
The Strange Case of Barrett Brown - dlss
http://www.thenation.com/article/174851/strange-case-barrett-brown%23axzz2X9RMrDLN
======
mtgx
There may be an argument for life in prison, or even execution, for people
that are so dangerous that they should never be allowed in the society again.
But either give life, or put a cap on prison sentences at say 25 years, total,
like it's in many other countries.

This idea of "adding" sentences is ridiculous, and my guess is it's only
(ab)used as a way to force people into agreeing to declare themselves guilty,
and the prosecutors going "easy on them" and only asking for 30 years in
prison, instead of 100, if they win.

That's not justice and people should be opposing this. I think it was on The
Daily Show where a guest talked about a documentary called Gideon's Army where
they're talking exactly about this issue, and how prosecutors are forcing 90%
of the people arrested to admit guilt this way, before they even get a trial.
So 90% go to prison without a trial!

It also must be very convenient that the US law is so complex now, and has
gotten to the point where everyone can be incriminated with something, so
basically the prosecutors can threaten just about anyone with at least a
charge or two, if they want to. They must be BS charges, but lucky for them
they manage to convince those people to agree with a "lesser punishment"
before there even is a trial. I'm sure the private prison system and their
lobbying plays a big role in this, too. It's self sustaining corrupt system.

~~~
Svip
Doesn't the US constitution prohibit cruel and unusual punishments?

~~~
AmVess
Punishments can be either cruel or unusual. They just cannot be both.

~~~
knowtheory
Would you like to explain further how you think that cruelty and unusualness
are mutually exclusive, either in general or in the eyes of the law?

~~~
btilly
I personally thought it was an obvious point of logic.

The ban in the 8th amendment is on "cruel and unusual punishments". Therefore
punishments that are cruel or unusual, but not both, are not banned.

For example it would be hard to argue that excessive prison time is at all
unusual in this country. So no matter how cruel it may be, it passes muster.
Conversely Shena Hardin was given the unusual punishment of having to stand on
a particular sidewalk wearing a sign that said, "Only an idiot would drive on
the sidewalk to avoid a school bus." (She was, in fact, said idiot.) The
punishment was unusual, but not cruel. It therefore passed constitutional
muster.

However being kept in an overly crowded prison without appropriate medical
care qualifies as both cruel and unusual punishment and is therefore
unconstitutional. (As a variety of courts have had to repeatedly point out to
California. Personally I'd love to see the fraction of the prison population
that is over the design capacity of prisons in California become the portion
of the year that key officials should have to spend inside of said prisons.
I'm sure that we'd see Jerry Brown stop dragging his feet on the issue fairly
promptly...)

~~~
RyanMcGreal
The 8th Amendment is based on Cesare Beccaria's _On Crimes And Punishments_
and the term "cruel and unusual" specifically means the punishment should be
proportionate to the crime.

~~~
mithras
Doesn't this make various three strike laws unconstitutional?

~~~
RyanMcGreal
I certainly think so, not to mention inhumane, fiscally irresponsible and in
defiance of all evidence about how to craft an effective criminal justice
system.

------
argumentum
Were I to hazard a guess, I'd say I was better informed than 95% of my fellow
US Citizens. Yet though I'd heard of the HBGary incident, the fact that a
_journalist_ reporting about it was facing a _criminal inquiry_ completely
escaped my radar.

Perhaps this is a reflection on my own ignorance, but if so I fear it's a
worse reflection on the ignorance of the average well-informed citizen.

It goes beyond saying that any sentence counted in "years" for making an
online threat against an individual is beyond ridiculous, and clearly sought
for politics and in this case for the purposes of retribution and precedent ..
_don 't you dare oppose the FBI or we will destroy you_.

I can't exactly express _why_ , but having an administration with such an
attitude (that of a bully) makes me sick. Sick to the point that I would
sacrifice all common ground I may have had with them in order to kick them out
of office.

~~~
rdouble
It's less about politics and more about cop tribalism. All police forces in
the USA behave in this manner - if you threaten them, they will make your life
miserable.

~~~
ironic_ali
cop tribalism is, to varying degrees, the same in every country
(unfortunately).

Giving someone 'power' in any form, creates corruption in most individuals.
History, psychology and no doubt our own experiences prove this (again,
unfortunately).

------
Confusion
What really gets to me in this story is that the mother is being prosecuted
for 'obstructing execution of a search warrant', by -- allegedly -- helping
her son hide a laptop. That's just cold, heartless fascism. In a decent
country they would question her and leave it at that. Idem if it was a father,
brother or a random friend, with otherwise no criminal record, no chance for
recidivism and no other part in the crime being investigated. The government
and the police should be here to protect us. You aren't protecting anyone by
marking this woman a criminal and you are actively failing to protect _her_.

~~~
zhemao
I also find it ridiculous that they charged him for "obstruction of justice"
for not being at home when they executed the search warrant. It's not like
they told him in advance they were coming to search his house.

~~~
sologoub
Not really understanding this myself... I'm pretty sure they don't need a key
to come into a normal house or apartment. Unless he happens to live in a
bunker...

~~~
zhemao
I think the "obstruction" was taking his laptop to his mother's house. The
warrant covered confiscation of his personal devices, so removing the laptop
from the house would be an obstruction if he was doing it deliberately, which
he most likely wasn't.

~~~
grecy
By that logic they could get him for taking his smart phone with him when he
left the house.... something _everyone_ is guilty of every day.

~~~
zhemao
Yeah, but not everyone is having a warrant served against them. It's obviously
ridiculous, just like charging his mother with obstruction is, but you kind of
have to marvel at the prosecutor's deviousness in charging him for something
that would have been innocuous if they weren't charging him for something
else.

------
cinquemb
There's a link in here to Endgame Systems here that's dead [0].

Read a bit, then checked the wiki on them : "The Endgame Board of Directors is
led by Christopher Darby, President and CEO of In-Q-Tel, an independent
strategic investment firm supporting the missions of the intelligence
community. Endgame announced in March 2013 that Kenneth Minihan, former
Director of the National Security Agency and Managing Director at Paladin, had
also joined its Board of Directors."[1]

And from the piece:

"While the media and much of the world have been understandably outraged by
the revelation of the NSA’s spying programs, Barrett Brown’s work was pointing
to a much deeper problem. It isn’t the sort of problem that can be fixed by
trying to tweak a few laws or by removing a few prosecutors. The problem is
not with bad laws or bad prosecutors. What the case of Barrett Brown has
exposed is that we confronting a different problem altogether. It is a
systemic problem. It is the failure of the rule of law."

And back to Obama's check list of questions during his speech weeks ago about
the conditions that "we’re going to have some problems here" [2]:

Do we trust the Executive Branch? Do we trust Congress? Do we trust what is
called "due process and rule of law"?

[0][https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http:/...](https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://wiki.echelon2.org/wiki/Endgame_Systems)

[1][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endgame_systems](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endgame_systems)

[2][http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/06/07/transcript-what-
oba...](http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/06/07/transcript-what-obama-said-
on-nsa-controversy/)

~~~
whyleyc
In-Q-Tel is the CIA's VC arm: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-Q-
Tel](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-Q-Tel)

------
danboarder
He and other journalists were analyzing documents from the Stratfor leak, and
he had a copy of these on his laptop. His purpose was journalism, yet the FBI
went after him for incidental data:

"The Stratfor data included a number of unencrypted credit card numbers and
validation codes. On this basis, the DOJ accused Brown of credit card fraud
for having shared that link with the editorial board of ProjectPM.
Specifically, the FBI charged him with traffic in stolen authentication
features, access device fraud and aggravated identity theft, as well as an
obstruction of justice charge (for being at his mother’s when the initial
warrant was served) and charges stemming from his threats against the FBI
agent. All told, Brown is looking at century of jail time: 105 years in
federal prison if served sequentially. He has been denied bail."

~~~
dwaltrip
Seriously? 105 years in prison because the leaked data he was investigating
had some credit card numbers buried in it? Is there anything else? That seems
like too much of a bastardization of justice. Hopefully his jury knows about
jury nullification.

EDIT: I see from a comment below that 40 of the years are due to his
withdrawal induced youtube rant and obstruction of justice charges. Which is
still freaking ridiculuous, especially considering that wouldn't have happened
without the BS credit card charges.

~~~
jetti
What is ridiculous is that the YouTube rant and obstruction of justice could
get 40 years yet if he committed murder in a Federal jurisdiction (and thus
being charged by the Feds and not state level) there would be a chance he'd
get 15 to 25 years.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_punishments_for_murder_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_punishments_for_murder_in_the_United_States#Federal)

------
yoran
Wow this article is stunning. I mean, the tight links between government and
corporations were always kind of supposed. But this story exposes it and it's
scary! What happens in those backrooms is fucked up.

From the story:

The plan called for “disinformation,” exploiting strife within the
organization and fomenting external rivalries—“creating messages around
actions to sabotage or discredit the opposing organization,” as well as a plan
to submit fake documents and then call out the error.” Greenwald, it was
argued, “if pushed,” would “choose professional preservation over cause.”

It's crazy to realize that when people have power and the power is being
threatened, like in this case, they would do anything to preserve it at the
dispense of people who try to do bring the truth to light. Because the truth
will hurt them. Human nature at its best and capitalism at its worst.

~~~
TheCondor
Yeah and private contractors discussing rendering or assassinating people?!

How do we take our country back? For starters it seems like private
contractors need to be subject to the exact same rules as the government that
pay them, including FOIA. I'd put money on it that the demographics of t top
secret work force are heavily skewed, suggesting institutional racism and
sexism.

We have to end this stuff

~~~
pstuart
All of this would end if enough people wanted it to stop. The trick is to get
people to understand and care. I'm not optimistic about this but we can't let
it stop us.

------
kevingadd
The great thing about our legal system: the government's actions don't have to
be legal, just extreme enough to kill, make homeless and/or drive insane the
victims before cases wind their way through the courts. So convenient!

------
quackerhacker
_To turn up the heat on Brown, the FBI initiated charges against his
mother_... _made Brown snap_.

I could relate to Brown here. FBI or SS would tail me when I was on pretrial,
I'd hear awkward clicking on my phone, and I'd have severe anxiety attacks.
Just recently, my paranoia back then has been confirmed with the PRISM leaks.

Political journalism is dangerous (I think anything in politics is risky
though). I give Brown and Hastings a huge huge huge amount of respect to
pursue the truth and uphold their own moral beliefs.

~~~
L4mppu
"Political journalism is dangerous (I think anything in politics is risky
though)."

Doesn't this kinda defeat the purpose of politics tho? That's basically
dictatorship.

~~~
quackerhacker
I won't delve too much into politics, because I try my hardest to stay out of
it (it's dangerous no matter where you are in the world...some more than
others of course), but our society is capitalistic. In a dictatorship, the old
regime will usually usher in the new one, where as a capitalistic one, money
talks and is aimed to protect or provide favors for a collective interest.

Personally, I never really felt our president has the power to change things.
I've always felt that he's the frontman for the IOU's behind him. Even in a
dictatorship, they have interest behind them as well...usually military (North
Korea is an example). Capitalism is usually favoritism.

This is why I stay out of politics (including omitting my opinion or
speculation), because no matter what country you'd like to compare it's
dangerous, whether for your life or livelihood.

If you had to say who is most mad at Snowden, at face value, you may say the
NSA or administration...but technically he _wasn 't_ an NSA agent...who did he
worked for (BA).

~~~
L4mppu
Why couldn't capitalistic country be dictatorship also? The only ruling part
would be the rich people/companies.

------
DanBC
So this author and journalist should have had

i) full disc encryption

ii) encrypted communication

iii) anonymous communication

iv) anonymous and encrypted dealings with a publisher

v) anonymous payment from that publisher

That's not someone writing about corrupt government in an oppressive regime,
that's someone living in the US writing about US companies and government.

Hackers and designers should probably spend a little bit of time making
anonymity and encryption easier to use.

~~~
mafribe
While that's a stop-gap measure I heartily support, in the long run maybe we
should all try and change the US legal as well as political system to make
that kind of thing unnecessary.

~~~
kbenson
I think the point is that it's not stop-gap in that process, it's step one.

If the opponents of the change you propose have access to your private data,
they have an unfair advantage.

~~~
mafribe
Rather than encrypting 'our' data, we could also strive to make 'their' data
as accessible to us as our's is to them. Aka transparency.

~~~
kbenson
I think that's a failing strategy. You can only trust that 'their' data is
open as much as you trust 'them'.

This is the robustness principle (for API design/use ) applied. "Be lenient in
what you accept from others, stringent in what you emit."

As applied to this case, it's "Be lenient in what you you expect reality is,
but stringent in what you attempt to shift reality to."

------
zeroDivisible
I was following most of those revelations when they were happening, but I
didn't knew how the story progressed, nor what implications it had for Brown.

Michael Hastings died in a car crash, Barrett Brown is facing 105 years in a
prison, Snowden needs to hide from the authorities...as some of those (death
of Michael Hastings) might be just unlucky coincidences, the list goes on. As
much as we had made tremendous progress in every single area of life and
science, I'm a bit concerned that the name "Dark Ages" is more relevant to
present times than it is to the Middle Ages.

------
buenavista
The situation in this country as become so strange that it's impossible to
talk about it without seeming loony.

"The contents of the Stratfor leak were even more outrageous than those of the
HBGary hack. They included discussion of opportunities for renditions and
assassinations. For example, in one video, Statfor’s vice president of
intelligence, Fred Burton, suggested taking advantage of the chaos in Libya to
render Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, who had been released from
prison on compassionate grounds due to his terminal illness. Burton said that
the case “was personal.” When someone pointed out in an e-mail that such a
move would almost certainly be illegal—“This man has already been tried, found
guilty, sentenced…and served time”—another Stratfor employee responded that
this was just an argument for a more efficient solution: “One more reason to
just bugzap him with a hellfire. :-)”"

How can you talk about this with friends and acquaintances convincingly?

~~~
jcromartie
There are conspiracy theories, and there are actual conspiracies. What we have
here are documented instances of actual conspiracies. There should be no
convincing needed when you're talking about actual events that are documented
in writing.

------
ajays
FTA: "One can’t help but infer that the US Department of Justice has become
just another security contractor, working [...] on behalf of corporate
bidders, with no sense at all for the justness of their actions; they are
working to protect corporations and private security contractors and give them
license to engage in disinformation campaigns against ordinary citizens and
their advocacy groups."

It's happening all over the country. For example: the guy who faces 13 years
in prison for drawing in chalk outside a Bank of America branch:
[http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/jun/26/activist-
prosecut...](http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/jun/26/activist-prosecuted-
sidewalk-chalk/)

~~~
dwaltrip
That example was overblown on reddit (and probably elsewhere).

This is simply 13 separate counts of graffiti, which has a 1 year maximum, and
they are supposed to list the incidents separately (or something like that)
when they charge him. He won't serve 13 years.

~~~
jessaustin
Yeah OK it's overblown, but the point is the guy should never have been
charged with _anything_. For its decades of bad behavior, BofA _deserves_ a
great deal more public criticism than it has received. However, when
prosecutors are so obviously its puppets, it's no wonder BofA is so rarely
charged with fraud, etc. Public criticism, even when it takes the form of
chalking public sidewalks, is a basic right that is guaranteed to the people
of the USA.

------
siddboots
[http://freebarrettbrown.org/](http://freebarrettbrown.org/)

By the way, does anyone know if ProjectPM is still alive in any form?
echelon2.org and project-pm.org are both gone...

~~~
bostonvaulter2
Yes, this is what I'm curious about. Is there anyone still looking into the
stratfor info?

~~~
d23
It seems to be available on archive.org. I'm curious as to whether there's any
layperson's summary of the information though. Most of the articles seem
rather drab.

------
sillysaurus
_“That’s why [FBI special agent] Robert Smith’s life is over. And when I say
his life is over, I’m not saying I’m going to kill him, but I am going to ruin
his life and look into his fucking kids…. How do you like them apples?”_

What could he have possibly been thinking? He had a good, defensible position.
Everyone would have rallied around him. And then he said that.

~~~
retrogradeorbit
Yes. And yet the people will not apply the same indefensible yardstick to the
FBI improperly investigating his mother, and instead will rally round the FBI
as upstanding people just trying to do a tough job.

"And if it’s legal when it’s done to me, it’s going to be legal when it’s done
to FBI Agent Robert Smith—who is a criminal."

This is his mistake. There is no Rule of Law in the US anymore. It's one rule
for them... and another rule for everyone else.

[edit: added rule of law comment]

~~~
dlss
In case you haven't heard the term before, the thing you're talking about is
called Noble Cause Corruption.

"Noble cause corruption is a police crime in which police officers violate
legal or ethical standards in pursuit of what they perceive to be the benefit
of society at large."

[http://essayonnoblecausecorruption.blogspot.com/](http://essayonnoblecausecorruption.blogspot.com/)

[http://www.patc.com/weeklyarticles/print/noble-cause-
corrupt...](http://www.patc.com/weeklyarticles/print/noble-cause-
corruption.pdf)

The police/prosecutor/authority figure believes that their immoral behavior is
acceptable because they are the "good guy". The disturbing thing (as you point
out) is that regular people who read a story like this _also_ become
corrupted. "The accused did one bad thing, therefore all the bad things the
police did don't count."

------
alistair77
I am very reluctant to draw parallels between real-life and fiction, but the
steady stream of stories from the US from Bradely Manning to Snowden to
Barrett Brown is making the possibility of a 1984 style state a real
possibility. I have never been under any illusion that my data was safe from
prying eyes but the extent of the lies, undemocratic procedures and brutality
has shocked me. The commercialisation of intelligence, the penal system and
war is adding to the issue.

I don't fear for the privacy of my data; I do feel very anxious about the
world that my children will inhabit as adults.

EDIT: I'm not making out this a US-only problem.

------
lifeisstillgood
Now I know why established newspapers like the times place such a high value
on integrity of reporting and fact checking. We are in a time like the first
newspapers - where Napoleon would publish outrageously biased journals, to
attack the other outrageously biased journals. Eventually people listened to
the ones who had the high standards of integrity.

Blogs, online websites etc are in the same position right now.

Who runs thenation? How can I trust what sounds like a well researched piece?

Are there really a wealth of funded private armies running around Americas
underbelly interfering with its political process as USA was 1950s South
America? Boy have those chickens come home to roost

~~~
guelo
The Nation is a generally respected leftist magazine with a long history of
quality journalism. Similar to The New Republic and The American Prospect on
the left or National Review on the right. Mostly serious political journalism
with some obvious biases.

~~~
lifeisstillgood
Thank you. History and reputation count in these things.

------
Joeri
Interesting opinion on the timing and method of the michael hastings car
crash: [http://rt.com/usa/michael-hastings-cyber-
car-218/](http://rt.com/usa/michael-hastings-cyber-car-218/)

~~~
nullc
It's weak speculation, and hardly related here. If we allow our suspicions to
recurse, perhaps I might suggest that your comment here is in fact
disinformation designed to make people concerned about Barrett Brown's
treatment sound like a bunch of conspiracy theory wackjobs. :)

~~~
Joeri
I only mentioned it because of the article's odd mention of Michael Hastings
at the end. Anyway, at this point you have to get pretty far out there to have
a conspiracy theory which is genuinely crazy, given the stated track record of
the US government. Would you really think they would hold back from
assassination if they believed national security was at stake? This is war,
and in war ugly things are done.

Although it is true that what we know about Barrett Brown is bad enough that
we don't need to go looking further than that. In Rumsfeld's terms: the
unknown unknowns really don't need to become known at this point, because the
known knowns are bad enough.

------
calhoun137
This is a textbook case of extra-legal harassment. There was an excellent
article of this subject in the recent issue of 2600[1], which unfortunately is
not available online, but can be found in any Barnes and Nobles.

When an individual meaningfully opposes the state, they become a target of
extra legal harassment, which includes attacks from outside the legal system,
as well as within it. This includes things such as police raids of your home,
intimidation of friends/family, trumped up charges designed to bring you into
financial ruin, hit pieces in the media, and much more.

For example, $20,000 that was raised for Brown's legal defense from supporters
was confiscated by the courts[2].

The entire purpose of extra legal harassment is to get a person to give up,
and correspondingly, the best way to fight back is to continue doing activism,
and to survive.

In this case, Brown made a major mistake by threatening an FBI agent in a you
tube video. Perhaps if he had been less naive about the inevitable
repercussions of his activism, he would have been better prepared for the
campaign against him and would have known that his primary goal should be to
survive and be able to continue his work, and that the worst mistake he could
make is to give the authorities an excuse to lock him up.

[1]
[http://store.2600.com/spring2013.html](http://store.2600.com/spring2013.html)
[2] [http://frontburner.dmagazine.com/2013/04/18/feds-seize-
barre...](http://frontburner.dmagazine.com/2013/04/18/feds-seize-barrett-
browns-legal-defense-fund/)

~~~
thatthatis
The 20,000 was held pending use to pay part of the cost of the public defender
[http://cryptome.org/2013/04/brown-050.pdf](http://cryptome.org/2013/04/brown-050.pdf).

In other words, it is being used to pay for his legal defense.

~~~
calhoun137
Isn't the purpose of a legal defense fund so that the person doesn't have to
use a public defender? They are saying if you can't afford a lawyer, one will
be appointed for you, and if you can afford a lawyer, then your money will be
confiscated and we will use it to pay the lawyer we appointed for you.

------
fnordfnordfnord
The real problem here is that our backstop against this kind of abuse is
"write your congressman", "rock the vote", and "peaceful assembly" in a free
speech zone, if you have a permit.

------
myoffe
This is just scary. How can anyone now think that a government having any data
about our online activity is remotely a good idea? Clearly, the potential for
misuse is far greater than the prospect of actually finding terrorist activity
through it.

------
DinooD
Thank you for sharing this. Absolutely stunning.

------
dobbsbob
Bruce Schneier wrote an article recently on his blog about what a show trial
plea bargaining has become.

Another problem is the insane US prison system with an exploding reoffender
rate. Even National Geographic is considered contraband.

Prison racial segregation also doesnt need to happen, and is mainly a weird
American thing. I know this because if anybody has done time at D Ray fed
prison where they keep incarcerated foreigners the first thing you notice is
there is no racial problems because there arent any American inmates.

------
socillion
Obviously, all charges are _alleged_.

* 20 years for charges stemming from going off the deep end and making threats directed at an FBI Special Agent.

[http://www.scribd.com/doc/109025315/Barrett-Brown-
Indictment](http://www.scribd.com/doc/109025315/Barrett-Brown-Indictment)

* 20 years for hiding two laptops and deleting evidence after being served a warrant.

[http://www.scribd.com/doc/121967213/Barrett-
Brown-1-23-13-In...](http://www.scribd.com/doc/121967213/Barrett-
Brown-1-23-13-Indictment)

As mentioned in the article, his mother pled guilty to helping him hide the
laptops.

[http://www.scribd.com/doc/132408951/Karen-McCutchin-Plea-
Agr...](http://www.scribd.com/doc/132408951/Karen-McCutchin-Plea-Agreement)

* 15 years for copying and pasting a hyperlink to a document that contained credit card info for at least 5,000 people, and 30 years for possession of stolen credit card numbers and CVVs.

[http://www.scribd.com/doc/115981886/Gov-uscourts-
txnd-226354...](http://www.scribd.com/doc/115981886/Gov-uscourts-
txnd-226354-1-0)

I only see 85 years, I'm curious how the author obtained the number of 105
years.

> Considering that the person who carried out the actual Stratfor hack had
> several priors and is facing a maximum of ten years, the inescapable
> conclusion is that the problem is not with the hack itself but with Brown’s
> journalism.

He was facing 30 to life in prison [1], and had that reduced to 10 years after
pleading guilty. Barret Brown has pleaded not guilty to all charges.

> The Stratfor data included a number of unencrypted credit card numbers and
> validation codes. On this basis, the DOJ accused Brown of credit card fraud
> for having shared that link with the editorial board of ProjectPM.

"Editorial board" here is referring to a public IRC channel. Elsewhere it is
stated that it is a _private_ IRC channel, but it appears to be posted
publicly on a Pastebin dated May 2011 so that seems a doubtful claim. [2]

I hate seeing so many obvious mistakes in a piece as biased as this, since it
forces the reader to cross reference everything. It's particularly amusing
given the constant interstitials asking for donations to support this
journalism.

1\. [http://rt.com/usa/anonymous-stratfor-hammond-
judge-440/](http://rt.com/usa/anonymous-stratfor-hammond-judge-440/)

2\. [http://pastebin.com/QNuXwRTn](http://pastebin.com/QNuXwRTn)

~~~
clarkm
What I found weird about this article is its portrayal of Barrett Brown as
just another journalist. Sure, he was technically a journalist, but calling
him that doesn't paint the most accurate picture of the situation.

Barrett Brown wasn't attached to some independent news organization that was
doing investigative pieces on Anonymous -- he was a "leader" of Anonymous
itself. And he tried hard to be one of their main public faces.

I always thought of him as someone who kept his hands clean of most of the
dirty work just so he could maintain his public image. While he wanted to help
the cause, he didn't want to shun the spotlight and assume a pseudonym, so his
hands were tied. But he still kept in close contact with many of Anonymous's
other less-than-law-abiding leaders, which of course, made him quite the
target.

~~~
eliasmacpherson
This article is good too, says he's contributed to the Guardian, Vanity Fair,
was an activist, affiliated with Anonymous. [1]

I haven't seen anyone else except you, calling him a 'leader' of anonymous,
where are you getting that info?

Is 'anonymous' the only thing you think differentiates him from being "just
another journalist"?

Weird statement from him saying he wasn't informed about the leak..

"I wasn't informed of the leak or the nature of the leak," he told me at the
time. "I do defend them for it and I will take responsibility for defending
them. But if I had my way it would have been done differently. I have no...
they don't need me, basically, so they don't ask my opinion." [1]

[1] [http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/mar/20/barrett-
bro...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/mar/20/barrett-brown-
anonymous-pr-federal-target)

~~~
clarkm
For what it's worth, his Encyclopedia Dramatica entry [1] is in the series
"Leaders of Anonymous", along with Sabu, Ryan Clearly, etc. It's pretty well
known that he was heavily involved, but like most things on IRC and 4chan, the
text is ephemeral and/or private, so there's no good records other than
miscellaneous pastebins.

On the other hand, I found a decent comment [2] from someone who seems to know
what they're talking about that suggests he was just an eager journalist that
got pulled too far into this whole thing.

For a quick overview of much of Anonymous's history, I recommend the
documentary _We are Legion_ [3]. It features an interview with Barrett Brown,
and I think has a much better handle on the whole situation than most MSM
reporting does.

[1]
[https://encyclopediadramatica.se/Barrett_Brown](https://encyclopediadramatica.se/Barrett_Brown)

[2]
[http://www.reddit.com/r/anonymous/comments/zt41f/barrett_bro...](http://www.reddit.com/r/anonymous/comments/zt41f/barrett_brown_finally_gets_v_for_being_an_ugly/c67vjz8)

[2]
[http://wearelegionthedocumentary.com/](http://wearelegionthedocumentary.com/)

~~~
peterwwillis
Encyclopedia Dramatica is not meant to be taken seriously. Please don't cite
it unless you are making an elaborate joke.

~~~
clarkm
Um, I'm not sure why you felt the need to point this out because anyone who
visits the site knows that. I can't fathom how you think someone might not
comprehend that.

Don't take everything so literally. Just because the site is full of unabashed
trolling, doesn't mean you can't read between the lines and see that my point
still stands.

\-- Edit --

The reason you don't see any recent MSM articles referring to Barrett Brown as
a "leader" of Anonymous is because they don't know what they're talking about.
If you want to know the extent of his involvement you have to go to sources
published by people who at least have paid attention to this whole situation
for reasons besides pageviews. You need to hear from people who have been
following the situation for more than just the past month.

But as expected, the closer you get to Anonymous, the more "uncredible" the
sources look. Sure, ED and 4chan are rife with trolling -- everyone familiar
with the subject beyond today's news article should know that.

 _However_ , that doesn't mean these sources don't have merit. They're written
by people who know more about the issue than the MSM. They're written by
people who (1) know what they are talking about but are (2) trying to troll
people who don't know what they're talking about. But you don't have to tease
out much misinformation to see that Brown has a long history with Anonymous,
and is more than just a "journalist".

------
alex_doom
Jesus. He would have gotten less prison time if he'd chopped off some random
head.

------
shanelja
Fantastic! Now when he's served the first 60 years of his service, medical
science will have advanced to the point where we can pay to elongate his life
(as a basic human right) so he can serve out the remainder of his sentence, at
which point he will leave prison and die near instantly as he can't afford
medical care.

------
DanielBMarkham
I'm sorry I upvoted this. This article does not do justice to the story.

I knew we were in trouble when the author started listing associates of
people. (This is when you see a sentence constructed as so: "John went to work
for Company X which uses the same lawyers as the mafia". A sure sign extra
spin is trying to be added)

"...government contractors were attempting to undermine Americans’ free
speech—with the apparent blessing of the DOJ..."

Slow down a freaking minute. Free speech means just that. I can lie to you,
plant disinformation, do all kinds of things. I am free to speak. Yes, these
groups may have been trying to _subvert the credibility_ of those speaking,
and it might have made a great committee investigation to watch on the news,
but that's not the same thing as undermining free speech. Now we're getting
deep into bullshit territory.

The we get to Stratfor, an organization which explicitly exists to both
analyze geopolitical situations and speculate on various blue sky options.
Those guys talking about the options to do some kind of crazy op isn't a
scandal, _it 's their job_.

The Endgame stuff was intriguing. Could some of this security state, zero-day-
exploits and such already be available on the open market? My money says it
will eventually, but right now, based on this piece, this still looks like a
lot of hand-wavy speculation.

The author claims that this points to a much deeper problem. I'm not so sure.
Sounds like Brown went hell-for-leather with a flame-thrower through as many
defense contractors and hangers-on that he could find, and finally the system
stepped on him like a bug. Not a good thing -- a very bad thing. But hardly at
the level of the NSA spying story.

In short, the author overreaches with his thesis, asking the audience to give
up NSA paranoia for his version of the military-industrial complex paranoia.
You either understand that good people are working in bad systems, or you live
in a world where there's good guys and bad guys. The author seems attracted to
the latter position. Brown may be a sympathetic character. I'm not sure. Even
after reading this piece. Just to be clear, I'm happy his case is getting more
attention, because it definitely looks like a shitty thing that's happening to
him, but I'd be happier without all the hyperbole. This piece could have used
a better editor, somebody that would have challenged the author to tighten up
his argument. You don't have to push this story so hard. It's bad enough as it
is.

~~~
ferdo
> You either understand that good people are working in bad systems

Bad systems can turn good people into bad people and they'll still believe
themselves to be "good".

~~~
jessaustin
And then we have the current situation: the bad systems have been at work long
enough they've attracted and/or manufactured people bad enough to make the
systems worse.

------
flyinRyan
Everyone laughs when you compare living in the US with living in China and
yet... With stories like this of the US going after journalists and even
bullying their families to make a point, I wonder how far are we _really_.

------
d23
So the ProjectPM site is cached on archive.org, but I really don't know what
to make of all the information. Is there a summary of the key findings
anywhere?

------
anchovy
Stratfor sells news analysis. They are not a "private security company".

~~~
jessaustin
Much of their "analysis" relates to security.

