I am interested to see what you all have in mind. But why do you find my idea dangerous and unethical? Militaries and insurgent groups alike have attained success using such tactics. Even if you reject the offshoot idea, will you consider learning a few tactics for more effectively disseminating information? Timing, target population, and connotations of words used can make all the difference. I have studied information warfare and psyop tactics and have seen these things in action. My assistance is at your disposal.

- bk201


On Mar 15, 2011, at 7:52 PM, barri2009 <barriticus@gmail.com> wrote:

Well, I would note that although we have the capability of doing something of the sort, we regard it as potentially dangerous and unethical to create those sorts of entities. I can tell you that our overall strategy will become more apparent rather soon.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

-----Original Message-----
From: bk201 <bk201@me.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 18:05:59 
To: Barrett Brown<barriticus@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: New tactics are needed

Mr. Brown, how you obtain the information is up to you. The key is to more effectively disseminate it. Aside from a few subcultures, the public sentiments are not in favor of Anonymous. Some fear the group. Some regard the group as mischievous radicals. The hacker community seems convinced that Anonymous is a loosely formed conglomerate powered by script kiddies. Unfortunately, your supporters seem to be in the minority in the US, and the media's portrayal of Anonymous is not helping this situation at all. One of the tenets of successful information operations is to appeal to the target audience. And in order to do that, Anonymous must find out who doesn't support them and find ways to demonstrate relevance and to "win the hearts and minds" of the people, so to speak. 

I have pondered several options, but the best seems to be to create an offshoot that appears to oppose Anonymous while working toward the same objectives. A group that is a "champion" for those who think Anonymous members are miscreants. However, the "opposing" faction must remain in contact with those who are still operating as Anonymous to ensure a cohesive move toward the objectives and to avoid unintentional conflict by those in Anonymous who may wish to turn their attacks toward the "opposing" group. The key is to stage conflict between Anonymous and the other group in a way that convinces the population that the opposing group truly champions the cause of the people. This conflict, in return, helps capture the attention of the people. You've seen the "Team Jacob" and "Team Edward" shirts in reference to the character feud in Twilight. If people see conflict, they are by nature forced to choose a side. It is a side effect of being American. And in this case, no matter which "team" they rally to, they will be exposed to the same message. 

The hard part will be concealing that the two groups are working in tandem. If you have ever read the book Ender's Game, Anonymous would be a bit like Locke, while the other group would be the Demosthenes. This group needs to be the opposite of what people perceive Anonymous to be. The group must be completely law abiding, must appear to be composed of people who are more knowledgeable of the law and of the political processes, and needs to issue staged but public "rebukes" to Anonymous to gain credibility. The offshoot group should also avoid the hacktivism angle, instead putting full emphasis on truth and the power of words. 

Let me know what you think.

-bk201


On Mar 15, 2011, at 12:19 PM, Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com> wrote:

I would be happy to discuss this with you and agree that new tactics are needed; we are actually employing a more evolved set at this very moment pursuant to our investigation into Booz Allen Hamilton, which may be pulling the Fake Internet Trick in Azerbaijan. Having said that, of course we tend not to be professions in such things as information operations and I myself have worked largely through improvisation. Let me know what you'd like to discuss specifically, and thanks for getting in touch.

On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 11:13 AM, bk201 <bk201@mecom> wrote:
Mr. Brown, although I am not a member of Anonymous, I do admire many of the group's goals. However, I often find the methods used to be questionable due to their implied consequences. My main issue is that hacktivism, whether or not it achieves many of the desired ends, will give the US government an excuse to exact even more draconian laws regarding censorship and the monitoring of citizens' online activity. This would put us all in a precarious situation, leaving us much worse off than when we started. However, something must be done to expose all manner of government and corporate corruption. I believe I can help Anonymous effectively pursue many of their goals by implementing seldom understood information operations tactics. Please contact me at this address if you desire further information.

-bk201



-- 
Regards,

Barrett Brown
512-560-2302