Re:
Subject: Re:
From: Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com>
Date: 5/6/11, 18:53
To: "Bryan-Low, Cassell" <Cassell.Bryan-Low@wsj.com>

For Immediate Distribution
Press Release
May 6, 2011
Anonymous Holdings LLC (Bermuda)

Today, an article appeared in Financial Times making the case for Anonymous' alleged involvement in the heist of some hundred million user accounts from Sony, a crime which is now being investigated by Congress, the Justice Department, and other entities. The piece has already been widely referenced and is being used by many who oppose Anonymous for various reasons as proof that those who participate in the collective are responsible for that heist. Unfortunately, the article is problematic for a variety of reasons.
 
1. One of the two reporters who contributed to the article, Joseph Menn, has previously written on Anonymous in what he and Financial Times also considered to be a scoop. The resulting piece, "Hackers Warned of Arrest," used HBGary CEO Aaron Barr as the only quoted source. Barr claimed that he had identified various "leaders" of Anonymous, referring to a participant who went by "Q" at the time as the "co-founder" of the movement. As it turned out later, Barr had believed this because Q had created a channel in Anonops.irc called #Anonymous a few months prior. Anyone with even a passing familiarity with internet culture could have easily refuted this key assertion by Barr, and in fact many immediately did so; Menn, on the other hand, did not bother to do the research that would have led him to realize that Anonymous was not founded at all, much less co-founded by Q. Much else reported by Menn was similarly incorrect, such as Barr's assertion that Q was looking for a replacement for a server administrator who goes by the name "Owen," who was himself allegedly forced to "curtail" his activities. In fact, Owen has not been replaced at all and has remained just as active as usual for the five months since Barr used Menn to promote his hilarious "research." This failure of a news article may be seen here:http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/87dc140e-3099-11e0-9de3-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1LbP3MAFP
 
2. Today's article is entitled, "Hackers Admit Anonymous Likely Behind Sony Attack." That assertion is backed by interviews with two individuals, one being Kayla, who participated in the infiltration of HBGary after Menn provided Barr with the opportunity to make his claims. Kayla tells Menn that "If you say you are Anonymous, and do something as Anonymous, then Anonymous did it." Meaning that anyone who calls himself Anonymous is Anonymous and thus the collective is responsible for the act in question. This is not the definition of Anonymous that was used by Menn when reporting on Anonymous originally, when Barr's investigation centered on the Anonops server from which much of our activities are carried out. Nor is it the definition used by law enforcement officials, whose investigations have long centered on Anonops for that very reason. Nonetheless, Financial Times is suddenly using a broader definition of Anonymous - one that includes the hundreds of thousands of people who refer to themselves as Anonymous despite having no connection to any of the actions attributed to the group - in order to support its "scoop" to the effect that Anonymous was indeed responsible. In fact, FT reports elsewhere in the article that "US law enforcement agencies are already looking closely at Anonymous;" obviously the FBI is not looking at hundreds of thousands of people, but rather those operating out of a few nodes of activity. Although there is no set definition of Anonymous, those referring to the movement should stick with a single one rather than changing it as necessary in order to support a flimsy article, and then changing it again within that very article.
 
3. The other individual quoted is referred by Menn and his co-writer as an "Anonymous member" even though there is no way to verify that the individual is truly a participant in Anonymous, rather than someone who is pretending to be so in order to discredit those who are actually involved in our activities. The person claimed to FT that "he saw technical details of a vulnerability in Sony’s network that enabled the break-in discussed on an Anonymous chatroom, shortly before the intrusion." Thus it is that the main piece of supporting evidence for a major allegation that is someone who is believed to be in the know by a journalist who has  previously failed to determine who is in the know claims that someone else posted something that he claims to be related to the hack. Here, then, is the article that has prompted the storyline that is alleged to prove Anonymous' guilt:  http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/d0a21040-7800-11e0-b90e-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1LUp3BgsI

On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 5:52 PM, Bryan-Low, Cassell <Cassell.Bryan-Low@wsj.com> wrote:
Thanks Barrett.

--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

 
From: Barrett Brown [mailto:barriticus@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, May 06, 2011 10:21 PM

To: Bryan-Low, Cassell
Subject: Re:
 
Also, Kayla's quote in that article - the only quote known to come from someone who is actually an Anonymous operative as defined by people who actually work with Anonymous - is using a definition of Anonymous whereby anyone who claims they are Anonymous is Anonymous. That doesn't contradict our assertion that it was likely nobody within what is functionally known as Anonymous - as in, the people who are investigated by the Feds, who did Tunisia and HBGary and most of the other things associated with Anonymous, etc.

On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com> wrote:
It's very possible that the person Menn talked to was indeed Jennifer Emick/Asherah/FakeGreggHoush, who I told you about the other day. She noted to me two nights ago that she was talking to reporters but didn't say which ones. I just went to irc.2600.net to ask her about it and she refused to tell me who she talked to or identify any article in which she is quoted in under one of her own names, rather than as a participant in Anonymous (which she is not but has pretended to be on several occasions in order to gain information). This was the conversation; AnonymousDown is a person who works with her and who is heavily involved in harassing Anonymous activists and who recently boasted about prank-calling me via his blog, AnonymousDown.blogspot.com. 


[15:04] ->> You joined channel #cybertavern
[15:04] ->> Topic is: Cyber Tavern - Leave your 'group' affiliations at the door. No Recruiting. Lurking & Idling will get you kick/banned.
[15:04] ->> Topic set by Sonar_Guy!~Who@rockhall.torservers.net on 4/26/2011 7:20:15 PM
[15:04] ->> Channel Modes are: +nt 
[15:04] ->> Channel created on 4/26/2011 6:43:14 PM
[15:05] <@tyrdr0p> Hi BarrettBrown
[15:06] <@chatterbox> hey BarrettBrown
[15:06] <BarrettBrown> yo
[15:06] <@Sonar_Gal> hello BarrettBrown
[15:06] <@bluesoul120> hi there BarrettBrown
[15:06] <@tyrdr0p> What brings ya by the tavern today?
[15:06] <BarrettBrown> asherah_: What press were you talking to yesterday?
[15:06] <@chatterbox> oh god here we fucking go
[15:06] <BarrettBrown> shut up
[15:07] <@chatterbox> lmao
[15:07] <@chatterbox> HEY
[15:07] <@chatterbox> respect your ops
[15:07] <asherah_> ...
[15:07] <@chatterbox> jk feel free to pick on asherah_ all you want, i'll leave you too be =D
[15:07] <@tyrdr0p> BarrettBrown:  Did you come here to pick a fight or something man?
[15:07] <BarrettBrown> I've got Congress and fucking Justice Department getting false info because that fucking FT douche just ran an article claiming we did it
[15:07] <asherah_> fuck you chatterbox :P
[15:08] <@chatterbox> LOL asherah_ enjoy your bickering and fighting
[15:08] <BarrettBrown> the same fucking journalist who ran Aaron Barr's nonsense as credible and who has no idea how to differentiate between Anon and, say, someone who pretends to be Anon
[15:08] <asherah_> Also, what happened to "anyone can be anonymous?"
[15:08] <asherah_> you're ewither a group or you're not
[15:08] <BarrettBrown> Would you mind telling me which press you were talking to the other day?
[15:09] <BarrettBrown> I've always defined Anonymous as those who actually do work in support of our ideals
[15:09] <BarrettBrown> Rather than anyone who wants to feel awesome about being in a seekrit club
[15:09] <BarrettBrown> Which is how the majority of people who do nothing define it
[15:09] <BarrettBrown> Chatterbox: sorry to snap at you, I'm just a bit stressed today
[15:10] <@chatterbox> BarrettBrown it's all good man
[15:10] <BarrettBrown> It's like me versus Sony and JoD and Financial Times and god knows who else
[15:10] <@chatterbox> you didn't have to apologize lol, but i appreciate that you did =]
[15:10] <asherah_> Yes, I would mind
[15:10] <BarrettBrown> fucking futuristic information/media war/disinfo/law stuff
[15:10] <BarrettBrown> Interesting.
[15:11] <@chatterbox> and yes being apart of anonymous does stress people out due to constant legal shit
[15:11] <asherah_> BB, you came a little late to the party to be defining anon by your own criteria
[15:11] <BarrettBrown> And why would you mind? You're usually happy to, uh, helpfully note your anti-Anon activities
[15:11] <@chatterbox> when FBI sent warrants i was shitting my pants day and night no joke, that's when i was like FUCK anon lmao
[15:12] <BarrettBrown> I don't suppose you've been engaging in any of the social engineering for which Backtrace hopes to be known in the infosec industry, have you?
[15:12] <@chatterbox> paranoia went skyrocket =D
[15:12] <asherah_> I don't suppose I share opsec with you
[15:12] <BarrettBrown> You kind of do.
[15:12] <BarrettBrown> you share it with everyone via your Twitter feed.
[15:12] <asherah_> I ki9nd of don't
[15:12] <@AnonymousDown> Hey BarrettBrown, ever ask yourself the one simple question? Is it at all possible that someone affiliated with Anonymous did do it?
[15:12] <BarrettBrown> When it suits your penchant for boasting to your enemies?
[15:12] <@AnonymousDown> After all
[15:13] <@AnonymousDown> No way you can tell
[15:13] <asherah_> Jesus, that was some major derp there
[15:13] <BarrettBrown> AnonymousDown: It's possible. It's also possible that the people who dedicate all of their time to discrediting us by any means necessary was involved.
[15:13] <asherah_> You do a fine job discrediting yourselves
[15:13] <@AnonymousDown> Prove it then ?
[15:13] <BarrettBrown> And if Congress is going to be "investigating," I'd like them to be aware of the various notable aspects of the environment in which we operate.
[15:14] <@AnonymousDown> Whos discrediting you BarrettBrown?
[15:14] <BarrettBrown> AnonymousDown: Protip: I don't consider you to be an intellectually honest person who is likely to be convinced by anything I say.
[15:14] <BarrettBrown> Asherah_: So you'd prefer not to tell me what journalists you've been talking to, then?
[15:15] <@AnonymousDown> Point Taken: as since we're slinging the shit right now lets put it on the table for real...
[15:15] <asherah_> I'd prefer if youj walked into an open manhole and never spoke to me again
[15:15] <BarrettBrown> hurrrr durrrrr
[15:15] <@AnonymousDown> BigHead=BarrettBrown (Not Anonymous)
[15:16] <asherah_> lol
[15:16] <asherah_> Also ironic that the sony hackers preferred to remain anonymous
[15:16] <asherah_> lol
[15:16] <BarrettBrown> So you'd prefer to deflect the question with additional allegedly clever insults that wouldn't make the grade in a Reagan-era back to school special?
[15:16] <asherah_> got to love the irony
[15:16] <@AnonymousDown> ...wait...we didnt do it...
[15:16] <@AnonymousDown> we did everything BUT THAT...
[15:16] <@AnonymousDown> listen to yourself man
[15:16] <@AnonymousDown> herp derp
[15:16] <asherah_> BB, I'm not here to hop any time you get hysterical and come running over here to confront me
[15:16] <@AnonymousDown> its no wonder
[15:17] * chatterbox munches on his butter drenched popcorn.
[15:17] <BarrettBrown> Asherah_: I'm simply asking you a question about the journalists you've been speaking to and what you might have told them.
[15:17] <asherah_> especially after that retarded episode of encyclopedia brown that came out fo the last episode
[15:17] <BarrettBrown> You did indeed note the other evening that you were on the phone with a journalist, correct?
[15:17] <asherah_> and I'm simply blowing you off without answering.  Deal.
[15:17] <@AnonymousDown> sad part is "if you only knew" your so fucking paranoid...
[15:17] <@AnonymousDown> Ahserah: you DID say this...
[15:18] <@AnonymousDown> Ahserah: you DID say That....
[15:18] <BarrettBrown> And you'd rather it not be known who you were talking to?
[15:18] <@AnonymousDown> BLAH BLAH BLAH!
[15:19] <@AnonymousDown> Anonymous Hacked Sony, you know it, I know it and your trying to cover it.
[15:19] <asherah_> It's a matter of principle.  i won't tell you because you want me to tell you.
[15:19] <@AnonymousDown> Stop being a dick
[15:19] <asherah_> Could be they didn't tell him for a reason
[15:19] <@AnonymousDown> SPOKESMAN
[15:19] <BarrettBrown> asherah_: I wanted you to give me the number of the FBI agent who's actually listening to your "tips" and you gave me that.
[15:19] <BarrettBrown> So, no, that's not why you're not telling me.
[15:19] <BarrettBrown> If you do X, you can't really claim that you don't do X, can you?
[15:20] <BarrettBrown> You follow?
[15:20] <asherah_> I gave you that because it was a special circumstance
[15:20] <BarrettBrown> Let's make this another special circumstance.
[15:20] <asherah_> I find it funny you think you can bully me with your retarded logic
[15:20] <asherah_> It's not gonna happen
[15:20] <BarrettBrown> Logic = bullying
[15:20] <asherah_> Whine, be, stamp your feet, try to talk circles
[15:20] <BarrettBrown> Today I learned
[15:20] <@AnonymousDown> ^ paranoia
[15:21] * chatterbox finishes his popcorn and now gets his bucket of KFC
[15:21] <BarrettBrown> Did you or did you not talk to reporters about OpSony?
[15:21] <@AnonymousDown> o.0
[15:21] <BarrettBrown> And if you did, in such a way as to actually identify yourself, where will that article appear?
[15:21] <BarrettBrown> Because we've established that you spoke to reporters, you said so yourself.
[15:22] * asherah_ ignores Barrett some more and sneaks some of CB's KFC
[15:22] <asherah_> Go sniff paint detective poirot
[15:22] <BarrettBrown> And if no article comes out with you being quoted as yourself, we can assume you acted in such a way as to pretend to be someone who is not entirely opposed to Anon
[15:23] <BarrettBrown> And who spends a good deal of her time trying to get Anons arrested.
[15:23] <@chatterbox> LMAO!
[15:23] <@chatterbox> sniff paint
[15:23] <@chatterbox> i lol'd
[15:23] <@AnonymousDown> Why not get anons arrested?
[15:23] <@AnonymousDown> < credit Asherah
[15:24] <BarrettBrown> So, even though you're often more than happy to try to refute my assertions, as evidenced by copious logs in which you do so, on this occassion you'd prefer not to respond.
[15:24] <@AnonymousDown> yeah cause logs can be used in court dumbass
[15:24] <@AnonymousDown> lol
[15:24] <BarrettBrown> I'm not talking about court, sweetheart
[15:24] <@AnonymousDown> dont worry you will be...


On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 2:51 PM, Bryan-Low, Cassell <Cassell.Bryan-Low@wsj.com> wrote:
Got it. Thanks for sending the explanation.

--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

 
From: Barrett Brown [mailto:barriticus@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, May 06, 2011 08:50 PM

To: Bryan-Low, Cassell
Subject: Re:
 
That's all on record, I'm furious that a guy who's already displayed his poor understanding of Anonymous is now taking it upon himself to put forth "evidence" of us having performed a massive and serious crime.

On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 2:47 PM, Bryan-Low, Cassell <Cassell.Bryan-Low@wsj.com> wrote:
I see, thanks.

Is any of that on the record or would you have an on-the-record response if we required one?

--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

 
From: Barrett Brown [mailto:barriticus@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, May 06, 2011 08:42 PM

To: Bryan-Low, Cassell
Subject: Re:
 
Yes. Joseph Menn, one of the authors of the article, called me before writing it. He doesn't bother to actually quote any of my points even though I spent ten minutes explaining these things to him. More importantly, he is the fellow who believed Aaron Barr when Barr claimed to have identified our "founders" when it was already rather common knowledge that Anonymous was not founded, but grew out of 4chan and came to modern fruition through the work of several people who launched Chanology behind the scenes, none of whom are those whom Barr and Menn portrayed as such in support of an FBI contract and alleged "scoop," respectively. If some other journalist had obtained these secret sources and presented the case against us based on hearsay, it might be worth looking into. But Menn has already shown that he is willing to report on hilariously false stories put to him by enemies of Anonymous. There's also little reason to believe he knows the difference between someone who is actually a participant and supporter of Anonymous and the various people who claim to be such in order to give weight to their claims against the movement. On the other hand, we are forever indebted to Menn for having fallen for Barr's self-aggrandizing and demonstrably false nonsense and having been the only journalist who would run with such assertions; had that not happened, Anonymous would have never bothered to investigate the fellow and his criminal firm, and we would not have thereby exposed the various conspiracies being run by Hunton & Williams, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Justice Department, Palantir, Belrico, Booz Allen Hamilton, and the other firms that have since been written about by other, more competent reporters. That Menn is still being allowed to write about Anonymous despite his article having been shown to be nonsense through our subsequent actions - and is in fact being allowed to determine who is and isn't an Anonymous "member" despite having demonstrably fucked that up before - is frankly astonishing.

On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Bryan-Low, Cassell <Cassell.Bryan-Low@wsj.com> wrote:
Thanks for this. Is there any response from you or any core Anonymous members on the FT article today saying that two veteran Anonymous members have acknowledged that Anonymous members are likely behind the Sony data-theft hacks?

--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

 
From: Barrett Brown [mailto:barriticus@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, May 06, 2011 07:32 PM
To: Bryan-Low, Cassell
Subject: Re:
 
My latest response to the Sony affair: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/may/06/anonymous-sony

On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 8:11 PM, Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm afraid I don't have any better access to that information than you do as I was in New York for the Bradley Manning/Wikileaks/Anonymous press conference at city hall as well as meetings with our lawyers and other activists and have been otherwise engaged in Operation Metal Gear and some other projects during most of the time since. I've never been particularly interested in the Sony campaign except to the extent that the credit card heist seems to be a false flag by one of our government-oriented enemies, and the only specific information I've sought ought has been that related to this particular angle. I'd try to find out for you but I've got to finish op-eds for Guardian and al-Jazeera tonight, but I think that info should be available by searching other articles from those outlets that reported on the campaign when it began, or by going to anonnews.org and searching through the "Latest External News Sources" section (click "more" next to the title and it'll bring up everything).


On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 5:02 PM, Bryan-Low, Cassell <Cassell.Bryan-Low@wsj.com> wrote:
Hello,

I wanted to check some details with you on the timeline of Sony-related events:

*When did Anonymous issue its SonyOps press release saying it planned to launch attacks on Sony?
I've seen it reported as April 4, but wanted to check as there doesn't appear to be a date on the release itself.

* When did Anonymous start operations against Sony? And, which form of attack did it start with, the DDOS attacks against the Sony websites' servers?

*And, when did the 'doxing' of the private information of Sony executives?

* When did Anonymous stop operations against Sony?

Thanks,
Cassell

--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld



--
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