Ha, no problem.

Yes, the main subject I'm interested in writing about at the moment is indeed the intelligence contracting industry, with a focus on the extent to which it represents a multifaceted danger to democratic institutions by virtue of several dynamics that are unique to this situation, which I'll explain a bit in general terms before putting forth the specific angle I'm proposing.

An increasing percentage of the intelligence budget is going to contractors (in 2005, experts put that percentage at 50 percent; at this point I'm seeing estimates of 70 percent, which is quite believable when one starts looking at the specifics contracts and the continuing growth of the industry). In theory, I would have no problem with this degree of privatization were it not for another dynamic which became evident in February, which is that some of these same firms were planning to provide their services to corporate clients which wanted to conduct information warfare against non-state entities. Team Themis was a joint venture between HBGary Federal, Berico, and Palantir, with another firm, Endgame Systems, providing at least some degree of support as a "silent partner;" via the law firm Hunton & Williams, they were in negotiations with Bank of America and Chamber of Commerce to provide their combined capabilities for the purpose of launching an assault against Wikileaks and even Glenn Greenwald (for BoA, which feared an upcoming release of sensitive data) and disrupting an array of left-wing activist groups (for the Chamber). As the proposals and correspondence pursuant to all of this were exposed by Anonymous in early February, in turn prompting wide coverage and the resignation of HBGary Federal CEO Aaron Barr, Team Themis has presumably dissipated, and thus it is that Greenwald, for instance, is not going to have to contend with the covert series of information-based attacks that were planned against him, which is certainly swell.

But there are several aspects of this that are disturbing, particularly when viewed in the context I've been looking into for the last several months. Palantir apologized to Greenwald and "severed ties" with HBGary Federal, claiming that this was the work of a single employee, Matthew Steckman. But the e-mails themselves show that this is nonsense. Another employee, Eli Bingham, was also involved in this operation, and Palantir's general counsel Matt Long signed off on a document regarding the allocation of work and funds for the purpose. Steckman notes going up the chain to Dr. Karp to approve of that same allocation. Incidentally, Palantir received an initial investment upon its founding from In-Q-Tel, which itself is the acknowledged investment arm of the CIA. Meanwhile, Bank of America got in touch with Team Themis through a recommendation by the Justice Department, which put the corporation in touch with Hunton & Williams when it was apparently asking for help in destroying Wikileaks. 

That a corporation can ask the Justice Department for help in organizing a clandestine cyberwar against a particular entity should itself indicate the problems that arise when government agencies make common cause with such corporations, but there's another aspect to this that further illustrates the problem. Rep. Hank Johnson called for a Congressional inquiry into the Team Themis matter in February, but the inquiry was shot down by Rep. Lamar Smith, who said that it was the role of the Justice Department to decide if a crime may have been committed. Obviously, the Justice Department doesn't feel inclined to inquire into a matter that the department itself set in motion. And Aaron Barr has, by his own admission, been providing data on Anonymous and Wikileaks to the FBI, which is unlikely to investigate any of the potential crimes that were being planned in those Team Themis proposals.

Now, I've written about all of this in The Guardian and elsewhere and explained it in interviews with various outlets; I'm just noting it here to provide some background that could be quickly summarized or even just linked to in any piece I do for you guys, being illustrative of the problem with the industry as a whole. What I'm thinking of specifically is a piece focusing on Endgame Systems, which escaped any real scrutiny in the Team Themis aftermath.

Endgame Systems, as noted above, was connected to Team Themis, having provided them with a pretty accurate report on Anonymous and Wikileaks; this was noted in a few of the articles that came out at the time. But I've since learned a great deal more by studying the HBGary e-mails as well as the 1,000 or so e-mails that Lulzsec acquired two weeks ago from Unveillance, a contractor start-up that worked with Endgame and whose CEO discussed the firm in e-mails to others. First off, Endgame was working with Matthew Steckman for at least a year, as shown by an e-mail that an exec sent to Barr during the latter's early efforts to set up something akin to Team Themis. This itself shows that Steckman was a much more important aspect of Palantir's operations than that firm would like to have been known; and insomuch as that Steckman and Barr were both major organizers of Team Themis so much so as to have been the only two scapegoats, and keeping in mind that Endgame worked with closely with Barr for a year leading up to the scandal, Endgame is thus a much larger part of these illicit activities than is realized. 

There's another major aspect of Endgame that merits attention: their stated fear of attention. Here are some relevant excerpts I've accumulated from the 70,000 HBGary e-mails:

Aaron Barr to Bryan Masterson of Xetron, another intelligence contractor owned by Northrop Grumman: "But they are awfully cagey about their data. They keep telling me that if their name gets out in the press they are done. Why?"

CEO Chris Rouland to employee John Farrell: "Please let HBgary know we don't ever want to see our name in a press release."

John Farrell to Aaron Barr: "Chris wanted me to pass this along. We've been very careful NOT to have public face on our company. Please ensure Palantir and your other partners understand we're purposefully trying to maintain a very low profile. Chris is very cautious based on feedback we've received from our government clients. If you want to reconsider working with us based on this, we fully understand."

Aaron Barr to John Farrell: "I will make sure your [sic] a 'silent' partner and will ensure we are careful about such sensitivities going forward."

So we have a firm that's secretive even by the standards of the industry, and which has long and strong ties to two individuals who had to leave their respective firms due to entirely indefensible wrongdoing. Nor is this a minor player in the industry. Here's another excerpt from an e-mail exchange between Brian Masterson and Barr:

"They told me that they did 10M last year. Said they were working for NSA, Navy, and USAF. Also mentioned another customer who we do work with. While I was at their place getting briefed by Chris, Gen. Patraeus' exec called three times to set a follow-up meeting." They also have at least one subsidiary, ipTrust. There are some other clues I've gleaned regarding at least one aspect of the company's capabilities regarding the monitoring of botnets and a few other odds and ends.

So, what I'm thinking of is a 1,000 word piece laying all of this out and noting that we here have a firm that caters to the intelligence community at a high level, which is extraordinarily adverse to scrutiny due to a concern that they're "done" if their name gets out, which provided a report to HBGary Federal on Anonymous and Wikileaks in support of Team Themis' activities, and which had strong associations with the two fellows who were most instrumental to the Team Themis conspiracy. 

Let me know if you'd like to talk about this a bit more. Otherwise, I have a few more angles we could discuss. 

On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 2:46 PM, J.J. Gould <jjgould@theatlantic.com> wrote:

Hey Barrett,

Sorry for the delay getting back to you — just came back upon your note and realize that you’re expecting us to get back to you, and we were expecting you to get back to us. Apologies. ... If you’re still interested, we think the best way to go would be for you to pitch us any specific ideas you’re interested in, and we can see what makes sense and chat it through. E.g., if you still happen to be working on the intelligence industry, what’s the angle you want to take, how do you want to scope it, etc. ...?

Look forward to hearing from you ...

John

On 5/18/11 9:15 PM, "Barrett Brown" <barriticus@gmail.com> wrote:

Here's an update on my "status." http://blogs.computerworld.com/18307/face_of_anonymous_quits_exclusive_interview_with_barrett_brown

Let me know if you're still interested in talking about some potential articles; I'm writing up a couple of things on the intelligence contracting industry and want to get an idea of where to send them.

On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 11:43 PM, Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com> wrote:

Great, look forward to discussing it, and good to meet the both of you.


On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 10:02 PM, J.J. Gould <jjgould@theatlantic.com> wrote:

Barrett,

Sincere thanks for being in touch. We’re certainly interested and would love to drill down a little on what you have in mind. Let me introduce you to our Tech editor, Alexis Madrigal (CC’ed here) — he’ll have a few thoughts and questions for us to start with.

Chrs,

John

J.J. Gould
Deputy Editor
TheAtlantic.com

202-266-7544 <tel:202-266-7544>
jjgould@theatlantic.com <http://jjgould@theatlantic.com>
Twitter: @jj_gould

On 5/12/11 11:07 PM, "Barrett Brown" <barriticus@gmail.com <http://barriticus@gmail.com> > wrote:

Mr. Gould-

I'm a writer and author who just ended a six-month stint as de facto spokesperson and strategist for the Anonymous collective, during which time I was involved in our operations to assist North African revolutionaries, our investigation into HBGary Federal and other intelligence contractors engaged in wrongdoing, and Operation Metal Gear, a crowd-sourced investigation I announced two months ago on Russia Today as a means by which to prompt media coverage of "persona management," the practice of software-assisted "sock puppets" that was revealed to be employed by CENTCOM via the e-mails we obtained from HBGary and which would appear to be a growing industry in general. Previously I wrote for Vanity Fair, Huffington Post, New York Press, Skeptic, Skeptical Inquirer, The Onion, and a variety of other publications, including humor and policy outlets; I currently write op-eds for The Guardian and al-Jazeera and am working on a film as well as another book (my first, Flock of Dodos: Behind Modern Creationism, Intelligent Design, and the Easter Bunny, was released in 2007 and received acclaim from Alan Dershowitz, Matt Taibbi, and others). My unusual status is described here: http://www.dmagazine.com/Home/D_Magazine/2011/April/How_Barrett_Brown_Helped_Overthrow_the_Government_of_Tunisia.aspx.

This week I "retired" from Anonymous in order to return to more conventional writing and concentrate on my own projects. I wanted to see if you might be interested in articles on topics relating to some of the dynamics that I've been fortunate enough to see up-close over the past several years, in particular the conflicts that have arisen between states and other institutions on one hand and the increasingly-capable community of online dissidents represented by such things as Anonymous, Wikileaks, and other, newer groups that are now coming into existence. Although I've been quoted extensively on these issues lately in various outlets and was the subject of an NBC Night News report in February, I haven't had a chance to put forward much other than soundbites. I'm also privy to a great deal of information that I'd like to start reporting on myself rather than dispensing it out to various journalists, as I had gotten in the habit of doing.

Let me know if you'd be interested in discussing this further.

--
Regards,

Barrett Brown
512-560-2302