Subject: Chat with Robert, james.poulos@huffingtonpost.com
From: Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com>
To: barriticus@gmail.com
Robert: You've been invited to this chat room! Robert: shit Robert: lost that Robert: can you rewrite Robert: i know alyona wants to cover this me: yes, one sec Robert: as does james james.poulos: Hello. me: hi me: first, all documentation is here, just put this uop me: http://pastebin.com/gsR8HEwN me: second me: at least five articles from at least three major Aussie outlets on Trapwire from last two days have been removed me: still in Google results, as anyone can verify me: but removed from website, not edited, corrected, just removed me: also gone are older articles mentioning Cubic's bid to oversee security in London and Aus transport systems Robert: and what's your theory as to why? me: Cubic is firm that owns Abraxas Robert: which is trapwire me: Abraxas spun-off Abraxas Apps, which runs Trapwire me: although work on Trapwire began at Abraxas itself me: Cubic and Abraxas have both been on our radar since early last year due to discovery that it's industry leader, or at least among leaders, in persona management, having won CENTCOM bid for that in 2010 through its made-for-bid subsidiary Ntrepid me: all of that was only discoverded thanks to HBGary e-mails, even though the contract guidelines were out in plain sight on gov't bid website me: all details on that are on our wiki Robert: ok Robert: so...why would someone care to bury trapwire when it existed at least in some level in plain sight Robert: to put it another way, what was new in the Wikileaks data dump? me: that's not obvious yet based on available facts, but as you'll see via the first link, most likely to prevent widespread knowledge of to what extent all this data will be integrated not just at sites of clear terrorist interest, as is now believed and claimed by several journalists that have written on subject, but also where general public will be subjected to that sort of invasive privacy every day Robert: yup me: personally, based on my last year of tracking and advocating these issues, I think that if this is the reason, they're over-estimating the extent to which journalists are going to make that connection or even find the issue interesting me: and U.S. public in particular doesn't give a shit and obviously deserves everything that happens to it and worse me: but with all things of this nature, I and people I work with believe it is our duty to at least inform those who are interested me: so, take a look at the specifics, etc me: oh and here's the Cubic page: http://wiki.echelon2.org/wiki/Cubic_Corporation me: see, this consortium does at least several different high-end infosec pursuits, like persona management and Trapwire itself, which Richard Helms himself said back in 2005 would be "more accurate than facial recognition,", and is well-positioned me: sorry, meant to also say that we can take his quote about more accurate than facial recognition as of course being in context of level of accuracy in 2005 when he said it me: nonetheless, I'm seeing people like Adrian Chen at Gawker who never does his homework going out there and "debunking" idea of facial recognition used in this as "outlandish," his words me: all it takes is a couple inaccurate "debunking" articles to just shut the story down, because sad thing is a lot of other journalists just assume anything that depicts itself as "debunking" must be correct me: I say this as former columnist for Skeptical Inquirer and Skeptic me: so, let me know me: I'll be haranguing others if you need me Robert: ok Robert: cool, this is GREAT Robert: i will share with alyona me: thanks, please do me: I know she'll run with it, she was one of few to bother with my Romas/COIN report last year me: other than Der Spiegel, not a single fucking US outlet other than Raw Story Robert: awesome barrett Robert: thanks so much for this me: happy to do it, credit on finding the older articles that were scrubbed goes to an Anon contact of mine