-----Original Message-----
From: Barrett Brown [mailto:
barriticus@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2010 12:24 PM Eastern Standard Time
To: Hogan, Michael
Subject: Re: Anonymous v. Australia
Okay. Do I need to send an invoice for my most recent article? And do I send
it to someone else at Conde?
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Michael Hogan <
Michael_Hogan@condenast.com
> wrote:
> Hey Barrett,
>
> Thanks for this. Its interesting, but were a bit swamped at the moment,
> so Im afraid well have to pass.
>
> Best,
> Mike
>
>
>
> On 2/12/10 11:48 AM, "Barrett Brown" <
barriticus@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Also, I received an e-mail late last night from a person whom I've verified
> to have launched the global Scientology protests/attacks in 2008 by way of
> the video ultimatum to the CoS, and he/she offered to grant an exclusive
> interview (I confirmed the identify by way of the YouTube account from which
> that video was posted, which this person still controls). Let me know if you
> have any interest in an in-depth piece on Anonymous and what's going on with
> Australia at the moment.
>
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 5:39 PM, Barrett Brown <
barriticus@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi, Mike-
>
> Not sure if you've seen this <
>
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/02/anonymous-unfurls-operation-titstorm/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wired%2Findex+%28Wired%3A+Index+3+%28Top+Stories+2%29%29>
> or if you recall the similar campaign against the Church of Scientology that
> began in 2008 and has gone on to a lesser extent since, but essentially an
> internet-based group called Anonymous is conducting a denial of service
> attack coupled with a campaign of general harassment focused on the
> Australian government in general and its online infrastructure in
> particular, with this being in retaliation for that state's increasing
> efforts to censor the content delivered via the internet, video games, and
> more traditional media. I was involved with some of the sub-groups
> associated with Anonymous a few years ago when I had more free time on my
> hands, and what I've observed leads me to believe that the group and its
> interlocking directorate constitutes an extraordinarily important
> development in human affairs; this is a system of corroboration that allows
> like-minded individuals from across the globe to coordinate, say, against a
> shared enemy, which is of course how early forms of government got their
> start thousands of years back. The difference is that the nation-state and
> its predecessors came into being due to the circumstances of an earlier age,
> one in which proximity and ethnicity (and particularly the former)
> determined one's ability to ally with others (a resident of China could
> hardly team up with an Irishman in any era before our own), whereas the
> online associations that are now coming into existence are organized around
> the structures of the information age, and thus nowhere near obsolescence.
> By the same token, the nation-state and the proximity-based community in
> general is already being undermined by the ability of any individual to
> coordinate with any other individual in a manner that would have been
> severely limited by the realities of geography and politics up until this
> century.
>
> I did a brief introductory piece <
>
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barrett-brown/anonymous-australia-and-t_b_457776.html>
> on the Australia/Anonymous conflict for HuffPo and True/Slant yesterday and
> ended by noting that I'd soon be making the case that this general
> phenomenon is not only proving a demonstrable challenge to the authority and
> relevance of the nation-state, but will someday almost certainly overturn
> such institutions. Let me know if you'd be interested in such a piece, or
> perhaps one dealing more specifically with Anonymous and the subculture from
> which it stems.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Barrett Brown
> Brooklyn, NY
> 512-560-2302
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> * *
> This e-mail, including attachments, is intended for the person(s) or
> company named and may contain confidential and/or legally privileged
> information. Unauthorized disclosure, copying or use of this information may
> be unlawful and is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please
> delete this message and notify the sender.