| Subject: Re: New tactics are needed |
| From: Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com> |
| Date: 3/18/11, 13:55 |
| To: bk201 <bk201@me.com> |
Although I'd be interested, there is no such thing as secure voice chat with my roommates around : /We're using a secure voice chat for most of our work now. Would you be interested in joining us later?On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 2:19 PM, bk201 <bk201@me.com> wrote:
It would be my pleasure :)Sorry, NGA. We've been advised to work with you.On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 1:35 PM, bk201 <bk201@me.com> wrote:
Would you be surprised if I say I am not Army intel. Think harder ;) Astronauts, really? I can think of a myriad of things in the sky that one could be curious about. Satellites, HAARP capabilities, manipulating resonant frequencies, space weaponry. It is all fascinating. Thanks to you, I bothered to dust off my Twitter account. I use an alias for email and my real name there, just the opposite of what most people would expect me to do @Cyb3r14nWe know what your position is in Army intel. You have to understand that we are now working with a network of people who are upset at the way that certain of their extensive talents have been used and who were impressed enough to reach out and provide the tools we'll need to expose a certain series of operations involving a certain planet's sky. Suffice to say that these people are the sort who take vacations in high places.
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 1:20 PM, bk201 <bk201@me.com> wrote:I cannot tell you much about my position, but if you think about some of the other stuff I have told you - you may be able to figure that part out. I was at the same training base as Manning while he was there. Suffice it to say, I have seen and heard things that will blow your mind. You are correct that this goes well beyond persona management software.Yes, you can. I'm all in on this and this goes well beyond persona management software.On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 1:03 PM, bk201 <bk201@me.com> wrote:
The information you have was fairly easy to obtain. In fact, too easy The government and military are notorious for leaving seemingly juicy but otherwise false or outdated information in places that hackers or those conducting espionage for foreign nations will find them. It is a dead end, but those who find the information do not know that and continue to search for more information. The govt/mil ensure that those finding the information will never be able to obtain all the pieces to the puzzle, if in fact there is a puzzle. I know this because in the position I am in, more up-to-date information has been passed across my desk. Now I understand all too well the ethical dilemma Bradley Manning faced. He knew things that scared him and needed an outlet to expose those things. I believe I am equally disturbed by what I know. I feel I must always choose between keeping my promises or saving the world At one point, I thought I would be able to do both, but now I am not so sure. Can I trust you?
On Mar 17, 2011, at 12:43 PM, Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmailcom> wrote:No, we're aware of that. The pads you see do not represent our current thinking, I can tell you. But I'm skeptical as to how it could be bait; could you explain?On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 10:35 AM, bk201 <bk201@me.com> wrote:
This system is absolutely not new. It has been in use for several years by others. Just because the Air Force contract is recent does not mean anything. Some contracts and solicitations are not required to be published because they could indicate details that may compromise an operation. Posting this one was a matter of timing. It was supposed to be seen, if you know what I mean. Think of the timing...the Air Force contract 2010, the patent application 2008, approved 2009. You do realize that every single one of the developers is in NC. Several large military bases there, from what I have heard. They were likely working for a govt contractor and were told to file for the patent after the system was already in use. But because this sounds like some grand and mysterious thing, most people will either be mad enough or scared enough or both to leave it at that and to not delve any deeper to find out about the new stuff. Of course, the general public would not know this. To them, everything you are telling them is probably new.Which part of the information?On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 10:13 AM, bk201 <bk201@me.com> wrote:
What if I told you that I knew for a fact that this information is at least three years old and was meant to be nothing more than bait.Lol. That was early in the investigation. Those pads are not current; my team is going dark due to theOn Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 10:01 AM, bk201 <bk201@me.com> wrote:
"Why are the exact same companies that are intrested in Metal Gear have a seminar about a malware analyzing software?"I know, I know!
We have tons more now. It's a process. We know that Booz is only a component of the companies that split a portion of an $18 billion contract and we have been informed that even with the new info, we are at the tip of the iceberg.
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 9:56 AM, bk201 <bk201@me.com> wrote:Regarding Metal Gear, that can't be all that you have on it. I know quite a bit more than this http://piratenpad.de/ep/pad/view/metalgearannouncement/dvIikMTECs I even have more info on the developers. Not to mention, at least three of the facts are completely wrong. I hope this is just the appetizer, so to speak.On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 1:12 AM, Nicole Baker <bk201@me.com> wrote:
Please enlighten me. I've seen posts pertaining to an upcoming exposure of BAH, but I never caught the details.
Sent from my iPad
Metal Gear is our name for the Booz project we've been profiling over the past two days. The term will soon be household among all the cool kids.
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 1:01 AM, Nicole Baker <bk201@me.com> wrote:
It wasn't merely interest. This is certainly active. I am not sure how many other agencies and politicians have it at their disposal That does account for seemingly "canned" Tweets by some of the "official" accounts of the political loudmouths. To which Metal Gear are you referring? The weaponized exo suit or the game theories?
Sent from my iPadNo, we're not deploying this. We are going to provide the world with a model by which it may hit back, hard, legally, and effectively, against anyone who attempts to deploy such capabilities as they are currently being employed in Azerbaijan against opposition figures and which are no doubt being used among the all-important American demographic by several parties. We know of the Air Force's interest in these capabilities as they were accepting bids on it a while back. We're also piecing together the exact nature of Metal Gear. Note that we are essentially a machine by which to receive information and we have been doing a much better job of making use of it as well
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 12:35 AM, Nicole Baker <bk201@me.com> wrote:
Sounds exactly like something the Air Force is using. If you have this or plan to obtain this, you are certainly ahead of the game Ensuring the programmed personas accurately depict the kinds of people who would support a particular cause is of some concern, unless they are pre-programmed. The personas do have to be believable. This is also a useful tool for overcoming various language and cultural barriers if properly configured. It does the work for you after that, giving you a legion of voices to carry a message in a way that can appeal to many political, religious, and cultural ideologies
Sent from my iPadGive me a short assessment of this document and you have a deal.http://www.faqsorg/patents/app/20090313274
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 9:47 PM, Nicole Baker <bk201@me.com> wrote:
I am not out to manipulate people. I think they are quite manipulated by the media already They just need to be awoken from their slumber. We are living in a nation of zombies. This problem has bothered me for years, but I am more of a strategist than a charismatic or a leader type. That is why I want to lend my services to those who are best able to use them. I will analyze and suggest effective strategies for anything you throw my way. In fact, I'd consider it an honor.- bk201
Sent from my iPadOkay. I'm going to give you the short version for now, without getting into the discussion of why we won't entertain that sort of idea other than to note that we do not see the public as a force to be manipulated by anything more than good and honest rhetoric. For the purposes of this conversation, I should just note that our capabilities are already such that what you propose is unnecessary. It is already becoming apparent to those who matter that Anonymous is an honorable alternative to the current system and this will become more apparent as we continue to expose the dangerous habits of such institutions as Booz Allen Hamilton and, frankly, most governments. That's my assessment based on my unusually high degree of participation with Anonymous and based on my experience working in the media and considering related questions in various capacities for the whole of my adult life, and I've managed to predict quite a bit over the last year in particular. I'd also note that we have something else in the works that is going to change the game a bit.On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 8:19 PM, Nicole Baker <bk201@me.com> wrote:
Ok...waiting :)
Sent from my iPad
On Mar 15, 2011, at 8:09 PM, barri2009 <barriticus@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ok. I'll get back to you when I get home.
> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nicole Baker <bk201@me.com>
> Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 21:16:06
> To: barriticus@gmail.com<barriticus@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: New tactics are needed
>
> I prefer email for the time being.
>
>
> On Mar 15, 2011, at 8:06 PM, barri2009 <barriticus@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Would you call me?
>> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Nicole Baker <bk201@me.com>
>> Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 21:12:43
>> To: barriticus@gmail.com<barriticus@gmail.com>
>> Subject: Re: New tactics are needed
>>
>> 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
>>>
--
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