Hi, Brian-

Barrett Brown here. Thanks again for everything on the panel set-up.
Wondering if it would be possible to forward this note to Norm. I
don't plan to bother Norm directly with these things after this; the
story is simply something that I think is far most likely to be
tackled by Businessweek based on them having been among rare few to do
original research on HBGary e-mail haul and specifically Endgame
Systems. I'm also about to talk to Michael Riley, whom I've cc'd here
and who was my contact on Endgame situation and Anon and other
matters, but absolutely want to make sure that he knows what happens
on this issue, especially in terms of how the details of day-to-day
media flow are handled.

 There's a story kind of struggling for air, on a self-asserted CCTV
"data-mining" capability called Trapwire  - erroneous/incredibly
incomplete coverage in NYT, better in coverage by NBC and Daily Caller
and couple others I was quoted in last night, few very informative
pieces in less-exposed outlets. My group Project PM as well as
Wikileaks (which is being covered ATM only in context of Assange
troubles, which are indeed key) and Telecomix have been working on it
for a week now, mostly last 48 hours, based on the original materials,
which stem from the 5.2 million Stratfor e-mails taken by Anon and now
being distributed in groups by topic by volunteers at Wikileaks who
have access to the entire set (I have access myself, but like others
am expected not to talk publicly about anything in there until
released). Meanwhile, a syndicated article that appeared on the 13th
in at least six major Australian outlets including Sydney Herald was
entirely pulled from all of them next day, and the much-delayed
explanation (which apparently appeared in Herald print today, but not
anywhere at all online, other than a vague and somewhat odd Tweet by
one of the two authors who's also an editor, that Cubic Corporation -
which acquired Abraxas, parent in turn of spin-off Abraxas
Applications - made some sort of complaint to the effect that it
itself is not really "connected" to Trapwire since, apparently, it was
developed, marketed, and then put into motion via the spin-off two
years before Cubic felt inclined to purchase Abraxas. That Cubic
managed to hide any association with another, less official "spin-off"
of Abraxas, Ntrepid - with which Abraxas shares key board members and
draws upon capabilities developed/maintained by Anonymizer, which
Abraxas bought shortly before its own purchase by Cubic, and which
seems to have been created entirely to win (which it did) a bid for
persona management software (fake online people) put out by USAF in
2010 and later confirmed by CENTCOM spokesman to be in operation at
McDill and Kabul, under use of "multinational forces" and under
Earnest Voice. When this first came out of the HBGary e-mails that my
other "associates" seized from them in early 2011 (after they made
threatening remarks to FT about allegedly having identified our
"lieutenants" and our non-existent "co-founder and leader" and
planning to talk to FBI, which was itself very bizarre), we did a lot
of "media outreach" on the issue, and then when two very good
colleagues of mine from The Guardian did a report on it, they never
discovered that Ntrepid had any connection to Cubic at all, which
wasn't mentioned in the piece. Six months later one of my guys at PM
finally found a 2010 Cubic tax filing that showed Ntrepid, like
Abraxas, is "wholly owned" by Cubic. So now that's at least out there
- at least to those who happen to read our niche wiki on intelligence
contracting affairs. Despite the "question" of whether Cubic has
anything to do with the direction of Trapwire as it has with at least
other, even less "official" spin-offs of Abraxas (as proven by merger
records and a couple other documents pulled up just in last few days),
and insomuch as that one of those even notes Cubic's expected
"synergies" from Abraxas merger - and of course this question is
allegedly the reason why an article was disappeared and not edited or
corrected or even initially acknowledged and even still not
acknowledged in any way that the majority who read the now-gone story
online can see it for themselves, NYT does not mention Cubic at all in
its piece yesterday, which claims fears of it are "wildly exaggerated"
based on what reporter was told by DHS officials who are unnamed and
not quoted. Here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/14/us/trapwire-antiterrorist-software-leaks-set-off-web-furor.html

In two years of following this issue closely and sometimes being
directly involved, I have never seen anything like this. At the least,
I hope this will give you some insight into how ill-equipped the U.S.
media in particular has been to cover this trillion-dollar topic in
almost any meaningful way, and want to thank you again for what
Businessweek has done and for allowing someone with my views to take
part in your very timely panel last month. Thanks, and hope all is
well. Here is info we've compiled, plus samples of insightful coverage
of Trapwire and our work on it, much from last 24 hours:


http://wiki.echelon2.org/wiki/Trapwire

http://wiki.echelon2.org/wiki/Cubic_Corporation

http://barrettbrown.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-facts-on-cubic-and-trapwire-abraxas.html
(a partly silly piece I wrote last night that nonetheless includes
much of the new documentation, tax records, etc)

http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/15/pr-effort-launched-to-cover-tracks-about-trapwire-domestic-surveillance-system/

Vaguely corrupt marketing partnership between the ex-State Department
types and self-described "intel analysts" at Stratfor and Trapwire
itself, which is supposed not to have any similar or more complex
dealings with its ultimate owner unlike other sub-subsidies such as
Ntrepid: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/08/trapwire-strafor-biz/



-- 
Regards,

Barrett Brown
512-560-2302