
HBGary Federal CEO Aaron Barr Steps Down - ssclafani
http://threatpost.com/en_us/blogs/hbgary-federal-ceo-aaron-barr-steps-down-022811
======
motters
The internet amplifies reputational risk. My guess is that if HBGary has any
future they will at the very minimum have to change their company name.
Reading some of the leaked emails provides (at least for me) a shocking
insight into the dark side of the internet and how social networks can be
abused for sinister purposes. Assuming HBGary isn't the only company involved
in these sorts of machinations it raises some really big and serious questions
about the future of democracy and the ability of governments to create fake
consensus using "persona management software".

~~~
stcredzero
My hunch is that this very social network and its close cousin reddit are
being manipulated by groups following discordian ideologies. In short, it's
being manipulated for fun and "profit." ("Profit" in the form of media-
manipulation capability.) In other words, it's being manipulated for the LULZ.
(By people who don't know how to analyze what they read and argue cogently.)

The flavor of logic and discourse on this site has taken a definite turn for
the worse. Nonsensical and somewhat juvenile reactions to my comments occur
with frightening regularity.

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2270002>

~~~
khafra
By "Discordian," I'm thinking you mean the TAZ-theory and other stuff from
RAW's other work, not so much the carefree pranksterism of the Principia
Discordia, right? Either way, it's a model for which I hold such a low prior
probability that it would take a lot of evidence to convince me, but the
latter seems to have more internal consistency.

As for your link, people thought you were talking about the overreaching of
the Tolkien estate; you were talking about what appeared to be a button taking
sides in an imaginary cultural divide. Simple miscommunication.

~~~
stcredzero
If I was talking about the estate, why would I be mentioning Evangelion?

~~~
joel_ms
You did start the comment with "My reaction is: so?", a statement seemingly
directed at the actual content of the article, not the (largely irrelevant in
the context of the article) content of the button.

People got confused by your somewhat unclear (at least to some people), off-
topic comment, and you started ranting about people not using their brains,
lacking reading comprehension, being lazy and small-minded.

Wouldn't it suffice to point out that you were commenting on the content of
the button, without attacking the people confused by the comment?

~~~
stcredzero
_People got confused by your somewhat unclear (at least to some people), off-
topic comment_

What actually happened: People read the first line, jumped to a conclusion,
and further reading/brain activity was a fail.

I think it speaks volumes when you have to comment with this level of "tl;dr"
mentality in mind. I did not have to do that in days past.

I long for the days when I could simply express thoughts needing 3 or more
sentences for complete expression on HN. This used to be the big advantage of
commenting _in text_ over speaking. Now, I have to treat the first line of
each comment like a headline, because the pool of readers has already jumped
to a conclusion.

~~~
jokermatt999
It's up to the writer to communicate their thoughts clearly. A writer should
only blame their audience for not understanding if their statements are
obviously unambiguous. However, you were writing on an online forum about a
topic that was only tangentially related to the subject, began your post with
an inflammatory statement, never clearly stated what you were even talking
about, and then blamed the lack of comprehension on the other end. If you're
communicating in text to strangers, it's best to err on the side of being
overly specific, especially when speaking about a different topic than the one
being currently discussed.

Sorry if this comes off as harsh, but people blaming their poor communication
on others is a pet peeve of mine.

~~~
stcredzero
_However, you were writing on an online forum about a topic that was only
tangentially related to the subject_

The article was about a button, and what Tolkien's estate did about it. I
guess you could say "only tangentially."

 _If you're communicating in text to strangers, it's best to err on the side
of being overly specific_

More specificity is fine. Specificity is not the issue here. If you knew of
the contents of the button, the comment makes sense. If you read the comment,
_then_ looked at the link and the article, the comment makes sense. I draw the
line at those reading only the 1st sentence and not bothering to make sense of
the 2nd and 3rd sentence. How is that any different from a dog parsing an
angry utterance from a human containing 'Fido'?

------
learner4life
The most disturbing thing about this episode is that DOJ referred BoA to
HBGary. It is truly scary when government is in the business of targeting its
own individuals. One has to wonder how it is different from Ben Ali or Gaddafi
targeting their own people. Sure the scale is different, but the principle is
the same.

~~~
Vivtek
Actually, DOJ recommended the law firm that ended up talking to HBGary and
Palantir and ... whoever the third one was.

Not that it isn't egregious for the DOJ to recommend reputation fixup to Bank
of America because BoA is presumably about to get hammered by Wikileaks
disclosure.

------
bane
At this point they're going to just have to change the name of the company.

~~~
Nate75Sanders
We need websites that track _individuals_ for their reputation instead of just
businesses.

I recently had a moving company move my car across the country. I picked the
#1 rated broker in the United States the last 2 years running. They're just
the broker, though. They pick an actual trucking company to move your car. I
found out that the individuals involved in the company moving my car had
opened 3 other companies in the past 4 years and closed them all. I dug more
and found that they had absolutely horrible ratings on the biggest rating site
for car-hauling companies and also horrible ratings on the BBB site. Luckily,
I got my car without incident, but we need a good way to track scum.

If you tried hard and played by the rules in business and didn't do shady
things and failed, then I can understand trying again without serious stigma,
but if you're forming new companies all the time, you should be informally
punished through lots of information/transparency. It's easy to say "don't go
with a company that hasn't been around for X years", but that's really unfair
to legit startups trying to innovate.

We need a better answer to this problem.

~~~
drinian
Are you familiar with Whuffie, which was a fictional reputational currency?

I'm pretty sure that with the advent of decentralized currencies like BitCoin,
we could probably implement Whuffie now.

<https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Whuffie>

~~~
Natsu
Haven't we already done something like that, in a sense, with HN karma?

~~~
drinian
Absolutely, the concept is nothing new. The difference would be
decentralization and generalization.

------
adrianwaj
Pwned from the outside and then barred from within. Nice.

Anon's comments under that article really rub it in. No mercy at all.

------
m0nastic
This is the first positive thing I've read to come out of this fiasco (and I
don't say that lightly, as I am particularly sensitive to companies suffering
security breaches; but they've handled this about as poor as one could).

------
mistermann
Some of the stuff he was doing was pretty clever, and he'll have no shortage
of customers if he continues down that path. Taking on Anonymous for
advertising purposes however has turned out to be not too bright. His former
clients are distancing themselves as fast as possible, but next time they'll
just make sure their payments can't be traced to them. "Oh, we didn't know he
was doing such things". Bullshit....most companies don't care about ethics,
and the US government certainly doesn't at a fundamental level either.

He'll do just fine.

~~~
tscrib
The government and large defence companies certainly do care about ethics.
It's just a different 'kind' of ethics than you would normally envision. Its
more about your appearance to the general public, and your market than
anything else. If the general public perceives your action an unethical, then
it is, and it is detrimental to your company.

I've worked for several defence contractors, and each one is crazy about
ethical training. Monthly online ethics training courses are mandatory. Any
perception of wrongdoing is incredibly harmful when dealing with the federal
government. Billion dollar contracts are won and lost based on those
perceptions.

~~~
mistermann
But they don't care about ethics for ethical reasons, they care about them for
PR reasons...but maybe thats what you said.

My point was, many customers,the government included, would __love __to have
some of this information, and access to social botnets. The background of the
seller is irrelevant.

Of course your ethical training at work is top notch. I've done work at
similar companies, and I have to pass ethical tests on a regular basis, yet,
we have incidents that set records, in a bad way. If you think taking tests at
work means your company is taking something seriously, you haven't been
working long enough. :)

------
iuguy
Without Barr, it's likely that Federal is over (that is assuming that it isn't
already over regardless), which is probably not a bad thing for HBGary but
will be for anyone who invested in federal.

I think the lesson for everyone here is not to fund a company sharing your
brand name without some degree of control over what they're doing and the
ability to immediately fire the guy in charge if they endanger the parent.

~~~
Aetius
The lesson is to screen for and not hire giant egotistical douchebags who will
write checks that they can't cash.

------
da5e
Stieg Larsson's new book would be, The Boy Who Stuck His Penis in a Hornet's
Nest.

------
defroost
Who didn't see that coming after the embarrassing fiasco with Anonymous? I've
been following this story pretty closely via Salon.com and the excellent
series at Ars Technica and it seemed to be only a matter of time for Barr to
make an exit.

~~~
tscrib
Indeed. Ars Technica has been covering it in excellent depth. I'm just
surprised it didn't happen earlier. From the onset, especially HBGary's
reaction, it seemed the only way out was that Barr would be canned or step
down.

------
georgieporgie
This is wildly irrelevant, but I have to ask: does anyone else experience
profound irritation at the name "HBGary"?

Every time I read the name, my reading flow stops and I stare at the name.
HBWhat? Does that _stand_ for something? Are they initials? Who is Gary? Are
they from Indiana?

It triggers this bizarre, deep-down irritation like nothing else I've ever
seen.

~~~
sp_
The name comes from the three co-founders. The H is for Hoglund (Greg). The B
is for Bracken (Shawn). The Gary is for Jon Gary who left the company shortly
after it was founded.

~~~
jarin
My question is what did Jon Gary do to get his whole name in there?

~~~
w1ntermute
Leave the company shortly after it was founded?

~~~
khafra
Which, in retrospect, looks like it may have been smart enough to deserve the
extra visibility.

