Re: Circumstances

As for who this might effect, do you know how many people ran around claiming that I actually outed the guy with name and whatnot? Charles Johnson and his little band of narcs at Little Green Footballs. Robert Stacy McCain. Perhaps a hundred individual blog commenters of the sort who follow my every fucking move and do so with less than judicious attention to truth. I tried to explain this, and got made fun of by your commenters and even Hanley. Your other editor, whatshisname, good guy, had the decency to go over to one of the places and correct them. I don't remember you worrying about my reputation. And again, I know that you guys really didn't believe me when I said that I'm doing some high stakes shit and can't be getting accused of something I didn't do, and I don't blame you, although it could have been deduced pretty easily, and it was, by those who joined up. But, yeah, I'm running legal counsel for our top people who were hit by FBI raids last week and preparing for my own raid pursuant to the documents provided to the Feds by that Aaron Barr idiot and his Monday meeting with the FBI, so I'm not going to refrain from adding Scott Vance to the list simply because you're now claiming that it might hurt your blog. Your blog will be fine. Just tell the truth - you had no way of knowing that you'd accidentally brought on an Anonymous strategist/spokesman who doesn't take kindly to government officials calling for murder from their government offices. Or whatever; you're the editor!

On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 1:31 PM, Erik Kain <erik.kain@gmail.com> wrote:

I've read the HBGary thing. That's a great scoop, great catch. I hope they are severely undermined. I just don't get what you're trying to do with the commenter and I think you have put on blinders as to the side effects it may have against our blog which has been a supporter of the same things you support quite vocally. How you can think letting a comment stand is tantamount to editorial support while we vocally admonish the government for its Manning treatment or vocally support WikiLeaks is just beyond me.

On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com> wrote:
I know. Commenters can call for killings. Their status as government employees are nonetheless sacrosanct. I know the policy. Look, man, just search news for HBGary Federal and Glenn Greenwald, who's slated to speak with me at the April conference. We take calls for crimes against Wikileaks and its supporters very seriously.

On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 1:10 PM, Erik Kain <erik.kain@gmail.com> wrote:
We do hold different standards for our writers than our commenters. I think I mentioned that in my post on the matter. I think it's perfectly sensible.

Nor am I trying to debate you. You have your mind made up obviously. I'm asking you to assess whatever damage you may cause and to whom. But again, you have your mind made up and could obviously care less, which is a shame. But it's true, you don't write for us anymore and you are free to do as you please.

On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 12:07 PM, Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com> wrote:
I didn't say you censor comments. I said you take issue with comments in your editorial capacity. Remember when you got upset about Hanley being Hanley and me cussing, and you addressed it publicly? Obviously you want a higher standard for writers than comments but suffice to say I disagree that the guy who was calling for the death of someone from a government computer met any standard whatsoever. At any rate, I do not write for your blog, and this was not meant as an invitation for a debate, nor for advice on strategy, but rather as a heads-up in case you want to tell your valued reader that Anonymous does not value him quite as much as you fellows do.

On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 12:57 PM, Erik Kain <erik.kain@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm not really sure what you're saying. We almost never censor any comments. Ever. At all. We let them stand so that the community can knock them down. The best way to curtail hateful speech is to let it see the light of day. This has always been true and always will be. The only censorship we ever practiced was to ban commenters who refused to add anything but heckling. I think we've banned two people ever. A comment on a blog that doesn't censor comments is not the equivalent of editorial approval.

On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 10:48 AM, barri2009 <barriticus@gmail.com> wrote:
We have a list of those who have called for the death of Assange. Your blog allowed someone to call for the death of Assange. As to the timing, I suggest you pay better attention. As to why I'm not bothered about despite being known as an ethical guy by even my enemies - remember when you told me that one little blog comment by that reader of yours who decided that I didn't really write for the things I clearly write for isn't going to matter? Us releasing the name of someone who called for someone's murder with your editorial approval (when you express disaproval at someone cussing or Hanley being a giant fag, you thereby give implicit approval to everything that goes unnoted by your army of co-editors) isn't going to matter much more, is it?

As I said, I know you mean well; it's just that I don't respect your judgement any more than you respect mine and I'm having a hard time seeing where you did me any favors by having let me write for your blog for free. That information regarding that fellow is mine by virtue of it having been sent to my mailbox in the course of my work. Now that information belongs to Anonymous.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
From: Erik Kain <erik.kain@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 07:49:40 -0700
To: Barrett Brown<barriticus@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Circumstances

Barrett-

So listen, I don't know what's going on that compels you to "out" this commenter. But I'd ask that you consider this: your 'outing' may have no effect on said commenter to begin with, and he may not even be an important piece in whatever puzzle it is you're putting together in any case. I'd say both those outcomes are quite likely - he won't be effected and, even if he were, he wouldn't be much of a target in the larger scheme.

However, you will almost certainly do damage to our blog. And it's a blog that spoke out on numerous occasions decrying the treatment of Manning, backing Wikilinks and Assange, etc. Why you would put us in the firing line just because of a comment made in one of our threads is beyond me, and hugely insulting. Actually, it makes me pretty upset because I invited you to write for us and this is a pretty flagrant betrayal of that trust. Trust is important, and you risk damaging a site which has always been outspoken on civil liberties. Why make enemies out of friends over this? Why not focus on bigger fish? I don't get it. I really don't.

Erik

On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 8:03 PM, Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com> wrote:

Erik-

I'm sure you mean well in your own way, but as I've just explained on your blog, we take the actions of that government employee particularly seriously in light of recent revelations that you no doubt have not noticed. There has been a corporate/federal/mercantalist conspiracy against Wikileaks and Anonymous that has resulted in guns-drawn raids against a 19-year-old girl, among other things, and we are now in war mode. That idiot whom was allowed to call for the murder of my friend on your blog is going to be outed due to what we now know about that effort. I understand that you will react in accordance with your personal ethics in this, and I understand that. But this isn't a fucking rhetorical game and it never was. There were always consequences.

--
Regards,

Barrett Brown
512-560-2302

--
Regards,

Barrett Brown
512-560-2302

--
Regards,

Barrett Brown
512-560-2302

--
Regards,

Barrett Brown
512-560-2302