> Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 17:09:54 -0500
> Subject: Re:
> From: barriticus@gmail.com
> To: ryan.gallagher@hotmail.com
>
> Hah, that was probably one of two that were basically made up, rest all true.
>
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 5:08 PM, Ryan Gallagher
> <ryan.gallagher@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > I'll look forward to it. Has been a good & interesting exchange today. Speak
> > soon, and stay away from that dog...
> >
> > Ryan
> > ________________________________
> >
> >> Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 16:23:37 -0500
> >
> >> Subject: Re:
> >> From: barriticus@gmail.com
> >> To: ryan.gallagher@hotmail.com
> >>
> >> He's unusual combo of brilliant and motivated to do the right thing,
> >> his grandfather was similar. Will send all that stuff in next two
> >> weeks, and thanks again for taking the time to discuss this today.
> >>
> >> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 4:21 PM, Ryan Gallagher
> >> <ryan.gallagher@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Thanks for joining in with the AMA! Tried to answer your Qs.
> >> >
> >> > I'll look out for the "activist schematic/network" thing -- sounds very
> >> > interesting, definitely keep me updated. I have a lot of time for David
> >> > House, met him here in London. A good guy.
> >> >
> >> > Ryan
> >> > ________________________________
> >> >> Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 11:08:59 -0500
> >> >
> >> >> Subject: Re:
> >> >> From: barriticus@gmail.com
> >> >> To: ryan.gallagher@hotmail.com
> >> >>
> >> >> Absolutely true regarding Burton as evidenced by other claims (and
> >> >> about several other folks there that I've noticed). Frankly I don't
> >> >> like being so agreeable with a journalist all the time. Also very
> >> >> great that you're doing a Reddit AMA, I did a sort of volunteer
> >> >> advisory thing for the Dem House candidate in Virginia who ran against
> >> >> popular Republican Randy Forbes, my guy was first self-noted atheist
> >> >> to actually run for Congress seat (as opposed to announcing it
> >> >> afterwards, as another did years back) and I was still actively
> >> >> "director of communications" for a secularist PAC he'd asked for help.
> >> >> Had him do an AMA, was very well received (partly because I wrote a
> >> >> couple of the answers for him, knowing the culture due to having spent
> >> >> too much time reading it previously). I'll absolutely watch it. Will
> >> >> be interesting to see what new round of Trapwire/Stratfor commentary
> >> >> hold for us. Also, in a few weeks I'll be ready to show some people
> >> >> documentation of a sort of "activist schematic/network" that I'm
> >> >> developing with the activist David House and potentially with a suit I
> >> >> met after the Bloomberg security panel; you might find it interesting,
> >> >> as I think it's going to be just a modest version of more of the same
> >> >> to come over ten years.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 10:59 AM, Ryan Gallagher
> >> >> <ryan.gallagher@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> > 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!
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Ryan
> >> >> >
> >> >> > ________________________________
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> 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
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Regards,
> >> >>
> >> >> Barrett Brown
> >> >> 512-560-2302
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Barrett Brown
> >> 512-560-2302
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Barrett Brown
> 512-560-2302