Subject: Delivery Status Notification (Failure) |
From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <mailer-daemon@googlemail.com> |
Date: 10/29/11, 15:17 |
Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently:
robert_mcmillan@idg.com
Technical details of permanent failure:
Google tried to deliver your message, but it was rejected by the recipient domain. We recommend contacting the other email provider for further information about the cause of this error. The error that the other server returned was: 550 550 No such user - psmtp (state 14).
----- Original message -----
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.223.77.66 with SMTP id f2mr15718979fak.24.1319915851035; Sat,
29 Oct 2011 12:17:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.223.125.70 with HTTP; Sat, 29 Oct 2011 12:17:30 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTikPGPFq-TnzXV7T_6qThdmOsrMaGA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20110620230733.5E1FD2820@technique.singingsites.com>
<BANLkTimbwEuCuG9Go6xEiUmC0iB0b661+g@mail.gmail.com>
<OF5F75E200.42679FFA-ON852578B5.0081553D-882578B5.00820096@idg.com>
<BANLkTimUsmO4oVqvGJdAi3-6YRQPrt5YDQ@mail.gmail.com>
<OFCF9DA9F6.F9D5609F-ON852578B6.00002D3C-882578B6.0000A895@idg.com>
<BANLkTikPGPFq-TnzXV7T_6qThdmOsrMaGA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2011 14:17:30 -0500
Message-ID: <CAA50JVCGQk2UOMg5FFixMZ6z1EfW+ujP9Y8ENYyf5O_5YiP_4Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Contact Project PM] Press inquiry -- Barrett Brown + Lulzsec
From: Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com>
To: robert_mcmillan@idg.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0015174bf0de6f356d04b074db0c
You should see the last ten seconds of this footage: http://www.youtube.com
/watch?v=6nza_KXSaiw&feature=youtu.be
http://www.securitynewsdaily.com/anonymous-hackers-oakland-1287/
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 7:29 PM, Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com> wrote:
Nothing in particular; it's just that there's no quality control in
something like Anonymous and no way to ensure that everything it does is in
accordance with the ethical considerations that some of us have. Many of the
people who had de facto control over the Anonops server were more interested
in some vestige of personal power than activism, and several of the hackers
who have gone on to form Lulzsec are simply doing things because they can,
which is not something I approve of. My interest is in fighting against
legitimate targets such as the firms associated with HBGary who lied their
way out of the Team Themis affair as well as those who are engaged in
providing federal agencies with software by which to facilitate
disinformation and surveillance of the citizenry, such as persona
management. To the extent that such firms partner with the state and are
given free reign to engage in the sort of conduct Team Themis was planning,
I'm happy to see their servers raided for information as the industry has
come to comprise an extension of the state's continuing march towards
secrecy and the de-attachment of policy from the informed consent of the
citizenry; I don't approve of damaging people's lives for no reason, whereas
some of the people associated with Anonymous have absolutely no regard for
others.
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 7:07 PM, <robert_mcmillan@idg.com> wrote:
which is to say it can be easily
discredited both by intention and via simple bad behavior; this is
one of the reasons I left a few weeks back to pursue a crowd-sourced
investigation into the intelligence contracting industry with my own
group of researchers.