
Barrett Brown Can't Talk About Why the Government Wants to Jail Him - ferdo
http://www.fair.org/blog/2013/09/10/barrett-brown-cant-talk-about-why-the-govern/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=barrett-brown-cant-talk-about-why-the-govern
======
clavalle
The Barrett Brown case scares the crud out of me.

He linked to a cache of 5 million documents, some of which had CC information
in them. Boom, identity theft. All of the other charges flow from that.

If the court is not careful we are setting ourselves up for a future where
sensitive information is sprinkled in a trove of documents as a trap for
unsuspecting journalists or other parties that want to make that information
available for the public good.

~~~
rayiner
No, that's not all the charges flow from. He was arrested for threatening an
FBI agent and his family. That's what the initial indictment was about:
[http://freebarrettbrown.org/files/bb_indictment.pdf](http://freebarrettbrown.org/files/bb_indictment.pdf).

It gets good on page 4-6.

~~~
tptacek
Wow. This is all news to me. Thanks for posting.

I don't get it. All the coverage I've been seeing about Brown suggests he's
been indicted somehow for identity theft. There's nothing about identity theft
in here. Is there a second indictment I'm not seeing?

~~~
rayiner
Yes, they did a second indictment. Didn't mean to hide the ball. I think the
second indictment is just trumped up to be fair.

~~~
aspensmonster
And a third:

[http://freebarrettbrown.org/files/bb_indictment3.pdf](http://freebarrettbrown.org/files/bb_indictment3.pdf)

That one relates to concealment of evidence, and corruptly concealing
evidence, in relation to the hiding of laptops at some point either before or
during the execution of a search warrant.

------
danso
It's curious that the OP links to the David Carr/NYT article on Brown, but
does not cite the reason why Barrett Brown is under a gag order:

[http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/09/business/media/a-journalis...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/09/business/media/a-journalist-
agitator-facing-prison-over-a-link.html?pagewanted=all)

> _Last week, Mr. Brown and his lawyers agreed to an order that allows him to
> continue to work on articles, but not say anything about his case that is
> not in the public record._

I'm not sure what the alternative was, whether Mr. Brown had the option to say
all he wants but only behind bars without access to a computer. But the point
is that there was an agreement made and I'd be more interested in hearing the
details and give-and-take behind that.

------
chris_mahan
Evidently, since people in government feel the US Constitution is no longer
the law, we end up with this sort of thing. Get used to it: there's no going
back now, as they've tasted the awesome guava-flavored Kool-aid and they like
it.

~~~
criley2
I am so shocked that people believe that before now, justice was just and the
US Constitution was followed.

Do we honestly believe that every judge in the country was honest in the
1820's? The 1890's? During industrialization, before any form of workers
rights -- are we going to sit here and believe that the average man got a fair
shake in front of a judge every time?

Do we honestly believe that every man got a fair trial in the 1960's? That
every black man who has stood in front of a white judge has, up until these
modern revelations, has gotten a Constitutionally just trial?

I think this is exactly like autism. People think autism is occuring more,
when in reality the understanding and awareness is growing, so the cases are
being diagnosed more accurately.

What we're seeing today, for the first time in our history, is an _honest_
assessment of how government operates.

Technology, specifically computers and networking, are a Pandora's Box.
Government HAD to adopt it because the benefits are too good and they must be
competitive on some level. But by adopting it, they've given us the
opportunity to walk away with all of their secrets.

Frankly, I bet our governments have been cleaning themselves up over the past
few decades, full well knowing the implications of technology.

When I think about McCarthyism and the Cold War, and the measures our
government was willing to take... how much of those records were never kept or
were destroyed? How much of abuse of our rights as citizens occurred in ways
that can never be tracked or recorded?

I'm sure they control digital as best they can, but between Manning and
Snowden, I think we've seen that it's uncontrollable, and we get to see more
than we've ever seen before.

~~~
saraid216
There's a libertarian religion that's got an upsurge from Paul's bid for
presidency in 2008. It has a Hesiodic Ages of Man feel in how America has
descended from the Golden Age of George Washington to the present suffering
and misery of the Iron Age of the 21st century. Its creation myth is that the
Constitution is a sacred and inviolable document of the ancient ages past and
that its sole purpose was a magic spell that summoned and bound a Hobbesian
demon called Government, and that the founding Wizard-Fathers of our past bid
it do good, but our warding runes have been slowly failing over the last two
centuries.

I just find it funny.

~~~
stan_rogers
At the risk of downvotes for commenting rather than merely upvoting, I have to
say that that was masterfully framed.

------
j_baker
The DOJ has gotten exceedingly good at blatantly trumping up charges against
innocent people on the flimsiest of excuses. The saddest part of it all is
that in many cases even if the defendant is found not guilty, their career may
be over.

~~~
saraid216
We still have careers in the modern age?

~~~
moocowduckquack
as a verb, maybe

------
mpyne
Isn't this the same exact type of gag order that is normally levied on both
sides for trials? As far as I can tell this is the same type of gag order that
causes defendants to say "No comment until after the trial" and the
prosecution to declare to the media that "details will be laid out at the
trial".

------
eli
Rolling Stone published a long profile of Brown and the case against him:
[http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/barrett-brown-
faces...](http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/barrett-brown-
faces-105-years-in-jail-20130905)

Aside from the bogus headline (even if found guilty on all counts, he will not
actually get "105 years" in prison), it's a good read and it mentions the gag
order.

------
homeomorphic
"You still don't seem to have much general idea of what the court's about",
said the painter, who had stretched his legs wide apart and was tapping loudly
on the floor with the tip of his foot. "But as you're innocent you won't need
it anyway. I'll get you out of this by myself." "How do you intend to do
that?" asked K. "You did say yourself not long ago that it's quite impossible
to go to the court with reasons and proofs." "Only impossible for reasons and
proofs you take to the court yourself" said the painter, raising his
forefinger as if K. had failed to notice a fine distinction. "It goes
differently if you try to do something behind the public court, that's to say
in the consultation rooms, in the corridors or here, for instance, in my
studio."

[...]

"I inherited these contacts. My father was court painter before me. It's a
position that's always inherited. They can't use new people for it, the rules
governing how the various grades of officials are painted are so many and
varied, and, above all, so secret that no- one outside of certain families
even knows them. In the drawer there, for instance, I've got my father's
notes, which I don't show to anyone. But you're only able to paint judges if
you know what they say. Although, even if I lost them no-one could ever
dispute my position because of all the rules I just carry round in my head.
All the judges want to be painted like the old, great judges were, and I'm the
only one who can do that."

[...]

"We're talking about two different things here, there's what it says in the
law and there's what I know from my own experience, you shouldn't get the two
confused. I've never seen it in writing, but the law does, of course, say on
the one hand that the innocent will be set free, but on the other hand it
doesn't say that the judges can be influenced. But in my experience it's the
other way round. I don't know of any absolute acquittals but I do know of many
times when a judge has been influenced. It's possible, of course, that there
was no innocence in any of the cases I know about. But is that likely? Not a
single innocent defendant in so many cases? When I was a boy I used to listen
closely to my father when he told us about court cases at home, and the judges
that came to his studio talked about the court, in our circles nobody talks
about anything else; I hardly ever got the chance to go to court myself but
always made use of it when I could, I've listened to countless trials at
important stages in their development, I've followed them closely as far as
they could be followed, and I have to say that I've never seen a single
acquittal." "So. Not a single acquittal," said K., as if talking to himself
and his hopes. "That confirms the impression I already have of the court. So
there's no point in it from this side either. They could replace the whole
court with a single hangman." "You shouldn't generalise," said the painter,
dissatisfied, "I've only been talking about my own experience." "Well that's
enough," said K., "or have you heard of any acquittals that happened earlier?"
"They say there have been some acquittals earlier," the painter answered, "but
it's very hard to be sure about it. The courts don't make their final
conclusions public, not even the judges are allowed to know about them, so
that all we know about these earlier cases are just legends. But most of them
did involve absolute acquittals, you can believe that, but they can't be
proved. On the other hand, you shouldn't forget all about them either, I'm
sure there is some truth to them, and they are very beautiful, I've painted a
few pictures myself depicting these legends." "My assessment will not be
altered by mere legends," said K. "I don't suppose it's possible to cite these
legends in court, is it?" The painter laughed. "No, you can't cite them in
court," he said. "Then there's no point in talking about them," said K., he
wanted, for the time being, to accept anything the painter told him, even if
he thought it unlikely or contradicted what he had been told by others. He did
not now have the time to examine the truth of everything the painter said or
even to disprove it, he would have achieved as much as he could if the painter
would help him in any way even if his help would not be decisive. As a result,
he said, "So let's pay no more attention to absolute acquittal, but you
mentioned two other possibilities." "Apparent acquittal and deferment. They're
the only possibilities," said the painter.

 _End quote_

I'm sorry for pasting so much. I had just laid behind me these very pages in
_The Trial_ when I put the book down and visited HN. This story made me wonder
if I was still reading. It's been said hundreds of times during the Summer of
Surveillance, but I'll say it again: K. seems to be living a low tech version
of today or the near future. Viewed from afar it is a truly frighteting ordeal
that feels physically straining even when the person involved isn't even real,
let alone a citizen of your country - far less yourself.

Even though it's akin to shouting "1984 isn't a manual" on Reddit, I
wholeheartedly recommend that anybody who has not yet read The Trial should do
so immediately [1]. Even if you don't end up feeling the relevance, it's such
a short book that it's worth a read even if you don't like it.

[1]
[http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/7849](http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/7849)

------
jrockway
Isn't this the guy that posted a YouTube video threatening to kill some FBI
agent? Perhaps that's why the government wants to jail him.

