Re: Shadow Wednesday
Subject: Re: Shadow Wednesday
From: Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com>
Date: 12/5/10, 14:42
To: Clark Robinson <robinsonchicago@gmail.com>

Yeah, at that point I wanted to keep Sean's name on the down-lo lest the CoS for some reason get involved, but at any rate he's dead now, so it's a moot point. The problem I have in terms of trying to figure out how to alleviate Scott's concerns is that I myself have just as much connection to the Anonymous movement as does someone whose name is listed on some affiliate website, and have publicly made this connection clear. Tim also has connections to people who have been involved in Anonymous and is in fact going to be working with those people on the unconventional media projects, like that skeptic coloring book, which we discussed a couple of months back in a meeting. So I really don't know what to tell him to reassure him other than that the person he's talking about is not even listed on our private list of members and that all he's done is edit a spec sheet, which Scott already knows. I honestly didn't realize that such things would be a problem for him.

On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 2:35 PM, Clark Robinson <robinsonchicago@gmail.com> wrote:
Here is a part of a conversation we had on July 15:

Only Hastings and yourself and some of my real-world colleagues are aware of this connection between us and some of these people
5:55 PM as we don't want Scientology after us
  yet
5:56 PM that's why Hastings, Carasov, and I will be switching to hushmail for some of these things
  as CoS has infiltrated the IRS, various police departments (particularly in Clearwater, Flordia), and God knows what else in the past
5:58 PM me: if we are an organization without secrets, how would scientology gain leverage over us?
5:59 PM Barrett: by making shit up
  they have a history of this
6:00 PM it is the most amoral organization other than the FSB of which I am aware
6:01 PM http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardian's_Office
6:02 PM http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology)
6:07 PM me: does CoS go after persons or organizations who have no interest in CoS?
 Barrett: not usually
  but I've criticized CoS
  and have received messages from a CoS member in response
6:08 PM this doesn't mean anyone important knows who I am or cares
  but it does mean that we must keep our anti-CoS members compartmentalized for now
6:09 PM particularly Captain Mudkip
  of whom they are quite aware
 me: his names on the workshop blog, for all to see
6:10 PM Barrett: oops



I do believe that Project PM has some members who do not want to be affiliated with an organization that is in turn affiliated with Anonymous.  I do not know whether this is on principle or because they work in settings where they might be disadvantaged by affiliations with organizations engaged in controversy (even if the organization, as here, is the good guys).

So that's the issue as best I can frame it.

What is Scott's risk of having an unwanted connection imputed to him?  I would say minimal, but not non-existent.

I will be glad to tell him that is my opinion, if you agree.






On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 11:56 AM, Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm in a relationship with Emma and she doesn't care, and Scott certainly knows that we all have other affiliations and history. I explained to Scott last summer that Anonymous isn't a formal group and that at any rate the people I know from it are from the ideological faction. They protest in front of Scientology churches and post anti-scientology material on the internet. Some percentage of them DDOS'd Scientology websites. Eisler and Hastings find the movement admirable and fascinating and so do a lot of others. Anyway, if Scott objects to any of the participants I've brought on he needs to tell me directly; all he's done so far is to point out that a participant has a tenuous connection to a self-proclaimed branch of a non-group that I publicly advocate in articles for mainstream outlets and which is popular among the sort of people we're working with, and I don't know what I could tell him that I haven't told him already. Having said that, if you get the sense that he is still concerned about this, perhaps you can reassure him? And if you think I've gauging this incorrectly do let me know.

On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 12:20 PM, Clark Robinson <robinsonchicago@gmail.com> wrote:
scott, maybe emma


On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 10:31 AM, Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com> wrote:
Reassure who?


On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 11:11 AM, Clark Robinson <robinsonchicago@gmail.com> wrote:
Re:  Project PM having chan/Anonymous connections--may want to reassure folks that it's just incidental; we all have other affiliations and history.





---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: emilieduchatelet8@gmail.com <emilieduchatelet8@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 6:28 AM
Subject: Re: Shadow Wednesday
To: Scott Mintz <scott.w.mintz@gmail.com>
Cc: Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com>, dynamicuno@gmail.com, Sundeep Gottipati <gsundeep@gmail.com>, Clark Robinson <robinsonchicago@gmail.com>, Campbell Vertesi <campbell@vertesi.com>


Can someone tell me what this is about, I have forgotten everything. Is Shadow a real person or a *bot* whatever that is. Sorry, have the flu. But my dad is Tim Berners Lee so bow. x


On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 12:36 AM, Scott Mintz <scott.w.mintz@gmail.com> wrote:
Can someone refresh my memory on why the probationary period was rejected? Sorry but my memory sucks.


On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 5:14 PM, Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com> wrote:
No, the changes appear to be fine. I've also made changes to the other document on specs to remove the portion regarding a probationary period for bloggers as per our conversation with Campbell and the others.


On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Scott Mintz <scott.w.mintz@gmail.com> wrote:
So I see Shadow has made some modifications to the Initial Release Spec document Sundeep created.

I didn't notice any gross changes so I assume the adjustments were both minor and benign.

Since I was curious who this Shadow Wednesday was I did some quick Googling and came the conclusion that Shadow is associated with Quebec's branch of Anonymous.

Barrett, I take it I need not concern myself with the changes?



--
Regards,

Barrett Brown
512-560-2302






--
Regards,

Barrett Brown
512-560-2302




--
Regards,

Barrett Brown
512-560-2302




--
Regards,

Barrett Brown
512-560-2302