Re: Small corrections to the piece
Subject: Re: Small corrections to the piece
From: Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com>
Date: 5/20/11, 01:01
To: neal rauhauser <nrauhauser@gmail.com>

It's used on a legal document so I really don't think it's a misprint, and COIN also stands for counter intelligence just as in COINTELPRO, and from the specifics we've put together on this, the project involves a massive surveillance/data mining program that may very well be intended to capture insurgents and whatnot but would take in data from the general public in doing so. And they are indeed dealing with intelligence services; it's some branch of military intelligence. Insomuch as that they refer to it as counter intelligence and never refer to it as counter insurgency and the people working on this are intelligence people, I'm going to go with counter intelligence on this until I see any reason to indicate otherwise that outweighs the reasons I see to back it up.



On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 11:51 PM, neal rauhauser <nrauhauser@gmail.com> wrote:

  That's probably a misprint - I'm on a netsec mailing list, COIN = counter insurgency. They are not dealing with an intelligence service, they're dealing with insurgents.

   "CO for COIN" - contract officer. As I recall his name is John, don't think I ever got a last name for him.


On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 12:46 AM, Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com> wrote:
No, COIN is referred to as counter intelligence in one of the attached documents.


On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 11:45 PM, neal rauhauser <nrauhauser@gmail.com> wrote:


   COIN is counter insurgency, not counter intelligence.


    It is important to note that Northrop Grumman owned TASC from 2001 to 2009. That's how Tom Conroy ended up inside NG, and why he was disloyal to the company.




--
Regards,

Barrett Brown
512-560-2302



--
mailto:nrauhauser@gmail.com//
GV: 202-642-1717



--
Regards,

Barrett Brown
512-560-2302