On Jun 13, 2011, at 6:55 PM, Barrett Brown wrote:
> Nate-
>
> You may have noticed that Lulzsec posted some dox on Endgame Systems the other day; around the same time, the firm took its site down, and it's remained down since.
http://www.endgames.us/ Endgame has been of interest to our general crowd for a while due to several factors stemming from the HBGary incident for reasons noted on our wiki:
http://wiki.echelon2.org/wiki/Endgame_Systems. Note that they've had a long association with Matthew Steckman of Palantir, going back at least a year, and were of course also connected to Barr for much of the same time span and provided the report on Wikileaks and Anonymous to Team Themis; in general, they've also stated to Barr, Brian Masterson of Xetron, and others that they and their federal clients are very much opposed to the company receiving any public scrutiny, as noted in the e-mail excerpts listed on our wiki entry. Let me know if you have any questions about this.
>
> I'll also be revealing something related to HBGary, Mantech, TASC, Northrop Grumman, and a few other entities on al-Jazeera's website soon, involving a classified program which itself entails a wide range of combined capabilities. When that goes up, hopefully soon, I'll send you a link.
>
> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 5:45 PM, Barrett Brown <
barriticus@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's a sort of dark political comedy about a guy who secretly ends up as a speechwriter for both candidates in the same campaign.
>
>
> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 5:00 PM, Nate Anderson <
nate@arstechnica.com> wrote:
> What's the film script about--or is that a secret?
>
> Nate Anderson
> Senior Editor, Ars Technica
>
nate@arstechnica.com
>
+1 (630) 315 7133
>
> On May 17, 2011, at 1:16 PM, Barrett Brown wrote:
>
> > Howdy-
> >
> > So, my main interest in Anonymous has always involved the manner by which it can channel the energies of individuals into concerted action in ways that would have been impossible before the information age. In particular, I was excited about the potential for Anonymous to become a sort of revolutionary engine; when it first turned its sites on a major government during Operation Titstorm, I decided that this would merely be the first shot in an upcoming battle between autonomous collectives and nation-states, as I wrote here in February of 2010:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barrett-brown/anonymous-australia-and-t_b_457776.html. After that piece appeared, I was approached by Gregg Housh, who was one of the fellows who launched Chanology and then ran it behind the scenes. At that time, I had recently founded Project PM for the purpose of developing experimental methods of online collaboration by which to make the best use of peoples' talents and the current information online for the purpose of reforming various institutions, so we had a lot to talk about. When OpTunisia started, Housh advised me to go to Anonops and help out, knowing that this was the sort of thing I was waiting for. What I saw and did during the next few weeks convinced me that these sorts of efforts can and should be used to channel dissatisfaction with injustice into concrete action in opposition to such things. Likewise, the HBGary operation demonstrated that small teams of individuals with relevant skills can do a great deal of damage to institutions that are otherwise effectively invincible by virtue of their position within the system. The fact that the FBI had just raided 40 alleged participants in DDOS attacks in conjunction with a sweeping international investigation into Anonymous even as Team Themis' various criminal conspiracies were facilitated by the Justice Department and have thus far been ignored by "law enforcement," meanwhile, has reaffirmed my belief that the rule of law is void. The conduct of the various "respectable" parties involved, together with a number of other things that have been discovered via Operation Metal Gear, have convinced me that the only way to prevent the internet from becoming an unprecedented tool of propaganda and surveillance wielded by governments, intelligence contractors, and certain major corporations is to prompt a massive campaign of investigation and exposure. I think this would be best conducted by a loosely-knit array of autonomous online entities, each making use of the best available tools and online resources by which to assess various aspects of all this and then make the information public in such a way as to compile a common data set from which others can then proceed with a clearer picture of the situation, and so on. I've been working on a guide by which to provide a general methodology for creating and running cohesive online activist groups in general, and have lately teamed up with a couple of the Chanology instigators to produce a much more comprehensive version based on a much better document they produced but never released a while back.
> >
> > Meanwhile, I think Anonymous will continue to serve as an incubator and facilitator of online activism and will no doubt continue to do some important work, but insomuch as that I have my own apparatus, contacts, methods by which to disseminate information, as well as a large group of talented people who are willing to work with me on these efforts, there's no particular reason for me to proceed within that particular fold. And increasingly, there are good reasons to go off and do my own thing. There's little quality control in a movement like that, which was not a huge problem when the emphasis was on assisting with North African revolutions and those who came on board thus tended to be of a certain sort. But as things like OpSony arise, you attract a lot of people whose interest is in fucking with video game companies (which is not to say that there aren't legitimate reasons for OpSony or that the majority involved aren't quality people, but to the extent that someone sits things out when we're working to promote liberty and fight dictatorships but then hops on board when we start going after an electronics firm that's perpetrated far lesser villainy, one has to question those peoples' priorities). And from the beginning, you've had a lot of people who are less interested in fighting injustice and more interested in being apart of a shadowy organization with a fearsome reputation, or in collective victories. And to the extent one works out of Anonops or some other venue of that sort, one has to deal with those people, as well as with a lot of frankly disturbed hacker types like Ryan (who continues to fuck with my projects). As such, a number of very talented and hard-working people have sort of drifted away, sometimes into small groups that pursue things on their own.
> >
> > So, I and some other Anons as well as a number of people who are happy with my particular fusion of journalism and activism have been working out of our own venues, largely on OpMetalGear, which I'm running out of Project PM now. I'll still be arranging pro bono legal assistance through the lawyers I acquired in January, and continue to work with people who are themselves still very much associated with Anonymous and Anonops in particular, but we'll be pursuing things our own way and without the designation of "Anonymous." Right now I'm writing a series of articles for al-Jazeera based on what's been discovered via OpMetalGear, particularly during the last few days of intensive research by my team, and also working on a film script I got approved late last year and a few other projects that I've been neglecting due to Anonymous. Finally, here's the first piece I wrote for al-Jazeera a little while back on the North Africa action, written under Anonymous:
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/02/201121321487750509.html. And this is a piece about my stint with Anonymous and some other background on my unusual status:
http://www.dmagazine.com/Home/D_Magazine/2011/April/How_Barrett_Brown_Helped_Overthrow_the_Government_of_Tunisia.aspx
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 10:32 AM, barri2009 <
barriticus@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Sure, I'll get back to you at greater when I get home in about an hour.
> > ------Original Message------
> > From: Nate Anderson
> > To:
barriticus@gmail.com
> > Subject: Leaving Anonymous?
> > Sent: May 17, 2011 10:45 AM
> >
> > Hi Barrett--
> >
> > Saw in this piece (
http://threatpost.com/en_us/blogs/barrett-brown-public-face-anonymous-leaves-group-051611) that you're planning to leave Anonymous and start a new project; wondered if you could tell me any more about the reasons for leaving and what you plan to do next? Sounds like your interests are diverging from those concerned more with lulz.
> >
> > nate
> >
> > Nate Anderson
> > Senior Editor, Ars Technica
> >
nate@arstechnica.com
> >
+1 (630) 315 7133
> >
> >
> >
> > Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> >
> > Barrett Brown
> >
512-560-2302
>
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Barrett Brown
>
512-560-2302
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Barrett Brown
>
512-560-2302