Very true (and informative on Oz), but why the Tweet and none at all
since? Why no online explanation at least to the effect that "we said
something wrong?" Why did he seem to think at least an online
explanation was going up when it wasn't? They couldn't change it to
say "possibility exists that Cubic may involve itself with Trapwire
behind the scenes like it did with at least other sub-subsidiary that
it also tried to hide its connection to, and at first successfully,
from two veteran Guardian reporters who looked into the very company
for days, and to others until six months later when single available
link to an entire company that makes fake online people for CENTCOM
and god knows who else (we've all seen the specific functional modus
operandi of the contractors now to the extent we've read through a
good portion of 70,000 e-mails from Hbgary to dozens of other firms,
and it seems like saying "there are concerns that Cubic and Trapwire
might work together in a way that might be scary because here is what
they would have the ability to abuse, as many other firms like
Palantir, Endgame, HBGary, Booz Allen, more have been caught
red-handed doing? I don't think almost any of the reporters who were
assigned this or looked at it are aware of specifics of how these
things work, as they would be from reading through my Romas/COIN
report that Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer praised and pointed to as
indicative of the frightening series of partnerships that come up
using capabilities that are often supposed to be entirely secret or at
least not thought about outside of the industry. I just don't think
any but literally two or three that I know of have taken the few
chances anyone has gotten to see HOW this industry operates in such
proximity to power, and what sorts of things have come out of just a
random sampling of a corner of that industry.

But having said all that, I should take advantage of your Aussie media
knowledge: how common it for a story be pulled in Australia with such
immediacy that no online correction is made on any of the outlets that
it appeared in online?

On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 5:46 PM, Stilgherrian <stil@stilgherrian.com> wrote:

I wouldn't read too much into that SMH debacle.

Asher Moses, the "technology editor" of the online site smh.com.au and other Fairfax-brand websites, it widely regarded as a muppet. The story did go online, but not for long. He and his deputy Ben Grubb have been caught before posting stuff that, in hindsight, the publisher's legal term considered ill-advised.

Obviously there's a story in there, but Moses will have been told to STFU until he's got his shit together and can back it up properly. And now he'd be under the eye of the legal team and will be careful.

Remember that in Australia have no guaranteed right of free speech (except in specific political speech) and our defamation laws are rather different from the US. Anyone charged with defamation can only defend themselves if they can prove both that what they published is true and is in the public interest. That's difficult and expensive. There's so much you can publish in the US that would the unlawful here.


On 17/08/2012, at 8:25 AM, Barrett Brown wrote:

Will also note that one of two co-authors - also an editor at the
Herald - made a single tweeted response to questions about why his
fucking article was gone from six papers with no explanation. He said
oh, thought it was up already. But it never went up. It went in the
physical Sydney Herald the next day, not where any of the vast
majority of the people who read it or, as Wikileaks and others did,
tweeted it. Was he told it was going up on online? If so, why did they
decide not to explain what is supposed to be a huge error they made
that supposedly damaged the reputation of the firm so much that they
had to get it removed entirely, as opposed to corrected? He hasn't
answered any questions about it since, but a couple random tweets to
new articles. Businessweek is now working on it in addition to the few
others, like HuffPoLive, Young Turks, Daily Caller, etc have ran so
far on it, as well as on OpTrapwire and Project PM. Hopefully more in
U.S. soon, because this is quite obviously worthy of being reported,
especially after NYT and a couple others did it so terribly and
without reference even to Cubic.

On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 5:13 PM, Stilgherrian <stil@stilgherrian.com> wrote:

Thanks for that, Barrett. I haven't been covering Trapwire yet, but I'm bound to be next week.


On 17/08/2012, at 7:18 AM, Barrett Brown wrote:

Also, not sure if you read this, but it now has a significant update
that anyone covering Trapwire at all needs to see:

http://barrettbrown.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-facts-on-cubic-and-trapwire-abraxas.html



On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Stilgherrian <stil@stilgherrian.com> wrote:

No problems with that "delay", Sir, that was very quick!

Thanks for that comment. It'll probably end up being part of a sort analysis piece at cso.com.au in a few hours from now, but either way I'll email you a direct link when its published,

Cheers,

Stil


On 17/08/2012, at 6:25 AM, Barrett Brown wrote:

Sorry for delay, last 72 hours have been crazy due to this issue. These "we didn't do this" proclamations have been done at least three or four times before. They usually mean that the people don't know the people involved via IRC or whatever else (or just don't know they did it), or they don't like it.

On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 3:19 PM, Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com> wrote:
I don't write releases for Anon anymore, not entirely sure who did this one (and sometimes it's collaborative, upwards of 10 people occasionally via typewith.me and our alternatives). One sec, will get back to you.


On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 3:10 PM, Stilgherrian <stil@stilgherrian.com> wrote:
Hi Barrett,

Just a quick request for an on-record comment, if I may?

I'm confused by this media release just received. I thought the whole point was that anyone count participate in the name Anonymous, and there was no leadership to say who was and wasn't part of it. So how can there be a "This was not us" statement?

I get that the attacker claiming to be the leader is a lie. But...

Cheers,

Stil


Begin forwarded message:

From: "Anonymous Global" <AnonymousGlobal@riseup.net>
Subject: Anonymous Press Release - We Did NOT Hack Sony
Date: 17 August 2012 4:56:10 AM AEST
To: CommanderXanon@gmail.com
Reply-To: AnonymousGlobal@riseup.net

Anonymous Press Release - We Did NOT Hack Sony

Thursday - August 16, 2012 2:30 PM ET USA


 Greetings Sony --

 Two days ago a claim was made that your beloved Play Station Network
had been breached (yet again). This was quite odd to us, concerning
the release you made to rectify such claims of said attacks. i.e. this
release here
http://www.forbes.com/sites/adriankingsleyhughes/2012/08/16/no-sonys-playstation-network-wasnt-hacked-again/

 So, we did some research.

 Note: The attacker claims he is the leader of Anonymous. This is
simply a blatant lie.

 Note: Anybody with the ability to again, "hack", Sony, would at least
have the decency to use spell-check.

 Note: "Contact me at anon@prvt.org for the full database"
 - How can we do this when your domain is officially parked?
http://prvt.org/

 After our extensive research, we discovered another attack on Universe
Security, and we literally mean the exact same evidence has been
presented in both cases.

 See: http://pastebin.com/hhU8Q9di for the REAL attack.
 See the date, 2012-03-19 11:28:32 >> first attack on Universe Security?

 Now look at the one from a few days ago, which has effectively drowned
out the initial evidence. http://pastebin.com/HUjZPaF3 >> Notice the
date:  AUG 14TH, 2012 ???

 The first attack is the real one. Remember, many will falsify
documents for attention and a reaction as well as fame.

 We did not buy into such claims and neither should you nor the public.
 We have discovered this attack to be invalid.
 The data released is very real, mind you.
 We have discovered the attacker is not who he says he is.
 We urge Sony and all of the world to remain vigilant, yet we realize
that there will indeed be more of these so-called breaches that steal
the credit of another.

Anonymous did NOT hack Sony again, nor did we ever claim we had. This
claim is a hoax perpetrated by a "troll". You have been duped. As we have
in the past, we encourage you to follow many different Anonymous media
communications channels and consult those before publishing any claims
made in the name of Anonymous: @YourAnonNews @AnonPR_Network
@AnonCollective @PLF2012

 Sail safe.

 We are Anonymous.
 We are Legion.
 We do not forgive.
 We do not forget.
 Expect us.

Press Release - http://bit.ly/RXg8yg

Anonymous Global - www.AnonymousGlobal.tk

--
Stilgherrian http://stilgherrian.com/
mobile +61 407 623 600
Twitter: stilgherrian
Skype: stilgherrian




--
Regards,

Barrett Brown
512-560-2302



--
Regards,

Barrett Brown
512-560-2302

--
Stilgherrian http://stilgherrian.com/
mobile +61 407 623 600
Twitter: stilgherrian
Skype: stilgherrian

--
Regards,

Barrett Brown
512-560-2302

--
Stilgherrian http://stilgherrian.com/
mobile +61 407 623 600
Twitter: stilgherrian
Skype: stilgherrian

--
Regards,

Barrett Brown
512-560-2302

--
Stilgherrian http://stilgherrian.com/
mobile +61 407 623 600
Twitter: stilgherrian
Skype: stilgherrian

-- 
Regards,

Barrett Brown
512-560-2302