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.

That's very interesting. Can you tell me what happened?

Bob

--
Regards,

Barrett Brown
512-560-2302