Re: Press Release for Project PM/Anonymous rally in NYC

On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 12:34 PM, Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com> wrote:

Apologies, Todd; perhaps I overestimated the extent to which Wikileaks might be a deal breaker for you based on the specifics of your first e-mail. I didn't mean to put words in your mouth. And I should have done a better job of ensuring that everyone involved was up to speed on what PM has been doing and what we're about.

Regarding the protection against those potential excesses, when I noted their cooperation with mainstream media outlets, I meant to convey not just that those outlets we abhor are the ones holding Wikileaks back, but also that Wikileaks itself had chosen to go about this process in such a responsible fashion, which in turn should tell you that, although certainly they have the capability of obtaining and releasing private medical records, they probably would not be inclined to do so. For one thing, they have not done so over several years of activity; for another, there would be no public gain in doing so; and for still another, they tend to categorize information as either legitimately private or illegitimately private, and have done what I and others here believe to be a good job of making that distinction in a responsible manner.

As you say, us all agreeing on the problem does not make Wikileaks the answer. Wikileaks is an answer, of course, and we may disagree on whether it is a good one. The fact is, though, that many of us consider it, as Robert said, to be a necessary revolutionary force. All revolutions, whether of the actual violent sort such as the one that created this nation or the more metaphorical sort of the one we are undergoing at present, entail some difficulty, some failure, and even some ill consequence for some party somewhere. The same can be said for the status quo. In this case, Wikileaks has not done anything that has struck most any of us as terrible.

Obviously, we can continue to debate this, and if you'd like I can send along the various articles I have written about Wikileaks in order to better explain my position. In the meantime, I'd ask how you think we should proceed, as Project PM is indeed heavily involved in this campaign and rally, we have speakers and other participants ready, Glenn Greenwald has said he'll speak if he's in town but will otherwise compose a message to be read to the crowd, etc.

On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 8:07 AM, Todd Essig <tessig@me.com> wrote:

Barrett and All --

I hope we can agree that disagreement does not imply a threat to terminate association. In fact, my hope is that Project PM can help bring nuance into discussions that too often become thought-killing us v. them splits. And I also agree with the horrors of, as Robert said, "what the BCM and BG can throw at you." That's why I'm here. But sharing an understanding of the problem does not mean Wikileaks is the solution. And my hope for Project PM is that it can help elevate the discourse beyond polarized advocacy so better solutions might be found.

So far the only protection against the excesses of Wikileaks I've seen mentioned is the very same media we all agree is failing miserably (except for Ellsberg and the Times back when I was worried about my draft lottery number). While we just may be able to use emerging digital media to battle the excesses of BCM and BG, Wikileaks, IMHO, is too blunt an instrument with too many built in dangers. Maybe there's something wrong with how I think about things (wouldn't be the first time), but my rage at the excesses of government secrecy doesn't translate into advocacy for a privacy-killing machine.

With appreciation to all,
Todd

On Jan 13, 2011, at 9:09 PM, Barrett Brown wrote:

Todd-

Briefly, I would object to your characterization of myself and others involved having decided to support Wikileaks despite an "absence of serious discussion" of these issues. I, for one, have been covering Wikileaks since April of last year, well before almost any other media or individuals have heard of it. I have also been criticizing the organization for almost as long when warranted; just today I wrote that Wikileaks will lose credibility unless it gets rid of its Russian representative, who is an obvious anti-Semite, among other things. More specifically, I would object on the grounds that we have indeed been having serious discussions about Wikileaks for quite a while now in our weekly meetings and our various other conversations. Just last night, for instance, I spoke to Michael Hastings about the issue for quite a while, and I've spoken to Barry Eisler, a former CIA Directorate of Operations chap, a number of times. Both of these individuals are very strong backers of Project PM and both support what Wikileaks is doing in general (and as they are cc'd on this, they can add their thoughts if they'd like). Meanwhile, I have not gotten any objections other than yours from anyone associated with PM. This is not to say that you are wrong, of course, but rather that the organization as a whole tends to support Wikileaks, as do I.

Regarding the hypotheticals you have put forward, I would begin by noting that this is obviously not the first time I have heard or considered such objections since I have been debating the issue quite actively lately. The quick answer to them is that Wikileaks has actively worked with media outlets such as The Guardian (for which I'm now writing in part for that reason) and the New York Times in order to ensure that anything which is a legitimate secret is redacted. That process is not perfect, but neither is journalism, a discipline which often finds itself trying to find a balance between its role as a watchdog of governments and a responsible industry that is mindful of legitimate national security concerns. I prefer what people like Hastings and organizations like Wikileaks do over what it is that the media as a whole has been doing over the past decade or so, during which it played a large part in allowing two wars to launch and fail at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives and untold damage to the nation's credibility, economy, and military. As for your questions, then, I suppose you could ask similar ones in the context of such things as the Pentagon Papers.

Obviously, if you are uncomfortable with Project PM's advocacy of Wikileaks and don't want to be associated with us any longer, we will respect that. I would prefer to change your mind, although I imagine - even if you think otherwise of me - that you have put a great deal of thought into your position.

On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 7:57 PM, Todd Essig <tessig@me.com> wrote:

Hi, Todd-

Thanks for your input. Go ahead and reply to all on this with your message and I will respond.

On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 7:48 PM, Todd Essig <tessig@me.com> wrote:

Hi Barrett --

I'm replying just to you and will leave it to your discretion as to whether you want to send to the others who I have never met but have emailed with through various discussion you have initiated.

I have a real problem with the stance you are taking. In brief, Wikileaks has erased distinctions between secrecy and privacy that deserve respect and stronger not weaker protection in our emerging digital culture. For example, (and I offer this fully aware of Sebastian Gillen's involvement), if Wikileaks got the master subject assignment list for a government funded double-blind placebo-controlled cancer treatment study, should they make it public? How about my clinical notes from psychotherapy with prominent people, maybe even politicians? Are these secrets to be revealed or private information to be protected? Are diplomatic cables like this private information, or are they like war atrocities the gov't tries to keep secret? And even if you don't believe like I do that they are like the former and not the later, the absence of any serious discussion of these issues is the very kind of emotion-laden sloppy thinking clouding the blogosphere I thought Project PM was trying to combat.

Not all Project PM supporters support this rally. Secrecy and privacy are not the same and should be treated differently. In fact, at least this one, thinks it is a weakly thought-through stance that does far more harm than good.

With respectful disagreement,
--Todd

On Jan 13, 2011, at 8:23 PM, Barrett Brown wrote:

Howdy, all-

Here's the final version of the press release for our Rally for Information Freedom, to be held in April on the steps of NYC City Hall. Thanks to those who provided input, particularly Clark and Mano, as well as those who have agreed to help promote the event. We're about three months away and in that time we hope to be able to develop and initiate some new methods by which to pressure more outlets to actually cover the extraordinarily important stories that have come out of the Wikileaks release, as well as to build a larger and more efficient coalition in order to pursue our common goals. I'll be in NYC for about a week and will be holding a series of meetings with various activists, and I hope to see as many as you as possible. I also want to thank everyone for their support in general and for bringing Project PM to such a position as we now occupy, one in which we are able to influence affairs for the better and otherwise do our collective part in combating injustice during a crucial time in human history.

Press Release

For Immediate Distribution
January 13th, 2011

An unprecedented coalition of information activists and organizations have come together in an effort to advance the ongoing campaign against the informational tyranny that has been on view as of late in the context of Wikileaks, Julian Assange, and Bradley Manning. All three of these parties have been subjected to state oppression, without due regard for the alleged "rule of law;" all three have been maligned in dishonest and often bizarre ways; all three have earned such treatment by way of having together ensured that all of humanity may, for the first time in history, together learn how it is that their wealth, loyalty, and lives are being used by those who plead national security while having provided no such thing to their own citizens and even seizing it from those living elsewhere.

In response to these latest outrages against competence and decency, our coalition - comprised of veterans and anti-war groups, a faction of the Anonymous movement, the distributed think-tank Project PM, and a loose network of journalists, media professionals, scientists, former intelligence and government officials, and related organizations - announces a stepped-up campaign of information and direct action that begins tomorrow and which will culminate in a rally and press conference on the steps of New York City Hall on April 7th at 3:00 pm. This event, the Rally for Information Freedom, will be supplemented by a campaign on the part of Anonymous, Project PM, and related entities to bring attention to the dozens of significant stories that have been largely ignored due to the unfortunate dynamics by which too many media have come to operate. The New York conference - conceived by longtime resident activist, Navy veteran, and acclaimed photographer John Penley - will feature about a dozen speakers including Penley, author and Project PM founder Barrett Brown, key Anonymous activist and Chanology co-instigator Gregg Housh, and National Lawyers Guild executive director Heidi Boghosian. Messages from other figures in the pro-transparency movement will also be presented in lieu of their ability to attend.

Never in human history has mankind endured a period in which so much of the terminology employed at its end would have been unrecognizable at its beginning. The last twenty years have changed the landscape in which man operates, expanding the potential for human collaboration in such a way as to eliminate the barriers that rendered the nation-state a viable institution. As those barriers fall, so too does the primacy of the world's governments, which in turn have increasingly found themselves unable to maintain the secrecy through which they have run a great portion human affairs with results that may be politely characterized as mixed. The various states have responded to these developments with a collective message to the effect that such secrecy is necessary if they are to continue operating without the informed consent of their respective populations, though this has generally been expressed in slightly different words. Meanwhile, several such governments have, through their specific conduct in the wake of the last year, provided a timely reminder as to why it is that many of those who truly value liberty and morality have lost faith in those same governments.

This event is part of an effort to counter the dishonesty and injustice of the states which have reacted to such emergent phenomena with censorship and persecution while also forging greater coordination among the various parties that have been fighting on behalf of the cause of informational liberty. To this end, a series of meetings both formal and otherwise will be held throughout the first week of April; further information will be relayed in a second press release in late March.

Confirmed Speakers

John Penley is a Vietnam era Navy vet who was put in solitary confinement in 1984 by the U.S. government for a past protest at the Savannah River Nuclear Weapons Plant. A 59-year-old veteran of New York City housing, anti-war and civil rights activism, Penley is also a longtime photojournalist whose work has been pubilshed by most NYC major media outlets; his photo archive is housed at New York Universitys Tamiment Library.

Barrett Brown is a writer and author as well as the founder of Project PM. His work has appeared in Vanity Fair, Huffington Post, The Guardian, The Onion, New York Press, Skeptical Inquirer, American Atheist, and other outlets. He has been active in the Anonymous movement for several years and serves as an advocate for efficient, ethical alternatives to traditional methods of governance.

Gregg Housh is an Internet activist involved with the online non-group Anonymous. His work has included coordinating global demonstrations against human rights abuses in the Church of Scientology and assisting Iranian members of the Green Movement in reaching the global media. Having built a strong sense of trust among several disparate subgroups of Anonymous, Housh now acts as a media interpreter for major online initiatives such as Operation Payback.

Heidi Boghosian is the executive director of the National Lawyers Guild, a progressive bar association established in 1937. She is co-host of the weekly civil liberties radio program Law and Disorder on WBAI, New York and over 30 national affiliate stations. She has published several articles and reports on policing, protest, and the First Amendment.

Sebastian Gillen is a 21-year-old graduate of Tufts University. When he was eight years old, he was diagnosed with Stage IV Neuroblastoma, a rare form of pediatric cancer, and given two weeks to live. More than ten years later, he is still cancer-free and an active advocate for childhood cancer research. He has spoken at rallies on Capitol Hill and Greg Norman's Shark Shootout, among other places. He thinks science is totally awesome and runs a blog at Weareinthefuture.com and administrates Project PMs Science Journalism Program.

Faith Laugier is a musician, artist, activist, and New York native whos worked with many of the citys human rights organizations, cultural non-profits, and homeless centers in an effort to advance the inherent right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

--
Regards,

Barrett Brown
512-560-2302

--

Regards,

Barrett Brown
512-560-2302

--
Regards,

Barrett Brown
512-560-2302

--
Regards,

Barrett Brown
512-560-2302

Press Release

For Immediate Distribution January 13th, 2011

Confirmed Speakers

For Immediate Distribution
January 13th, 2011