Brigades logo, and videos by Jaish al-Fatiheen has the Jaish al-Fatiheen logo. Every group uses their own logo to deter other groups from claiming the credit.
Similarly, anti-terrorist groups add their logos to videos as a form of advertisement and to announce that they have researched the video. These logos are added after the video release. This is no different than Al Jazeera placing their logo on everything they broadcast, and NBC placing their logo over video acquired from other sources. When released videos are analyzed by the SITE Institute, SITE adds in the SITE logo. When released videos are processed by Laura Mansfield, they add the "lauramansfield.com" logo. And can you believe it? When the IntelCenter processes a released video, they add the "IntelCenter" logo. Since every video with the IntelCenter logo has appeared in other forums (1) before appearing on the IntelCenter and (2) without the IntelCenter logo, we can conclude that the IntelCenter is not making the videos.
5.Occam's Razor. The simplest solution is likely the correct one. So let's see which is less complicated. First, there is Watson's theory. Under his theory, I changed my viewpoint and managed to get every conference CD-ROM and web mirror altered with documents that support my changed viewpoint. Also, the IntelCenter creates the videos and releases them without their logo, only to add their logo in later. And, oh yes, I publicly changed my viewpoint after the conference due to "pressure" from some unspecified government agency. (We should assume that it was the Department of Defense since I was seen at Black Hat having a meal with Jim Christy -- a digital forensics superhero and role model.)
Now, let's compare that theory with this one: I have always said that the IntelCenter added their logo after As-Sahab. I even said this in the video of my presentation (Black Hat records all presentations). I was misquoted in Wired and the "reversal" was simply a story correction. As-Sahab creates and releases their videos, and the various anti-terrorist groups, including the IntelCenter, add their logo when they analyze the video.
Occam's Razor says that "All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the right one." So... which one is simpler? Changing data after it was distributed all over the world, or being misquoted by one reporter?
Even before my presentation, Watson was accusing the IntelCenter of being in league with Al Qaeda. Yet Watson has provided no proof beyond showing that the IntelCenter analyzes videos. Even after I wrote in to the Prison Planet, explaining how Watson was mistaken, he has continued to accuse the IntelCenter of wrong doing. Already dozens (if not hundreds) of conspiracy sites moronically repeat the false information. And now, a real reporter felt the need to question me about the IntelCenter's role in this.
The damage caused by Watson and other people who support this conspiracy is more than just ignorance and misinformation. It is harmful to the IntelCenter's reputation and it detracts resources from investigating the real sources behind terrorism, like Al Qaeda. In effect, Watson is supporting the terrorists by removing the focus from them and allowing them to operate in secret. And the Prison Planet? People like Watson gives them the same credibility as The Onion. (And don't get me started on Alex Jones...)
Then again, I expect the false information to continue to propagate. These people will never let the truth get in the way of a sensational conspiracy.http://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/categories/2-Terrorists/P5.html