The Project PM entry looks good at first glance, focuses on the known knowns and no speculation. I think part of the problem also, for the record, is that some people have been treating the Stratfor emails as if they are straight up gospel. Burton claims Scotland Yard used/uses TrapWire, but when I asked them they said they had no knowledge of it ever having been used by them. In my experience, they only issue a comment like that when they're sure. Usually I get a "we will not confirm or deny" when I ask Scotland Yard a tech question. I think the Stratfor emails are good for tips and pointers, but for accurate info not so much.
In unrelated but sort of related news, I'm scheduled to do a Reddit AMA as part of my Slate surveillance work today at 1pm ET. Would be great if you, as a man who knows the subject well, could come and join in with some questions!
> Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 10:39:02 -0500
> Subject: Re:
> From: barriticus@gmail.com
> To: ryan.gallagher@hotmail.com
>
> Ryan-
>
> Absolutely agree with your points, and certainly people such as myself
> who initially repeated that it definitely used "facial recognition"
> were wrong to do so without making sure, and I can imagine there was
> even worse misunderstandings of much of it than just the ones I saw on
> Twitter, etc. Especially agree on other, more questionable things not
> getting the same level of horror from many quarters; so much is
> dependent on chance, whim, presentation, mundane whatnot. Will check
> out your piece now, and appreciate the feedback. Also someone was nice
> enough to add this entry to our wiki, which seems to quote linked docs
> directly; likely you'll have seen most or all of it but maybe it'll be
> useful if the issue does take off or get revisited. Thanks again.
>
> http://wiki.echelon2.org/wiki/Trapwire
>
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 10:18 AM, Ryan Gallagher
> <ryan.gallagher@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Hey Barrett,
> >
> > I've seen you've been blitzing the TrapWire issue on Twitter and I do
> > understand why people have latched on to it.
> >
> > My criticism of the thing wasn't so much about the level of concern -- more
> > the misinformation. It got to the point where I was seeing people with tens
> > of thousands of followers tweeting things that really just were not
> > accurate, fabricated out of nowhere, and I felt I had to deal with that. You
> > know the sort of work I do, and you know that there is a great deal about
> > the surveillance-security industrial complex that I find deeply problematic
> > and worrying. But I am very strong on the importance of accuracy, and so
> > felt it was crucial to inject a bit of sobriety into what I seen as a
> > genuine kind of snowballing hysteria (particularly on Saturday/Sunday).
> >
> > The interesting thing for me is that I've reported on kinds of surveillance
> > technology that I view as far more controversial than TrapWire, but there
> > has not been the same outpouring of anger. I'd say that what's going on at
> > the FBI's Domestic Communications Assistance Center, and at the 72 Fusion
> > Centers across the States, is far more notable, for instance.
> >
> > Perhaps it's that "TrapWire" just sounds so sinister, I'm not sure. I think
> > what's happening is that people have used (and are using) TrapWire to
> > project all their fears and anxieties about surveillance and vent it all
> > out. I think it is perhaps being used as a sort of symbol regardless of what
> > the TrapWire technology in itself is actually capable of. TrapWire is
> > interesting and worthy of attention, don't get me wrong, but there are far
> > bigger fish in the pond.
> >
> > I must say, I do think that the Australian media you reference in your blog
> > post certainly made an error in scrubbing the articles from the web. The
> > more sensible thing to do would have been to have edited the piece, or to
> > have made a clarification or correction. They should have at the very least
> > left up a page explaining why it was taken down... foolish, unprofessional,
> > and not transparent to just scrub the thing.
> >
> > Anyway, good to share these thoughts with you.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Ryan
> >
> > P.S. This article from yesterday might be interesting to you:
> > http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2012/08/how_governments_and_telecom_companies_work_together_on_surveillance_laws_.html
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> >> Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 09:43:44 -0500
> >
> >> Subject: Re:
> >> From: barriticus@gmail.com
> >> To: ryan.gallagher@hotmail.com
> >>
> >> Howdy, Ryan-
> >>
> >> Hope all is well. Read your Trapwire piece and thought it was valid
> >> criticism of at least some of the takes/levels of concern over the
> >> whole thing.
> >>
> >> I and several friends have been unusually energetic in looking
> >> through info on Trapwire, Abraxas, Cubic, and other Cubic subsidiaries
> >> and their relationships, the last three of which we have a limited but
> >> telling body of research on, going back to when we first dug into them
> >> on persona management involvement in march 2011. Besides that, I've
> >> collected several other docs, including tax and merger filings, that
> >> illustrate the extent of Cubic's involvement with their other
> >> subsidiaries (admittedly going on a small sample, only have info on
> >> three of dozens of the damn things - one of the most interesting of
> >> which they created out of Abraxas itself, incidentally, just 2-3 years
> >> back, to win CENTCOM/USAF persona management contract. Anyway, you're
> >> one of about three people I go to these days on things I think are
> >> most important, so would like you to read this partly silly thing I
> >> wrote last night, in part because it draws on several new or just
> >> obscure facts that I think color this incident, especially in light of
> >> the initially unexplained (and now poorly explained) disappearance of
> >> an article syndicated in at least six or seven Australian outlets
> >> including Sydney Herald a day after it appeared, apparently due to
> >> some nature of legal threat or objection from the very powerful and
> >> well-connected consortium that, among other things, has deep ties to
> >> Australia's defense sector and increasingly civilian security (which
> >> figures into why Cubic was so inclined to act, I suspect).
> >>
> >> Thanks and cheers.
> >>
> >> http://barrettbrown.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-facts-on-cubic-and-trapwire-abraxas.html
> >>
> >> On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 2:24 AM, Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > Great to hear, let me know when the piece is cleared. All's well here,
> >> > working on a couple of interesting projects that may help move things
> >> > forward with the general info campaign on cyber and also did this
> >> > Bloomberg/Businessweek panel on the subject:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-08-02/how-the-experts-would-fix-cyber-security
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 7:51 PM, Ryan Gallagher
> >> > <ryan.gallagher@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> Hi Barrett,
> >> >>
> >> >> Just wanted to let you know the long-delayed Raytheon thing is in
> >> >> motion. I
> >> >> re-wrote the piece for a UK publication. No idea what we are looking at
> >> >> timescale wise, as I've still got to deal with editors and lawyers,
> >> >> etc. But
> >> >> anyway, I just thought I should send an update and let you know I've
> >> >> not
> >> >> forgotten about this and it's high on my agenda. Will send more news
> >> >> when I
> >> >> have it, which will hopefully be sooner rather than later.
> >> >>
> >> >> Hope all's well at your end.
> >> >>
> >> >> Best,
> >> >>
> >> >> Ryan
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Regards,
> >> >
> >> > Barrett Brown
> >> > 512-560-2302
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Barrett Brown
> >> 512-560-2302
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Barrett Brown
> 512-560-2302