| Subject: Re: My edits AND A NEW TOPIC: PERSONAL IDENTIFIERS |
| From: Gregg Housh <greggatghc@gmail.com> |
| Date: 9/7/11, 16:51 |
| To: Daniel Conaway <dconaway@writershouse.com> |
| CC: Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com> |
Guys, help me with this one a.s.a.p. Instead of it reading a couple of friends and I hit on a great idea for a troll,
Can we say instead,
Three years earlier, I was moderating a chat of about seven or eight Anons, and we hit on a great idea for a troll.
From: Gregg Housh [mailto:greggatghc@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 11:41 AM
To: Daniel Conaway
Cc: Barrett Brown
Subject: Re: My edits AND A NEW TOPIC: PERSONAL IDENTIFIERS
Yeah, and in the end everything happened in the Press channel, and that was then renamed quickly to Marblecake.
But it was operated under the Anonymous banner.
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 11:45 AM, Daniel Conaway <dconaway@writershouse.com> wrote:
Just so Im clear: that very small group operated under the (non-)banner of Anonymous, right?
Dan Conaway
Literary Agent
Writers House
From: Gregg Housh [mailto:greggatghc@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 11:05 AM
To: Daniel Conaway
Cc: Barrett Brown
Subject: Re: My edits AND A NEW TOPIC: PERSONAL IDENTIFIERS
On your first point about being inclusive. I understand the need for me to be the focus. I agree, and I did a lot of the decision making and a lot of the actual organizing work to get shit done. But there will be a lot of people who I consider close friends who get angry at the idea that *I* did X or Y. It was always a WE. My skill I always brought to the table was the ability to organize them, have ideas, and keep them working and on target.
On your second point, about OUR. I was part of the very smalll group who did all of this, and for the most part you can see (in the leaked logs if they can be found) that I ran that little group, meetings and whatnot I controlled. That is just because It was my skillset. I could get them to listen to me and keep them going. We got shit done because I kept it organized and running like a well oiled machine, I wouldnt let them get off topic.
As for HeyGuise, I just didnt want to give out something that was easily personally identifiable.
I dont beleive we need to come up with fake names or anything, most of these people know what they did, and did it publically and on purpose. So thats that.
Nobody knows we are writing a book, at least I havent told anybody and I hope Barrett hasnt (I dont believe he has.)
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 5:32 AM, Daniel Conaway <dconaway@writershouse.com> wrote:
P 13 comment about being more inclusive: Fair enough, but putting this at 5-8 people on the channel makes it less intimate and less about YOU; so we need to replace the intimate "you" we lose in this small accuracy with something else...I don't want to kill the flow, but we need one of two things to happen in every scene: EITHER we learn something about YOU, who YOU are in relation to Anonymous, OR we learn something about how Anonymous functions, the dynamic among you as you 'hit upon a great idea for a troll.' And, remember, the CoS 'thread' (distinct from the HBGary thread) is meant to be the more intimate of them. So if you're not comfortable taking credit (so to speak) for this op, and so we lose a sliver of the 'you-ness' of the op, let's use it as an opp'y to show us something about the mechanics/dynamics of being on a channel, the nature of the relationship amongst you, especially in those early (for you) days--were any of these guys actually buddies? were these Anons already, specifically?
p. 19, you suggest 'Anonymous's next move' instead of 'our next move.' There are a bunch of examples where you seem inclined to make this distinction; the net effect is A) YOUR presence in this story is diminished--in which case, why not write this book as "By Anonymous"? -- and B) it feels like you are trying to distance yourself from Anonymous in some legal "depends on what the definition of 'is' is" way... You ARE a member of Anonymous, that's not in dispute, and therefore I think it's appropriate to use 'Our.' Is this something you need to clarify with your lawyer?
p. 19, you ask why we're calling HeyGuise a Southerner. Gregg, is your issue here that you want to protect the anonymity of HeyGuise (and others too) by not revealing any 'personal' detail, or is it simply that you don't like that choice of detail?
This is important, actually. It's important to the book, and for the sake of the reader, that the Anons named in the book actually do have some personality. Me personally? I don't care of Anons' personal characteristics are made up entirely--that is, I don't care if HeyGuise is, instead, characterized as a Cracker, or a Yankee, or a banker from Hondurus--but we DO need these Anons to HAVE some form of characterization! So if what's needed is a disclaimer at the front that says that, while we use Anons' real user-names, ALL their personal characteristics have been changed, then let's do that.
But what protection does that actually give them, if we're naming them by their actual user-names? Maybe we need to change EVERYTHING, so that Topiary isn't called Topiary, and Sabu's not Sabu, and Kayla's not Kayla, etc. THAT's probably what we SHOULD do, for legal protection, for the protection of the Anons' anonymity [sic]-- YOU guys have a coded chart, and you guys ALWAYS know who you're talking about in real life, but then their names (AND characteristics) get changed. SOMEHOW we HAVE to allow there to be some actual HUMAN texture here!!!! We have to allow pronouns that convey some sense of community (i.e. 'our') and we have to include SOME mode by which SOME human characteristic about the personalities is revealed--EVEN IF IT'S INVENTED!
I've probably just opened up a can of worms...and maybe for no good reason (i.e. your objecting to charctererizing Sabu as a Southerner)--but we need to think about this NOW, while we still have control over it.
QUESTION: Do Sabu, Topiary, HeyGuise, Kayla know we're writing a book? Know they'll be named? I'm not saying they SHOULD know--but if they don't, should we come up with a renaming principle? It's complicated, and those INSIDE Anonymous (at least the ones NOT named in the book) will later gripe about the names being changed, but the organization is called Anonymous for a reason, so shouldn't we respect--and protect--these identities in some systematic fashion?
Maybe we need to have a conference call with your lawyer(s) to figure out what the principle needs to be here. What do you think?
________________________________
Dan Conaway
Literary Agent
Writers House
________________________________
From: Gregg Housh [greggatghc@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, September 05, 2011 11:15 PM
To: Daniel Conaway; Barrett Brown
Subject: My edits
I have attached the last version of the proposal that was sent to me today, the one that I read and used to come up with this list of edits. I doubt either of you need it, but I wanted to make sure everyone knew what file I read to come up with these edits.
Some of these edits were already given and hadn't actually made it in yet. But all of them need to be addressed, including a couple show stoppers. So please get to these edits before it goes out.
I have attached the notes as a text file. I am absolute no good with all these damn word processors or any of their interesting annotation/edit features. So its a text file and it has them all in order.
Gregg