Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 10:43:41 PM (GMT-0300) Auto-Detected
Subject: Re: Thanks for the link
Tried to call. Give me a ring back whenever. Going to dinner with the ol' GF at 8:00 Central for about half hour but otherwise available.
Saw that Steckman was suspended. They're going to have to do better than that; we've got more.
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 12:34 PM, barri2009 <
barriticus@gmail.com > wrote:
Yep, will do.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
-----Original Message-----
From:
ggreenwald@salon.com
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 11:17:50
To: Barrett Brown<
barriticus@gmail.com >
Subject: Re: Thanks for the link
Barrett - Can you call me this afternoon? 202-580-8192
----- Original Message -----
From: "Barrett Brown" <
barriticus@gmail.com >
To:
ggreenwald@salon.com
Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2011 8:21:33 PM (GMT-0300) Auto-Detected
Subject: Re: Thanks for the link
Glenn, I know you're busy right now, but I need to talk to you about TheJester when you have a moment.
On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 9:51 AM, Barrett Brown <
barriticus@gmail.com > wrote:
Plan changed. Got new info, no longer need him. Going to make example of him and prevent him from working for any company where he could do further harm to republic but offer him a great deal of assistance and expertise if he chooses to start a company that provides communications options to North Africans or some such useful thing. Also going to read off the summary brief that's just been finished listing the entirety of his involvement with the conspiracy, all nice and neat with e-mails, tell him which reporters I'll be sending it to, and tell the lawyer that we advise the firm to likewise change its focus in light of what else is going to happen, PR wise, to this company which has spent so much energy positioning itself as a moral force. Below, briefing materials and a small portion of the notes that were prepared by an Anon team over the course of a couple of hours. Some of the briefing section at bottom applies to previous, now-scrapped plan. Obviously, feel free to make use of any of this. Links will be working again soon enough.
Overview
The following emails clearly establish Matthew Steckman's involvement in the creation of the leaked presentation/proposal entitled, "The Wikileaks Threat," including content allegedly considered unethical by the Internet security firm, Palantir, and possibly illegal under U.S. law. According to emails sent and received by Steckman, Matthew Steckman:
• Was the first to correspond with Bank of America's legal representation, Hunton & Williams regarding Wikileaks, a publisher allegedly holding leaked documents from Bank of America;
• Was aware that Hunton & Williams had been recommended to Bank of America by the U.S. Department of Justice;
• Solicited the involvement of the security firms Berico and HBGary, in addition to his own firm, Palantir;
• Outlined the format of the presentation to be made to Hunton & Williams by Palantir, Berico and HBGary, including the number of slides and the possible content of slides;
• Received and approved suggestions for the proposal from representatives from HBGary, Berico and Palantir, including HBGary CEO Aaron Barr;
• Specifically approved suggestions for the proposal, made by Aaron Barr, regarding strategic "attacks" on journalist Glenn Greenwald and others in the media for the purpose of undermining Wikileaks' support in the media;
• Specifically approved suggestions for the proposal, made by Aaron Barr, regarding the exploitation of weaknesses in Wikileaks' infrastructure, including its network of staff, volunteers and leakers; its submission servers; its finances; its founder, Julian Assange; etc;
• Incorporated the above-described suggestions for the proposal, made by Aaron Barr, into the finished proposal;
• Personally created, formatted, revised, edited, approved and distributed the presentation document in question.
Listed emails also detail correspondance between employees of the firms HBGary and Palantir (including Aaron Barr and Matthew Steckman) among others, concerning the internet movement called Anonymous, its alleged connections to Wikileaks, and Aaron's Barr's research on Anonymous, including its alleged connections to Wikileaks.
List of emails TO Matthew Steckman RE: Wikileaks
• John Woods (Hunton for BoA) requests slides for a presentation to a "large US bank" re: Wikileaks:
•
http://search.hbgary.anonleaks.ru/index.php?id =15036
• Eli Bingham (Palantir) requests for sec reps from Palantir, Berico and HBGary to join a conference call regarding the "large US bank" opportunity discussed above:
•
http://search.hbgary.anonleaks.ru/index.php?id =15039
• Aaron Barr informs Matthew Steckman that he cannot open a file attachment from Steckman's previous email (linked):
•
http://search.hbgary.anonleaks.ru/index.php?id =15059
• Aaron Barr discusses sending analysis information to Matthew Steckman, regarding BoA/Wikileaks. Barr mentions "mapping" [speculation: the analysis maps seen in the presentation made to Hunton for BoA]:
•
http://search.hbgary.anonleaks.ru/index.php?id =15061
• Aaron Barr, to Matthew Stuckman, explicitly lays out potential "attack" strategies against Wikileaks' "weak points," citing Wikileaks' volunteers, staff, financials, submission servers, Julian Assange, the perceived security of leakers, etc. [speculation: this appears to be the origination of most of the points made in the palantir/berico/hbgary presentation to BoA legal defense]:
•
http://search.hbgary.anonleaks.ru/index.php?id =15069
• Aaron Barr introduces Matthew Steckman to the idea of attacking Glenn Greenwald specifically, and makes a case for strategically undermining Wikileaks' support in the "liberal" media. Barr explicitly uses the word "attack" in relation to organizations/individuals supporting Wikileaks:
•
http://search.hbgary.anonleaks.ru/index.php?id =15070
• Aaron Barr informs Matthew Steckman that he cannot open a file attachment sent by Steckman. Attachment appears to be a draft of the presentation to be made to Hunton for BoA:
•
http://search.hbgary.anonleaks.ru/index.php?id =15075
• Aaron Barr agrees with Matthew Steckman that they should find out "later" on whose end is the technical issue keeping Barr from accessing Steckman's BoA/Wikileaks proposal file attachments:
•
http://search.hbgary.anonleaks.ru/index.php?id =15079
List of emails FROM Matthew Steckman RE: Wikileaks
• Matthew Steckman invites Aaron Barr (and reps from Palantir and Berico) to join a conference call about an opportunity from a "large US bank" re: Wikileaks (mentioned in previous email):
•
http://search.hbgary.anonleaks.ru/index.php?id =15038
• Matthew Steckman summarizes, for Palantir, Berico and HBGary sec reps, a phonecall from Hunton and Williams; outlines BoA/Wikileaks opportunity as "internal investigation;" mentions BoA seeking injunction against wikileaks; mentions US Department of Justice's recommendation of Hunton & Williams, specifically Richard Wyatt, whom steckman refers to as "the emperor," to BoA's general counsel; mentions roles of Palantir, Berico and HBGary; mentions potential prosecution of Wikileaks:
•
http://search.hbgary.anonleaks.ru/index.php?id =15041
• Matthew Steckman outline s possible presentation slides for proposal to Hunton for BoA, and organizes logistics of upcoming conference call:
•
http://search.hbgary.anonleaks.ru/index.php?id =15044
• Matthew Steckman sends "a cleaned up version" of a document for sec reps to "work from" [original attachment is not included at listed link, document is an early draft of the BoA proposal.] Steckman informs sec reps from HBGary, Palantir and Berico that he is only collecting information for the time being, regarding the BoA/WIkileaks proposal:
•
http://search.hbgary.anonleaks.ru/index.php?id =15050
• Matthew Steckman sends Berico and HBGary reps another "cleaned up version to work from":
•
http://search.hbgary.anonleaks.ru/index.php?id =15051
• Matthew Steckman informs John Woods (Hunton for BoA) that the three firms (Palantir, Berico, HBGary) will have coordinated an early proposal by "tonight" [Dec 02, 2010]:
•
http://search.hbgary.anonleaks.ru/index.php?id =15052
• Matthew Steckman and John Woods (Hunton for BoA) organize logistics of morning conference call:
•
http://search.hbgary.anonleaks.ru/index.php?id =15055
• Matthew Steckman sends "working draft" of BoA/Wikileaks proposal to sec reps from Berico, Palantir and HBGary:
•
http://search.hbgary.anonleaks.ru/index.php?id =15057
• Matthew Steckman sends conference call details [date, time, phone number] to John Woods (Hunton for BoA) and Berico, Palantir and HBGary sec reps:
•
http://search.hbgary.anonleaks.ru/index.php?id =15058
• Matthew Steckman sends proposal notes ["document"] for upcoming conference call/presentation to John Woods (Hunton for BoA) and Berico, Palantir and HBGary sec reps:
•
http://search.hbgary.anonleaks.ru/index.php?id =15067
• Matthew Steckman informs Aaron Barr that he approves of Barr's earlier suggestions regarding Wikileaks' strengths/weaknesses and that he plans to "spotlight" an attack on Glenn Greenwald in the upcoming presentation, also per Barr's earlier suggestion [see earlier emails TO Steckman]:
•
http://search.hbgary.anonleaks.ru/index.php?id =15071
• Matthew Steckman informs Aaron Barr that Barr's suggestions have been added to the updated proposal and thanks Barr for his suggestions [detailed in emails/synopses above]:
•
http://search.hbgary.anonleaks.ru/index.php?id =15073
• Matthew Steckman sends Aaron Barr a "Pfd" [sic] and suggests that they need to work out Barr's technical difficulties opening steckman's email attachments "afterwards":
•
http://search.hbgary.anonleaks.ru/index.php?id =15076
List of emails TO/FROM Aaron Barr RE: Anonymous Research and/or Anonymous Connections to Wikileaks
• Aaron Barr contacts John Woods (Hunton for BoA) about Barr's research on Anonymous. Barr claims to have information about Anonymous that possibly no one else has regarding "organization operations and communications infrastructure as well as key players by name." Barr mentions possible application of this information to another "opportunity" previously discussed with Woods, but does not elaborate:
•
http://search.hbgary.anonleaks.ru/index.php?id =16499
• Aaron Barr and Matthew Steckman discuss sharing Barr's research on Anonymous:
•
http://search.hbgary.anonleaks.ru/index.php?id =16379
• Aaron Barr and Matthew Stechman discuss meeting and sharing Barr's research on Anonymous:
•
http://search.hbgary.anonleaks.ru/index.php?id =16419
• Aaron Barr contacts Dawn Meyerriecks (Office of the Director of National Intelligence) and informs her of his research on Anonymous. Barr claims to have put together "a significant data set" and offers to discuss his "results, methodologies, and significance of social media for analysis and exposure":
•
http://search.hbgary.anonleaks.ru/index.php?id =16574
• Aaron Barr corresponds with John Woods (Hunton) and claims that he has mapped out 80-90% of Anonymous' leadership. Barr claims to be meeting with "govies" [speculation: government officials] "next week" [dated 01/31/2011.] Follow-up to email in which Barr alleges ties between Anonymous and Wikileaks.
•
http://search.hbgary.anonleaks.ru/index.php?id =16834
• Aaron Barr discusses with Bill Wansley (Booz, Allen, Hamilton) the possibility of researching ties between Anonymous and Wikileaks; Barr claims there are "many" such ties:
•
http://search.hbgary.anonleaks.ru/index.php?id =16633
List of emails TO/FROM Other HBGary Employees RE: Wikileaks and/or Anonymous
• Bob Slapnik (HBGary) recounts to HBGary's sales department a recent conversation at a "customer site" about potential markets created by the Wikileaks release (i.e. China's resultant access to classified US security intelligence and the US's subsequent need for new sec.) Slapnik stresses the importance of targeted language when proposing such products:
•
http://search.hbgary.anonleaks.ru/index.php?id =31460
• David Willson informs Ted Vera (HBGary) that the Bank of America/Wikileaks news has been broken by FOX:
•
http://search.hbgary.anonleaks.ru/index.php?id =43197
"The Wikileaks Threat" ( Original Document ) Discussed in Listed Emails
• WikiLeaks Response v5:
http://www.mediafire.com/?d08n3fiw6c02bju
• WikiLeaks Response v6:
http://www.mediafire.com/?ki4tjk8iaunn5f6
• Differences between drafts/versions :
• Organizational breakdown expanded
• White space changed
• Minor wording changes
• The rest seems to be identical
•
Background Brief
Based on what I’ve seen of their corporate positioning, Palantir seem to be invested in the idea that they are one of the good guys. They claim to offer technology which better distinguishes and discriminates amongst information acquired via mass-surveillance, and to permit the ‘tagging’ of this information so that it is accessible only to those with the appropriate clearance and jurisdiction.
“ dedicated to working for the common good and doing what’s right”
“That deeply felt commitment has been clear since the company’s inception and is evident in the company’s roster of advisors, leaders, engineers, and technology experts.”
White Paper: ‘Privacy and Civil Liberties are in Palantir’s DNA’
http://www.palantir.com/privacy-and-civil-liberties
“Dam it feels good to be a gangsta...”
Matthew Steckman
(worthwhile background: positioned as trying to make a bad system better
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId =106479613&ft =1&f =1014 )
They’re also pretty high profile, with a market capitalisation of over $1 billion (mostly courtesy of PayPal cofounder Peter Thiel) - ie, they’re a little more serious than the HBGary fools.
http://blogs.forbes.com/oliverchiang/2010/11/12/names-you-need-to-know-in-2011-palantir-technologies/
All of which makes it likely that they’re going to be looking to isolate Steckman, emphasising the disparity between their corporate values and his conduct. Obviously, having THEIR emails would make it easier to determine just how much upper management knew about his work without having to actually ask them only to receive the standard incredulous insistence of virtue. Either way, probing this is likely to give some insight into the scale of the threat as they presently perceive it.
On that threat, I think the safest thing to say at the moment is that nobody is quite sure where all of this is going to end up. Equally safe is that whatever we might be able to reduce the ‘Anonymous’ position to, it will likely be directly contrary to Palantir and their ilk – they want this to be a momentary blip, we want it to be the chink that proves the undoing of this sick machine we’ve all ended up serving and despising. The following is intended to outline some of the bigger picture factors in the form of some choice extracts from authoritative sources. This will hopefully yield insights into particular pressure points, fissures and weaknesses to be exploited.
Privatization and the Federal Government: An Introduction
December 28, 2006 Kevin R. Kosar Congressional Reporting Service
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33777.pdf
Furthermore, the movement of an activity from the governmental sector to the private sector, or vice versa, has significant ramifications. Most obviously, the behavior of the entity carrying out the task will differ because each sector has different incentives and constraints. One public administration scholar has suggested that the incentives amount to this: a government entity may do only what the law permits and prescribes; a private entity may do whatever the law does not forbid.
Government agencies, unlike private firms, usually operate under complex accountability hierarchies that include multiple and even conflicting goals. Federal agencies, for example, are subject to the corpus of federal management laws. These laws serve as means for keeping executive branch agencies accountable to Congress, the President, and the public. They also embody principles of democratic justice, such as the allowance for public participation and government transparency.
Thus, in shifting an activity from the governmental to the private sector, the nature of government oversight is transformed. As the components of government provision of goods and services are privatized, the jurisdiction of federal management laws, Congress, the President, and the courts is reduced.
Privatization’s Pretensions
Jon D. Michaels
[77:717 2010] The University of Chicago Law Review
http://lawreview.uchicago.edu/issues/backissues/v77/77_2/77-2-PrivatizationsPretensions-Michaels.pdf
Workarounds provide outsourcing agencies with the means of accomplishing distinct policy goals that—but for the pretext of technocratic privatization—would either be legally unattainable or much more difficult to realize .
Consider the following scenario:
Exploiting Legal-Status Differentials . The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) would like to establish a data mining operation to gather intelligence on potential terrorist threats. Bristling under stringent federal privacy laws imposed on government officials—laws that inhibit DHS’s ability to collect and analyze personal information without court authorization—policymakers turn to private contractors . Contractors, like most other private individuals, are largely beyond the scope of these federal laws. For the most part, these laws were enacted well before contractors were hired with great regularity to assist with law enforcement and counterterrorism initiatives. Now, in an era where outsourcing is the norm, DHS may use the statutes’ narrowness to its advantage and award government contracts to the unencumbered private data brokers. The contractors can then acquire the information more liberally on their own and submit raw data or synthesized intelligence to the government. DHS thus gets the benefit of more sweeping, intrusive searches than would otherwise be permitted of government officials, short of their first obtaining warrants or securing legislative change.
Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and
fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, Martin Scheinin
HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL Thirteenth session
A/HRC/13/37 28 December 2009
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/13session/A-HRC-13-37.pdf
[20]States that previously lacked constitutional or statutory safeguards have been able to radically transform their surveillance powers with few restrictions. In countries that have constitutional and legal safeguards , Governments have endangered the protection of the right to privacy by not extending these safeguards to their cooperation with third countries and private actors, or by placing surveillance systems beyond the jurisdiction of their constitutions.
[41]The Special Rapporteur notes that since September 2001 there has been a trend towards outsourcing the collection of intelligence to private contractors... [raising concerns about] lack of proper training, the introduction of a profit motive into situations which are prone to human rights violations, and the often questionable prospect that such contractors will be subject to judicial and parliamentary accountability mechanisms
Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, Martin Scheinin
HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL Tenth session
A/HRC/10/3 4 February 2009
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/terrorism/rapporteur/docs/A.HRC.10.3.pdf
B. Recommendations
For legislative assemblies
65. The Special Rapporteur recommends that any interference with the right to privacy, family, home or correspondence by an intelligence agency should be authorized by provisions of law that are particularly precise, proportionate to the security threat, and offer effective guarantees against abuse. States should ensure that competent authorities apply less intrusive investigation methods than special investigation techniques if such methods enable a terrorist offence to be detected, prevented or prosecuted with adequate effectiveness. Decision-making authority should be layered so that the greater the invasion of privacy, the higher the level of necessary authorization. Furthermore, in order to safeguard against the arbitrary use of special investigative techniques and violations of human rights, the use of special investigative techniques by the intelligence agencies must be subject to appropriate supervision and review.
66. There should be a domestic legal basis for the storage and use of data by intelligence and security services, which is foreseeable as to its effects and subject to scrutiny in the public interest. The law should also provide for effective controls on how long information may be retained, the use to which it may be put, and who may have access to it, and ensure compliance with international data protection principles in the handling of information. There should be audit processes, which include external independent personnel, to ensure that such rules are adhered to.
67. The Special Rapporteur also recommends the adoption of legislation that clarifies the rights, responsibilities, and liability of private companies in submitting data to government agencies.
For the executive power
71. The executive should have effective powers of control, provided for in law, over the intelligence agencies and have adequate information about their actions in order to be able to effectively exercise control over them. The minister responsible for the intelligence and security services should therefore have the right to approve matters of political sensitivity (such as cooperation with agencies from other countries) or undertakings that affect fundamental rights (such as the approval of special investigative powers, whether or not additional external approval is required from a judge).
On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 9:39 AM, Barrett Brown <
barriticus@gmail.com > wrote:
Also, we're about finished with our more organized delivery system.
http://anonleaks.ru/
On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 8:20 AM, Barrett Brown <
barriticus@gmail.com > wrote:
Yeah, it's interesting stuff. When you have a moment, I'd suggest you read my Huffington Post piece from a year ago, "Anonymous, Australia, and the Nation State." We've been prepping for something of this nature for a while. The last few paragraphs of my book manuscript I sent you a while back also contains clues, lol. You might also talk to Barry Eisler at some point. And here's a link to the talk with Aaron. Bloomberg has it and it gets passed around other Anons but isn't quite public yet:
http://www.mediafire.com/file/7vb98xu7cobcif2/AaronBarrBarrettBrownLULZ.wma
Give me a ring in a bit if you can. It's going to take a long time to bring you up to speed but suffice to say we've been prepping for something of this nature for a while now.
On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 8:14 AM, <
ggreenwald@salon.com > wrote:
Barrett - Wow. I'm interested in all of this.
Glenn
----- Mensagem original -----
De: "Barrett Brown" <
barriticus@gmail.com >
Para:
ggreenwald@salon.com
Enviadas: Sábado, 12 de Fevereiro de 2011 11:31:35 (GMT-0300) Auto-Detected
Assunto: Re: Thanks for the link
Glenn-
I'm having a conference call with the lead counsel of Palantir and employee Matthew Steckman, who was most involved on their end with the conspiracy against you and Wikileaks, at 1:00 EST. Had e-mailed Steckman last night with a short note explaining my role in Anon and telling him that it is in his best interest to get in touch with me immediately, and counsel called me an hour afterwards at which point I explained in general terms Anon's current policy on the parties involved. Basically, I will be offering terms to Steckman, who will be required to provide information on the various "secret" partners we've discovered, such as Endgame, or at least to provide assistance in our effort to finish off HBGary, in exchange for us calling off our plan to do to him some of what we did to Aaron Barr. In the meantime, let me know if you would like the recording of my phone conversation with Aaron last Sunday after the attacks, which was conducted immediately after HBGary president Penny Hougland called to negotiate (they did not do very well). We also have new information gleaned from the data we have yet to release as well as other things that might be of interest to you. I know this all sounds bizarre, but then again, it shouldn't at this point.
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 3:46 AM, <
ggreenwald@salon.com > wrote:
Hi Barrett - This sounds like a great event. I don't think I'm going to be in NYC on that date - if I were, I'd love to participate - but if not, I'd be happy to submit something to be read. Thanks for asking --
Glenn
----- Original Message -----
From: "Barrett Brown" <
barriticus@gmail.com >
To:
ggreenwald@salon.com
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 11:30:57 PM (GMT-0300) Auto-Detected
Subject: Re: Thanks for the link
Glenn-
One more thing, if I can take another moment of your time. As per the press release below, I'll be speaking at a rally/press conference in NYC at City Hall on April 7th along with the executive director of the National Lawyer's Guild and various figures from the pro-Wikileaks movement. We would be honored if you would be willing to speak or even just write a message to be read to attendees. Let me know.
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 Lawyer’s 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 University’s 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 PM’s Science Journalism Program.
Faith Laugier is a musician, artist, activist, and New York native who’s worked with many of the city’s 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.
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 6:34 AM, <
ggreenwald@salon.com > wrote:
Thanks Barrett - I well know the vicious mendacity of Charles Johnson, but yeah - even though I tried, there is still lots of commentary around to the effect of "Internet spat between Glenn Greenwald and Wired! Who can figure out what it means???"
http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/12/29/the_curious_case_of_glenn_greenwald_vs_wired_magazine
----- Original Message -----
From: "Barrett Brown" <
barriticus@gmail.com >
To:
ggreenwald@salon.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 7:53:34 PM (GMT-0300) Auto-Detected
Subject: Re: Thanks for the link
" That's how these disputes often work by design: the party whose conduct is in question (here, Wired ) attacks the critic in order to create the impression that it's all just some sort of screeching personality feud devoid of substance. That, in turn, causes some bystanders to cheer for whichever side they already like and boo the side they already dislike, as though it's some sort of entertaining wrestling match, while everyone else dismisses it all as some sort of trivial Internet catfight not worth sorting out. "
This is exactly the case, as I know from recent experience when Charles Johnson and his people began accusing me of criminal activity and being funded by the Russian mafia because I work with Anonymous figure Gregg Housh and have been raising money for and advocating Wikileaks since the beginning of the year. When I objected, Johnson banned me and began making additional false accusations (while his commenters openly discussed reporting me to the FBI), to which I responded in a short video in an attempt to protect myself and my organization from continued libel. Although a number of people did take my side and actually joined my group, others ridiculed me for caring about "the internet."
Good work on pointing out the dishonesty on the part of Wired while also maintaining the focus on the issue in question. It's a near-impossible juggling act that I can't imagine anyone else handling with the agility you have displayed.
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 9:23 PM, Barrett Brown <
barriticus@gmail.com > wrote:
Glenn-
Sorry for the delay in getting back to you.
The book should be released in the next few months; I was hearing August but I doubt that's possible now. I'll keep you updated.
The project I mentioned involves two networks: the blogger network described below, and another network that will operate in a similar fashion but which will include participants of differing skill sets and backgrounds while serving as a sort of distributed think-tank, but potentially more useful than the average think-tank, which you'd probably agree is not set up in such a way as to take anything close to maximum advantages of its human resources. Our overall intent has been to design a series of related schematics by which to improve upon communication and corroboration while also building up a new sort of entity that would operate under these schematics.
For our blogger network, we've recruited Michael Hastings as well as Juan Cole, Allison Kilkenny, the fellows at Instaputz, E.D. Kain, Charles Johnson, and a number of others, including those specializing in non-political topics such as science. For our other network, we have former Washington Post editorial board member Gina Acosta (who is now a critic of that institution), novelist and former CIA Directorate of Operations operative Barry Eisler (ditto), Case Western University Professor Mano Singham, and dozens of others, all of whom we are working to integrate into a single entity that will eventually be capable of growing perpetually and adding new capabilities while also maintaining operational coherence.
For now, I've pasted a basic description of how the blogger network will operate below; let me know if you'd like to see further materials or have any specific questions at this point.
***
Information flow is fundamental to the success of every manner of human collaboration. Nonetheless, the processes by which information is gathered, handled, transferred, and acted upon receive far less attention than is warranted. The purpose of Project PM is to change this dynamic by developing new techniques with which to more efficiently conduct information.
Because the great preponderance of information crucial to the success of a representative government is transferred through the media, Project PM focuses primarily on media reform. Our first and foremost effort has been to establish a distributed media cartel made up of bloggers as well as journalists who work at least in part through online media. Rather than simply assembling this group of exceptional media professionals into an online outlet similar to those currently in existence, we are instead organizing our participants into a network which itself operates under a unique schematic designed to take best advantage of the internet as a medium while simultaneously avoiding the drawbacks common to even the best online communities.
In order to seed the network, we have recruited around two dozen bloggers and journalists whom we have identified as particularly competent and intellectually honest. Each of these individuals is encouraged to bring other bloggers into the network based on their own judgment; these new participants are then connected to the blogger who has brought them in and may likewise bring others into the network,and so on . As such, the network grows perpetually while maintaining a high average quality in terms of its participants, as is explained further below.
Upon the launch of our network, each of the initial bloggers will be connected to each other via a widget which is embedded on their respective blogs, as well as connected to those whom they’ve recruited. When a particular individual composes a piece of work that he considers to be of particular merit, the individual pushes a single button which causes the article in question to be sent to all of the bloggers to whom he is connected. Each of those bloggers in turn then decides whether or not they agree that the article is worthy of greater attention; if so, they push the button and thereby send it along to every blogger to whom they themselves are connected. Thus it is that information deemed worthy of attention by some great number of erudite and honest individuals from a variety of backgrounds will tend to perpetuate through the system and gain a larger audience than they might otherwise receive.
As the network expands by way of the process described above, it is inevitable that there will be failures of judgement on the part of participants when choosing additional bloggers to bring into the network. Let us say that Blogger X, who is rather competent, brings in Blogger Y, who is only moderately so, and who in turn brings in Blogger Z, who is a giant douchebag. Blogger Z begins composing and pushing forward posts to the effect that Barack Obama was born in Tehran or that ethanol subsidies are awesome or some such thing – but these posts only initially go to Blogger Y and whatever horrid bloggers Blogger Z has brought in himself, assuming he has brough in any. Blogger Y may or may not be inclined to push forward these nonsense posts, but Blogger X will almost certainly delete them immediately and is quite likely to disolve his connection to Blogger Y for displaying such poor judgement. Thus it is that the system is defended from deterioration by the high competence of the initial round of bloggers and consequently comparable competence of those brought in gradually afterwards, coupled with the nature of the schematic itself. No supervision is necessary for the network to expand while maintaining a high level of quality.
A few other characteristics bear noting. Any participant may connect to any other participant who agrees to the connection, no matter “where” each participant resides in the network, and thus the network is likely to evolve from the shape of a pyramid to that of a web, which is advantageous in terms of ensuring that good information does not become overly “regionalized.” All participants are equal regardless of the order in which they joined. Participants are free to bring on as many other bloggers as they would like, although they will find that it is to their own advantage to be selective in this regard.
The system is capped off with another widget distinct from that used by the bloggers – the reader widget, a downloadable application which displays those posts which have been pushed forward a certain number of times (as set by the individual reader). The end result should be the best system of news and information filtration that has ever existed.
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:20 AM, <
ggreenwald@salon.com > wrote:
Hi Barrett - Nice to hear from you. Michael emailed me a few weeks ago and we exchanged some thoughts about all of this.
Thanks for sending the transcript, which I will definitely take a look at. I actually thought about doing a book somewhat related awhile ago -- it was going to be America's 10 Worst Pundits, or something like that -- and then get sidetracked on a couple other book projects, so this sounds great. When will it be released? If you want to do something surrounding it like a podcast interview or something, let me know.
And I'd love to hear about the journalism project you're working on. I've actually been working on one myself with Dan Froomkin, Jay Rosen and a couple others about standards for newspapers to release all original source material online, so I'm interesting in hearing what you're doing.
Glenn Greenwald
----- Original Message -----
From: "Barrett Brown" <
barriticus@gmail.com >
To:
GGreenwald@salon.com
Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2010 8:40:16 PM (GMT-0300) Auto-Detected
Subject: Thanks for the link
Mr. Greenwald-
I'm gratified that you appreciated my Vanity Fair piece on Michael Hastings and felt inclined to link to it a few weeks back, most particularly since you happen to be the blogger whom I most often cite as indicative of how the blogosphere allows superior commentators who would otherwise be unlikely to reach a large audience to, uh, reach a large audience. In fact, I mention you twice in my upcoming book on the failed American punditry, along with Juan Cole, who has since joined up with the project that Hastings and I are spearheading in an effort to change the overriding media dynamic by way of a new methodology we have developed for the purpose. Incidentally, Hastings is also very grateful for the support shown by you, Sullivan, and others who have made the obvious case that "access" alone is useless to the body politic, and that the media at large is largely responsible for the events of the past decade.
In case you're interested, I have attached the latest draft of the manuscript, which includes chapters on Thomas Friedman, Charles Krauthammer, Richard Cohen, Martin Peretz, William Bennett, and Robert Stacy McCain, while also attempting to make the larger case that in a society marked by accelerating change, the U.S. cannot afford to continue on its present path in terms of information flow. And if you'd like to learn more about our project and its potential viability, feel free to e-mail or call at your convenience.
At any rate, thanks for the work you've been doing over the past several years.
--
Regards,
Barrett Brown
512-560-2302
--
Regards,
Barrett Brown
512-560-2302
--
Regards,
Barrett Brown
512-560-2302
--
Regards,
Barrett Brown
512-560-2302
--
Regards,
Barrett Brown
512-560-2302
--
Regards,
Barrett Brown
512-560-2302
--
Regards,
Barrett Brown
512-560-2302
--
Regards,
Barrett Brown
512-560-2302
--
Regards,
Barrett Brown
512-560-2302
--
Regards,
Barrett Brown
512-560-2302