-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi, Barrett,

In your Youtube video posted on March 12, you said "they [Financial
Times] claim that we're gonna do false flag attacks on military
personnel, turn them in for crimes they didn't commit." Not to
nitpick, but you seem to either misunderstand the usual meaning of
the term "false flag" or to be intentionally misusing it. (I assume
you know about some of the documented instances of covert attempts
by government agencies to foster irrational public fears about
persons and entities defined by the government as antagonistic to
public safety and common values, in order to increase public
acceptance of repressive policies.) Don't take this personally, but
such ambiguous usage isn't going to improve your credibility with
anyone who is aware of the implications of the term "false flag" in
the context of the current US administration's stance on digital
communication and activism.

In the same video, you said that "we haven't done that [attacking
families], we'd never consider it." Meanwhile a link labeled as
Denise B's son's FB account had been posted on a public pad for
several hours, the last time I looked at that pad yesterday. In
itself the link doesn't necessarily represent an attack on a family
member -- it could have been posted solely for research purposes,
and there was no comment beyond the label when I saw it -- but
neither does it inspire confidence in your account of the ethical
boundaries of Anonymous activism. Or else who did you mean by "we"?

I do not understand why you would try to influence debate via
mainstream media (and activity within Anonymous) as you have, with
the stated goal of tangible improvements for a certain person in
federal custody, unless you already had extremely sensitive
unpublished information about individuals or entities directly
involved in deciding upon and enforcing certain aspects of that
person's living situation, realistic prospects of being able to
effect changes in that person's situation via public release of
such info (or public threat of same), and a personal commitment to
risking and accepting extremely unpleasant consequences.

The information you supposedly have stored in your laptop -- the
info that supposedly might cause unspecified embarrassment for an
elected official, or a relative of his, if published -- would have
to be really heinous for the mere announcement that you have it to
give you any kind of leverage; and if you received no notification
of unprecedented government interest in you following such an
announcement, that wouldn't mean much unless you had also stated
publicly that you were personally involved in illegal activities.

Moreover, wouldn't any pressures Anon might bring to bear on
certain individuals (that is, those directly involved with the
specific policies and practices that you wish to alter) pretty much
have to be illegal or unethical to be effective? Or did you plan to
call those individuals and politely tell them your name,
affiliations, and concerns, seriously expecting to have phone
conversations worth recording and publishing? Even if one of those
individuals decided to talk to you for more than a few seconds, in
something other than variations on "no comment," they'd have to
reveal something incredibly damning for a recording of the call to
have any tactical value, and that strikes me as improbable.

So it's still not entirely clear to me exactly what you were
actually doing or proposing to do, with your public campaign to get
a certain federal prisoner some sheets and so forth. I suppose it's
not really my business and may no longer be a priority for you
anyway, but if you really want to be indicted for alleged or actual
crimes committed in the name of pursuing humane treatment for that
person, maybe try harder?

Please feel free to email me at this address with clarifications or
corrections. Also please do not devote any more time in Youtube
videos to complaining about phrases like "lots of" in news
articles, especially within 24 hours of posting a blog entry on DK
that contains the string of words "insomuch as that."

Cheers,
auto26738669
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Charset: UTF8
Version: Hush 3.0
Note: This signature can be verified at https://www.hushtools.com/verify

wsBcBAEBAgAGBQJNfhoiAAoJEJYki2zRnUcj1O8H/RcUnZNrA+4Ga2VVaLrqNIvrh+2d
QN2CbI9JMYRHQgiG8WCcG0zaJS6vd4wQzaG+ZSlsranJljzzSo+4dC41n6qdotmFgczs
8sya8PysCxY7xtvrDTe4lBp/NqmkG5EFBBcRNsW8qC8As95PpcD2IjsQJTzHrgFJ1Phc
XR5esU9ovAw/1+af9nG4E5mJD89TLvE9OeRQFEeso3iTMQkzQXgYBe4oyROvucamT++c
5A2mAr3Ml3hcG1eXLTX5C8jj6fxZv+Is05WlgQ5yCSYwz7OCqsdFvM0H/ifHnmJJhfZ+
bPm90Em7JjmBzrX5bEFGUutCJicNgq4ypOEGnFdvM6g=
=4l12
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----