Backchannel explanation from one of the outlets that ran then scrubbed piece, provided so far to Aussie activist who's been involved heavily, is that Cubic contends central fact of the story - which was written by two journos, one of who is tech editor - that Cubic is related to Trapwire, which as we know is run directly by spin-off of subsidiary Abraxas, is substantially incorrect, and that this prompted a syndicated story that had in one incarnation been linked to heavily, including by Wikileaks itself. Tweet an hour ago from one writer, the editor, implied he hadn't himself realized that no explanation had yet been put up as to why it was taken down, which to me sounds insane. In last hour Telecomix folks and I have found a couple of things, including two more state filings from Cubic on Abraxas relationship - tax filings notes "synergies" between Cubic and Abraxas as well as regular cross-over uses of software with another subsidiary. None of this clearly proves that Cubic is making any decisions with regards to, say, how the contracts of Trapwire itself are distributed, for instance. We would have to have e-mails or other documents of any such collaboration, officially or unofficially, to know that. What we do know, and which is perhaps relevant to this question, is that the already-known-to-be-scummy intel firm with its own extensive gov links was itself involved in how Trapwire's day-to-day controllers, as Wired noted today from other e-mails stemming from the batch. So, yeah, between that and a few other factors, plus whatever else comes up in the next hour, we'r

-- 
Regards,

Barrett Brown
512-560-2302