Re: Follow up

On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 4:26 PM, Carl Franzen <carl@talkingpointsmemo.com> wrote:

Barrett,

Thank you very much for your detailed and prompt response and the invitation email. This is all indeed quite fascinating. Unlike Al Jazeera, we will have a post up on this, though it might hold until weekend.

Looking forward to continuing the discussion.

Carl

On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 10:06 PM, Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com> wrote:

Here are those answers; let me know if you need anything else, or want to speak by phone again. Also, Project PM does have a website but it hasn't been updated since before my Anon days and still focuses on old projects, so I prefer that you link to our wiki, http://wiki.echelon2.org/wiki/Main_Page

1. I no longer have any relationship with al-Jazeera. I was first approached by one of their reporters in January 2011 regarding OpTunisia, which I'd been writing about publicly in addition to my less visible work on the operation; I provided them with information on the subject, put them in touch with other Anons/gave them instructions on joining the IRC venue from which it was being organized, and then wrote an op-ed piece for them (which they ran a few weeks later) called Anonymous and the Global Correction, which appeared under the byline "Anonymous" (but which makes reference to another article I wrote under my own name for HuffPo a year earlier regarding Anon's attack on the Australian gov't). As time went on, I continued to serve as a source for various al-Jaz reporters. In May, an editor there asked me to do a piece on persona management; while writing it, I started studying Romas/COIN and tipped off that editor (and several other journalists) about the program. This editor asked if I'd be interesting in writing about that too and doing a three-part series on the intelligence contracting industry, to which I agreed. The Romas/COIN piece was to be the first, and was set to appear in May, but on the day on which it was to go up, another editor with whom I've never dealt with - an American with a background in radio - told me that the piece did not sufficiently "humanize" the subject. He asked me to rewrite it, do five interviews with "victims of data mining" (data mining is done passively and en masse and thus victims almost never have any indication of such things), and otherwise turn it into a feature (the other two editors had asked for an op-ed). I explained to him why the "humanizing" in particular was unacceptable to me, the other editors backed down but asked me for a couple of other changes, which I made, and I was told it would appear soon and that the rest of the series (including another piece I'd turned in as well) was still a go. A couple weeks went by, an editor kept reassuring me that this would appear, and finally I just stopped inquiring about it. So I then announced I'd be putting out the report on our wiki, sent an e-mail noting this to several reporters and editors in case they'd be interested in following up. The Guardian, which I've been writing for since before my Anon days, had me do an op-ed to run on the day of the release, linking to the report and explaining its significance (we almost had a problem with that as our wiki came under an extended DDOS attack after my announcement, but our tech guy put in place some protection that has served us well since). Raw Story and a computer magazine blog picked it up shortly afterwards, and Russia Today did a segment on it a few days later with Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, but with the exception of a few European outlets, that was about as mainstream as the coverage got. I still get questions from al-Jazeera reporters from time to time but as you might expect, I don't plan on pursuing any further professional relationship with the outlet.

2. There are a number of e-mails to and from employees at Apple and Google about those respective firms getting involved in the recompete bid for Romas/COIN; several of those indicate that physical meetings were held at TASC and other locations, as you'll see below. Here are a sampling of those e-mails - which, like all of the e-mails I draw upon, may be found in the searchable online archives that Anonymous set up in February (http://search.hbgary.anonleaks.ch/):

from    Aaron Barr aaron@hbgary.com
to    "Lovegrove, John (TASC)" <John.Lovegrove@tasc.com>
cc    "Chris (TASC) Clair" <CHRISTOPHER.CLAIR@tasc.com>
date    Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 10:56 AM
subject    Re: Antacid
mailed-by    hbgary.com

hide details 3/17/10


I feel confident I can get you a ringer for Farsi if they are still interested in Farsi (we need to find that out).

I don't know anything about Centra. Thing is with these organizations they like who they know. I never heard of Centra. What type of linguists do they have? Another tac might be to have a few stars on your side and don't claim a deep bench of linguists (most of which are probably DoD trained and not at all native). You can ghost this talking about most linguists available are not native or digitally knowledgeable, but we have some stars and we are teaming with (someone like Gartner or Lincoln or Leoni) to bring some of the on the ground cultural relevance. These linguists are not only going to be developing new content but also meeting with folks, so they have to have native or near native proficiency and have to have the cultural relevance as well.

If Centra has this then I say grab them, if its just to fit a qual I think we could tell a different story and ghost the approach most will take to check the box. Gartner has an amazing presence overseas, they can help out with on the ground MOEs as well. Lincoln and Leoni have been working in those regions for quite some time linguistically and culturally.

Clair, Chris (TASC) CHRISTOPHER.CLAIR@tasc.com
to    "Lovegrove, John (TASC)" <John.Lovegrove@tasc.com>,
"Garcia, Kathy (TASC)" <KATHERINE.GARCIA@tasc.com>,
Aaron Barr <aaron@hbgary.com>,
"Brunst Jr, Gerald R (TASC)" <GERALD.BRUNSTJR@tasc.com>,
"Newbern, David W (TASC)" <DAVID.NEWBERN@tasc.com>,
mgeldner@google.com
date    Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 12:58 PM
subject    Google Meeting
mailed-by    tasc.com

hide details 7/2/10

Title:    Google Meeting
When:    Wed Jul 14 1pm 2pm (CDT)
Where:    WF3 3D
Who:    david.newbern@tasc.com, gerald.brunstjr@tasc.com, john.lovegrove@tasc.com, katherine.garcia@tasc.com...

Sign up for calendar »

Your Agenda for Wed Jul 14, 2010
          No earlier events
     1pm    Google Meeting
          No later events
view my calendar »

When: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 2:00 PM-3:00 PM (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada).

Where: WF3 3D

Note: The GMT offset above does not reflect daylight saving time adjustments.

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

Meeting with Mike Geldner from Google.

Mike,

Our address is

TASC Inc.

4801 Stonecroft Blvd. , Chantilly, VA 20151

My contact number is 703-449-3964.

We will talk about Google Enterprise Partners and other things Google that are important to the COIN proposal.

Thanks,
      Chris Clair
______________________________
____________________

    from    Aaron Barr aaron@hbgary.com
to    Andy Kemp <akemp@apple.com>
date    Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 2:04 PM
subject    Proposal
mailed-by    hbgary.com

hide details 9/14/10

Hi Andy,

Still waiting on the COIN/Romas proposal.... any day.

Do you have a contact at Pixar/Disney I could talk with?

from    andy kemp akemp@apple.com
to    Aaron Barr <aaron@hbgary.com>
date    Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 2:26 PM
subject    Re: Proposal
mailed-by    apple.com

hide details 9/14/10

good good

i'll get a contact
- Show quoted text -
Andy Kemp
Homeland Defense / National Programs

Apple Inc.
11921 Freedom Drive
Suite 600
Reston, Virginia
20194

akemp@apple.com
240-988-3476

Clair, Chris (TASC) CHRISTOPHER.CLAIR@tasc.com
to    "Pisani, Albert A. (TASC)" <albert.pisani@tasc.com>,
Aaron Barr <aaron@hbgary.com>
cc    "Heider, Raymond A (TASC)" <raymond.heider@tasc.com>,
"Lovegrove, John (TASC)" <John.Lovegrove@tasc.com>,
"Garcia, Kathy (TASC)" <KATHERINE.GARCIA@tasc.com>
date    Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 1:00 PM
subject    RE: EXTERNAL:
mailed-by    tasc.com

hide details 7/19/10

Hi Al,

We are currently working on defining the positions for key folks we want
on COIN. We expect to get the reqs posted by end of the month.

By the way, Aaron and I thought it a good idea for you to visit the
customer who has the COIN mission. What are your availabilities for the
next week or two? Additionally, who else do you think should attend?

Since Aaron has communications with the customer, I defer to him to
arrange the meeting. He also wants to pre-brief you on some of the
mission intricacies.

We spoke to Google and Apple last week. They both agreed to be on our
team! I love this kind of innovation.

Our team consists of:

- TASC (PMO, creative services)
- HB Gary (Strategy, planning, PMO)
- Akamai (infrastructure)
- Archimedes Global (Specialized linguistics, strategy, planning)
- Acclaim Technical Services (specialized linguistics)
- Mission Essential Personnel (linguistic services)
- Cipher (strategy, planning operations)
- PointAbout (rapid mobile application development, list of strategic
partners)
- Google (strategy, mobile application and platform development - long
list of strategic partners)
- Apple (mobile and desktop platform, application assistance -long list
of strategic partners)

We are trying to schedule an interview with ATT plus some other small
app developers.

We, truly have the team to beat on this!

Let me know if you need more info.

Thanks,

Chris Clair

Aaron Barr aaron@hbgary.com
to    "Clair, Chris (TASC)" <CHRISTOPHER.CLAIR@tasc.com>
date    Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 1:19 PM
subject    Re: EXTERNAL:
mailed-by    hbgary.com

hide details 7/19/10

Chris,

Probably a good time to talk about what role I would like to play once we win. I know it is impossible until we really see the RFP to determine any concise workshare but probably a good idea for you and I to have a high level discussion on the topic so we aren't surprising each other with a perspective that doesn't match. I definitely want to use this contract to rebuild an IO development capability as well as provide some of the strategy, planning and security services. Again we don't know size of contract yet but on the low side I would like 5 FTEs and on the high side I would like 10 FTEs (depending on size of contract) mostly doing mobile and social media development. Overall I would like 25% of the overall contract value. So lets set up a time to talk I would like to hear your thoughts.

Aaron

Hi Aaron,

Does this look right? Call me at 703-403-0326 if you can shed any light on this.

Chris
From: Lovegrove, John (TASC)
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 1:41 PM
To: Heider, Raymond A (TASC); Clair, Chris (TASC)
Cc: Bane, Christopher J (TASC)
Subject: RE: COIN/ROMAS

Dont know Ray. I just talked to Kim and she is sending me information on the high side. The market survey went to NG. She is going to add us to the bidders list. Ill let you know as soon as I see the documents.

From: Heider, Raymond A (TASC)
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 1:35 PM
To: Lovegrove, John (TASC); Clair, Chris (TASC)
Cc: Bane, Christopher J (TASC)
Subject: RE: COIN/ROMAS

Does Odyssey combine the Technology and Content pieces of the work?

Ray

From: Lovegrove, John (TASC)
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 1:16 PM
To: Clair, Chris (TASC)
Cc: Heider, Raymond A (TASC)
Subject: COIN/ROMAS

Chris,

I just spoke to the group chief on the contracts side (Doug K). COIN has been replaced by a procurement called Odyssey. He says that it is in the formative stages and that something should be released this year. The contracting officer is Kim R. He believes that Jason is the COTR.

Kim will be getting in touch with me to bring me up to speed, I will also give her your name as a POC.

We should talk to Aaron and see how this tracks with his information.

WR,

John

spoke to the CO for COIN yesterday. The current procurement approach is cancelled, she cited changed requirements. They will be coming out with some documents in a month or two, most likely an updated RFI.   There will be a procurement following soon after. We are on the list to receive all information.

My speculation is that the four separate contracts approach was justifiably shot down and they are re-grouping.

John Lovegrove

Director

Office: (703) 449-3812

Cell: (571) 294-5154

cid:image001.jpg@01CA87AD.92FBD4F0

TASC INTERNAL DISTRIBUTION ONLY
This e-mail, including attachments, is intended for the exclusive use of the person or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential or privileged information. If the reader of this e-mail is not the intended recipient or his or her authorized agent, the reader is hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is prohibited. If you think that you have received this e-mail in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail of the error and then delete this e-mail immediately.

Reply

Reply to all

Forward


Reply
Heider, Raymond A (TASC) to John, aaron, Chris, Rick, Brunst, Albert

show details 9/24/10

What was the logic of the 4 contract approach??

From: Lovegrove, John (TASC)
Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 02:55 PM
To: Aaron Barr <aaron@hbgary.com>; Clair, Chris (TASC); Wagner, Rick (TASC); Brunst Jr, Gerald R (TASC); Heider, Raymond A (TASC); Pisani, Albert A. (TASC)
Subject: COIN/ROMAS status

- Show quoted text -
Reply

Reply to all

Forward


Reply
Clair, Chris (TASC) to Raymond, John, aaron, Rick, Brunst, Albert

show details 9/24/10


All,

From what we heard the split is a negotiation between the COTR and the OPS officer. Seems that the incumbent team proposed a sole source contract. The incoming COTR approved it. The OPS boss (John) and his boss (Marybeth) disputed the decision and opted out. The negotiation was to split up the RFP into 4 parts and bid them separately to keep the customer team together. We did not get any information beyond that but it was disputed later in the week. I hope the RFI means they are serious this time.

If you need more info, we can talk Monday. Let me know if you want me to set it up.

Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: Heider, Raymond A (TASC)
Sent: Fri 9/24/2010 5:20 PM
To: Lovegrove, John (TASC); 'aaron@hbgary.com'; Clair, Chris (TASC); Wagner, Rick (TASC); Brunst Jr, Gerald R (TASC); Pisani, Albert A. (TASC)
Subject: Re: COIN/ROMAS status

What was the logic of the 4 contract approach??

From: Lovegrove, John (TASC)
Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 02:55 PM
To: Aaron Barr <aaron@hbgary.com>; Clair, Chris (TASC); Wagner, Rick (TASC); Brunst Jr, Gerald R (TASC); Heider, Raymond A (TASC); Pisani, Albert A. (TASC)
Subject: COIN/ROMAS status

I spoke to the CO for COIN yesterday. The current procurement approach is cancelled, she cited changed requirements. They will be coming out with some documents in a month or two, most likely an updated RFI.   There will be a procurement following soon after. We are on the list to receive all information.

My speculation is that the four separate contracts approach was justifiably shot down and they are re-grouping.

John Lovegrove

Director

Office: (703) 449-3812

Cell: (571) 294-5154

3. Everything taken from HBGary in February was released a few days later and has remained available to the public since. The problem is that the media mostly just stopped looking through it after the story "died," despite what was yielded even by a few days of examination and the fact that tens of thousands of e-mails have gone unread. Beyond HBGary, there are a few things here and there that have been acquired which have not yet been released, as well as certain discoveries that have been made, but all of it will be eventually, in such a way as to achieve maximum impact.

4. The Romas/COIN report itself summarizes everything I've learned about Apple and Google's work with HBGary and TASC in attempting to win the COIN contract. The e-mails above represent pretty much the total of what I've found on those connections. There are likely to be others among the rest of the 70,000 HBGary e-mails, just as there are undoubtedly more that provide further clues on Romas/COIN which I've yet to come across. One of the reasons for putting this out to report was to prompt other media outlets to continue digging on this and other issues.

5. I haven't spoken to anyone from Apple or Google on this. I do have a couple of informants at other firms who have provided information about other projects and capabilities. I also had an hour-long phone conversation a month back with HBGary CEO Greg Hoglund (which I recorded); at one point he asserted that I'll never figure out the entirety of Romas/COIN. He's probably right, as this is something that clearly goes beyond simple surveillance and involves some measure of disseminating information as well, and seems to involve a great number of other capabilities based on what's discussed and what companies are brought in to help win the recompete. I'm not equipped to determine the specifics unless I manage to score another informant or unless another related firm is infiltrated by our side and more e-mails obtained.

6. I created Project PM in late 2009 with the intent of implementing new methods by which to better take advantage of the evolving informational environment. Among those who participated throughout 2010 were a couple of individuals who are also very active with Anonymous, but our work was very different from Anon's. When OpTunisia started, I largely abandoned our existing projects and we began working with Anons both at our IRC server and at the AnonOps server (in fact, a document Aaron Barr was compiling at the time includes me announcing a meeting at Project PM's IRC regarding the construction of "dark nets" for North Africans). As time went on and I continued to work with Anonymous, some of my people left over their concerns with the group, but others remained and began providing what they could to the North African effort and a few other things. For instance, John Penley of PM arranged for the NLG and Stanley Cohen to provide advice and representation to those who needed it beginning immediately after the FBI raids in late January. For the next five or six months I became heavily involved in Anonymous; upon leaving, I brought with me a couple of dozen Anons, many of whom had already been involved with our efforts to investigate the intelligence contracting community and combat certain of its elements (this effort was originally called Op Metal Gear, a name we gave it as a sort of inside joke - Metal Gear was a late-'80s Nintendo game). Additionally, several other folks who remain active with Anonymous also work with us out of our IRC, such as JoePie91; Sabu hung out for a while until a few weeks ago, when he disappeared altogether. And when AnonOps is under attack or otherwise unavailable, we'll have a few dozen other active Anons on our server, and at any given time there are a few Anons organizing their ops on other channels within the server. That's all in addition to my continued work with other Anons on certain operations I approve of; for instance, we're now working with a couple of Tunisian Anons I know from the January revolution, as tomorrow we'll be kicking off our efforts to get Ahmed Nejib Chebbi elected in the July elections, an operation that will be run largely out of Project PM's IRC. All in all, aside from doing what needs to be done regarding the intel contractors, persona management, Romas/COIN, and the like, our goal with Project PM is to encourage other, similar groups to arise and pursue other issues, experiment with new tactics and methods of organization, and otherwise provide new opportunities for more people to conduct a wider campaign. In the long term, I'd like to see a loose network of independent, borderless civic groups arise and serve as a counterbalance to state power - and a competitor for the loyalty of those who would otherwise give up that loyalty to whatever nation-state they happen to be born to. Obviously, many others have been seeking the same thing for generations, but the information age is making such a development gradually more viable.

7. We know from such things as COINTELPRO, Team Themis, and any number of now-unclassified intelligence operations that states and their institutional partners - including but not limited to the U.S. and its various corporations - have and continue to conduct disinformation campaigns against their own populations for reasons that rarely strike me as worthwhile. We know from what we've discovered over the past eight months that the means by which these things may be accomplished are not only continuing to improve, but are becoming more readily available to other, even less ethical parties as advances are made in such things as persona management, online surveillance, and data modelling. The large-scale campaigns of manipulation we've seen throughout the 20th century will seem like nothing compared to what we are now facing as more and better capabilities are increasingly integrated into more sophisticated arrays by a larger number of states and corporations. But this trend, and the capabilities they represent, is not being accompanied by the similar rise in public awareness that would be necessary for even a basic defense against these dangers, much less any kind of effective reaction. The goal of those with whom we've been working on this since March is to change at least one of these variables, and we do so because we this situation as among the most fundamentally threatening of those that now exist. And those of us who have been heavily involved in the intrigue that goes on in the culture surrounding Anonymous are more aware than most of the extent to which information has already been weaponized.

8. One of the primary methods by which to accomplish these goals is to disseminate what we can about the issues we want others looking into. Eventually, perhaps even some allegedly respectable outlet like The New York Times will deign to look into some of the stories that we've been handing them on so many silver platters since an hour after the HBGary hack. More likely, the work will continue to be done by Anonymous, Project PM, and the handful of reporters who are competent to recognize what things are newsworthy.

9. I don't consider myself to be fundamentally at risk for any of this. Obviously, many of us will continue to be investigated by the Feds and whichever intelligence contractors other than HBGary that think they can make a buck off of hassling those who make up this overall movement. I've been discussed a bit in e-mails between executives at Endgame Systems and Unveillance - which I know because Lulzsec stole 1,000 e-mails from Unveillance a few months back - and I'm otherwise aware that I'm the radar in certain quarters, but I don't think I'm worth going after, even if my mom disagrees. The best case scenario is that someone at Booz Allen or Mantech or some such thing proposes a dirty tricks campaign and then they get caught and then I go brag about it to girls I meet at bars. All in all, the main risk I'm facing is being pigeonholed as "that guy who won't shut the fuck about intelligence contractors." Both of my grandfathers had a tendency to get shot at by flack cannons manned by efficient fascist types, so I'm taking some comparatively reasonable risks.

On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 3:54 PM, Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com> wrote:

Carl-

Happy to answer these questions and any others on this subject. I'll get back to you in a few hours.

On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Carl Franzen <carl@talkingpointsmemo.com> wrote:

Hey Barrett,

Just writing to let you know our first article on Anonymous featuring your quotes is up: http://idealab.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/09/defending-anonymous-lawyers-for-alleged-hacktivists-speak-out.php I'm working on a follow-up right now involving your current focus on ROMAS/COIN. I had a few questions in regards to that:

- What is your current relationship with Al Jazeera? Are you working on this as part of an Al Jazeera assignment?
-What exactly is the information that you have that ties Apple and Google to the program?
- How much data taken from HB Gary by Anonymous during the February hack has yet to be released? When will it be released?
- Will there be any more definitive data or information that you have collected proving a strong link between Google and Apple and the program?
- Have you had contacts with Google and Apple about their involvement?
- What is the nature of PROJECT PM's collaboration with Anonymous regarding this and other efforts?
- Why are you doing this?
- Why are you speaking to us about this?
- Are you assuming any particular risks in this effort?

I understand you must be quite busy with your work. Please get back to me at your earliest convenience.

Thanks,

Carl

--
Carl Franzen
@carlfranzen
630-542-1043

--
Regards,

Barrett Brown
512-560-2302

--
Regards,

Barrett Brown
512-560-2302

--
Carl Franzen
@carlfranzen
630-542-1043