15 ms·

The Strange Case of Barrett Brown

643 points by dlss 13y ago

kevingadd 13y ago
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!
cinquemb 13y ago
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://wiki.echelon2.org/wiki/Endgame_Systems https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http:/... [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-obama-said-on-nsa-controversy/ http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/06/07/transcript-what-oba...
- whyleyc 13y ago
  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
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- flyinRyan 13y ago
  It's pretty clear at this point that any appearance of "rule of law" in the US is just an illusion. One instance of being in the wrong place at the wrong time, pissing off the wrong person and that illusion will be blown away for you and possibly your family.
DinooD 13y ago
Thank you for sharing this. Absolutely stunning.
sillysaurus 13y ago
“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 13y ago
  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]
  - ferdo 13y ago
    Exactly. Our speech is criminalized but their actions aren't. The head of the NSA can lie to Congress with impunity and nothing happens to him. Let any of us try that and see what happens.
  - dlss 13y ago
    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-corruption.pdf http://www.patc.com/weeklyarticles/print/noble-cause-corrupt... 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."
  - 13y ago
siddboots 13y ago
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 13y ago
  Yes, this is what I'm curious about. Is there anyone still looking into the stratfor info?
  - d23 13y ago
    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.
danboarder 13y ago
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 13y ago
  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 13y ago
    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_in_the_United_States#Federal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_punishments_for_murder_...
zeroDivisible 13y ago
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.
socillion 13y ago
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-Indictment http://www.scribd.com/doc/121967213/Barrett-Brown-1-23-13-In... As mentioned in the article, his mother pled guilty to helping him hide the laptops. http://www.scribd.com/doc/132408951/Karen-McCutchin-Plea-Agreement http://www.scribd.com/doc/132408951/Karen-McCutchin-Plea-Agr... * 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-226354-1-0 http://www.scribd.com/doc/115981886/Gov-uscourts-txnd-226354... 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
- eliasmacpherson 13y ago
  Article says there was 5 million emails and it was that which he pasted the link to, therein contained credit card info for 5k people. How would he have known to screen it for credit card no's? What were the credit card details doing in the emails? How did stratfor come in to possession of them, wikipedia says it has 70 employees? Was that possession legal?
anchovy 13y ago
Stratfor sells news analysis. They are not a "private security company".
- jessaustin 13y ago
  Much of their "analysis" relates to security.
lifeisstillgood 13y ago
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 13y ago
  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 13y ago
    Thank you. History and reputation count in these things.
yoran 13y ago
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 13y ago
  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 13y ago
    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.
mtgx 13y ago
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 13y ago
  Doesn't the US constitution prohibit cruel and unusual punishments?
  - kevingadd 13y ago
    Sure, but have fun spending 10-15 years tied up in court cases and appeals to try and prove it.
  - AmVess 13y ago
    Punishments can be either cruel or unusual. They just cannot be both.
    - knowtheory 13y ago
      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?
Joeri 13y ago
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 13y ago
  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. :)
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
    - kahirsch 13y ago
      > His car malfunctioned. It wasn't careless driving. Huh?
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
        DanBC 13y ago
        You keep on saying 65 mph in a suburb as if that's surprising, but it really isn't. Many people jump red lights, and at speed, and in suburbs. Losing control after hitting a pothole could easily happen if the driver is intoxicated. I'm not saying this driver was intoxicated. I'd be interested to see the numbers of cars that crash because the driver is drunk or on drugs vs because the car is broken.
        deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
        13y ago
quackerhacker 13y ago
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 13y ago
  "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.
  - leot 13y ago
    Indeed. If any American find him/herself self-censoring for fear of America's security establishment, then they should conclude that America does not have freedom of speech.
  - quackerhacker 13y ago
    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).
argumentum 13y ago
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 13y ago
  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 13y ago
    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).
- forgotAgain 13y ago
  It's actually become much more difficult to be informed. Print media's collapse in revenue has cut their investigative abilities. Network broadcast media has lost resources as the networks have been bought out by larger corporations. What's left is mostly the echo chamber of the web and it's aggregation sites. There are very few organizations doing deep investigations these days. Anything deep is being done by individuals and sadly they are easily picked off by the police state.
- peterwwillis 13y ago
DanBC 13y ago
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.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- CatMtKing 13y ago
  Time for you to write that book on encrypted journalism.
- mafribe 13y ago
  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 13y ago
    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 13y ago
      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 13y ago
        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."
alistair77 13y ago
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.
alex_doom 13y ago
Jesus. He would have gotten less prison time if he'd chopped off some random head.
myoffe 13y ago
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.
buenavista 13y ago
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 13y ago
  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.
Confusion 13y ago
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 13y ago
  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 13y ago
    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 13y ago
      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 13y ago
        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 13y ago
fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
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.
ajays 13y ago
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-prosecuted-sidewalk-chalk/ http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/jun/26/activist-prosecut...
- dwaltrip 13y ago
  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 13y ago
    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.
  - ajays 13y ago
    1. It's just chalk. Children all over the country grew up drawing with chalk on sidewalks, etc. 2. Paint-based (and hence, more permanent) graffiti is a real problem in big cities. But till date I have not heard of a single case where the vandal was threatened with 13 years of jail. It would be interesting to see the track record of this city attorney, and how often s/he has prosecuted _real_ vandals.
DanielBMarkham 13y ago
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.
- clavalle 13y ago
  >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) It is quite relevant that all of the players running these governmental departments, companies and quasi-governmental entities (In-Q-tel) all know each other well and seem to be doing each other favors. >"...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. Sure, you are free to speak as a private citizen but the government should not be allowed to quell citizen's political speech through their own governmental mechanisms (including intimidation) or through private agents under their employ. That is the heart of the right to free speech. They should also not quell legitimate journalism through these mechanisms as that tramples all of the right to free press. >Those guys talking about the options to do some kind of crazy op isn't a scandal, it's their job. Fair enough. But it is troubling that these guys are paid to know what is feasible from an operational standpoint and they are suggesting illegal assassinations. Therefore, they must have reason to believe that illegal assassinations are feasible. That is disturbing. >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. I think it is valid to say that the government has been shown to be willing to engage in unsavory activity and, by the way, here is some more. >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. But somebody sets up the system. Systems do not form in a vacuum. And, if the system becomes corrupted over time, it is our duty as citizens in a democracy to suss that out and eliminate it. Beyond that, it is our duty to figure out what allowed the corruption in the first place and at least try to make sure it cannot happen again.
shanelja 13y ago
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.
dobbsbob 13y ago
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.
calhoun137 13y ago
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-barrett-browns-legal-defense-fund/ http://frontburner.dmagazine.com/2013/04/18/feds-seize-barre...
- thatthatis 13y ago
  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 13y ago
    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.
flyinRyan 13y ago
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 13y ago
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?

643 points by dlss 13y ago

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!

cinquemb 13y ago

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://wiki.echelon2.org/wiki/Endgame_Systems https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http:/... [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-obama-said-on-nsa-controversy/ http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/06/07/transcript-what-oba...

whyleyc 13y ago
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
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
flyinRyan 13y ago
It's pretty clear at this point that any appearance of "rule of law" in the US is just an illusion. One instance of being in the wrong place at the wrong time, pissing off the wrong person and that illusion will be blown away for you and possibly your family.

DinooD 13y ago

Thank you for sharing this. Absolutely stunning.

sillysaurus 13y ago

“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 13y ago
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]
- ferdo 13y ago
  Exactly. Our speech is criminalized but their actions aren't. The head of the NSA can lie to Congress with impunity and nothing happens to him. Let any of us try that and see what happens.
- dlss 13y ago
  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-corruption.pdf http://www.patc.com/weeklyarticles/print/noble-cause-corrupt... 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."
- 13y ago

siddboots 13y ago

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 13y ago
Yes, this is what I'm curious about. Is there anyone still looking into the stratfor info?
- d23 13y ago
  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.

danboarder 13y ago

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 13y ago
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 13y ago
  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_in_the_United_States#Federal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_punishments_for_murder_...

zeroDivisible 13y ago

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.

socillion 13y ago

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-Indictment http://www.scribd.com/doc/121967213/Barrett-Brown-1-23-13-In... As mentioned in the article, his mother pled guilty to helping him hide the laptops. http://www.scribd.com/doc/132408951/Karen-McCutchin-Plea-Agreement http://www.scribd.com/doc/132408951/Karen-McCutchin-Plea-Agr... * 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-226354-1-0 http://www.scribd.com/doc/115981886/Gov-uscourts-txnd-226354... 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

eliasmacpherson 13y ago
Article says there was 5 million emails and it was that which he pasted the link to, therein contained credit card info for 5k people. How would he have known to screen it for credit card no's? What were the credit card details doing in the emails? How did stratfor come in to possession of them, wikipedia says it has 70 employees? Was that possession legal?

anchovy 13y ago

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

jessaustin 13y ago
Much of their "analysis" relates to security.

lifeisstillgood 13y ago

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 13y ago
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 13y ago
  Thank you. History and reputation count in these things.

yoran 13y ago

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 13y ago
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 13y ago
  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.

mtgx 13y ago

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 13y ago
Doesn't the US constitution prohibit cruel and unusual punishments?
- kevingadd 13y ago
  Sure, but have fun spending 10-15 years tied up in court cases and appeals to try and prove it.
- AmVess 13y ago
  Punishments can be either cruel or unusual. They just cannot be both.
  - knowtheory 13y ago
    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?

Joeri 13y ago

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 13y ago
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. :)
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
  - kahirsch 13y ago
    > His car malfunctioned. It wasn't careless driving. Huh?
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
      - DanBC 13y ago
        You keep on saying 65 mph in a suburb as if that's surprising, but it really isn't. Many people jump red lights, and at speed, and in suburbs. Losing control after hitting a pothole could easily happen if the driver is intoxicated. I'm not saying this driver was intoxicated. I'd be interested to see the numbers of cars that crash because the driver is drunk or on drugs vs because the car is broken.
        deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
        13y ago

quackerhacker 13y ago

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 13y ago
"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.
- leot 13y ago
  Indeed. If any American find him/herself self-censoring for fear of America's security establishment, then they should conclude that America does not have freedom of speech.
- quackerhacker 13y ago
  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).

argumentum 13y ago

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 13y ago
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 13y ago
  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).
forgotAgain 13y ago
It's actually become much more difficult to be informed. Print media's collapse in revenue has cut their investigative abilities. Network broadcast media has lost resources as the networks have been bought out by larger corporations. What's left is mostly the echo chamber of the web and it's aggregation sites. There are very few organizations doing deep investigations these days. Anything deep is being done by individuals and sadly they are easily picked off by the police state.
peterwwillis 13y ago

DanBC 13y ago

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.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
CatMtKing 13y ago
Time for you to write that book on encrypted journalism.
mafribe 13y ago
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 13y ago
  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 13y ago
    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 13y ago
      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."

alistair77 13y ago

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.

alex_doom 13y ago

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

myoffe 13y ago

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.

buenavista 13y ago

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 13y ago
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.

Confusion 13y ago

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 13y ago
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 13y ago
  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 13y ago
    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 13y ago
      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 13y ago

fnordfnordfnord 13y ago

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.

ajays 13y ago

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-prosecuted-sidewalk-chalk/ http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/jun/26/activist-prosecut...

dwaltrip 13y ago
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 13y ago
  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.
- ajays 13y ago
  1. It's just chalk. Children all over the country grew up drawing with chalk on sidewalks, etc. 2. Paint-based (and hence, more permanent) graffiti is a real problem in big cities. But till date I have not heard of a single case where the vandal was threatened with 13 years of jail. It would be interesting to see the track record of this city attorney, and how often s/he has prosecuted _real_ vandals.

DanielBMarkham 13y ago

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.

clavalle 13y ago
>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) It is quite relevant that all of the players running these governmental departments, companies and quasi-governmental entities (In-Q-tel) all know each other well and seem to be doing each other favors. >"...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. Sure, you are free to speak as a private citizen but the government should not be allowed to quell citizen's political speech through their own governmental mechanisms (including intimidation) or through private agents under their employ. That is the heart of the right to free speech. They should also not quell legitimate journalism through these mechanisms as that tramples all of the right to free press. >Those guys talking about the options to do some kind of crazy op isn't a scandal, it's their job. Fair enough. But it is troubling that these guys are paid to know what is feasible from an operational standpoint and they are suggesting illegal assassinations. Therefore, they must have reason to believe that illegal assassinations are feasible. That is disturbing. >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. I think it is valid to say that the government has been shown to be willing to engage in unsavory activity and, by the way, here is some more. >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. But somebody sets up the system. Systems do not form in a vacuum. And, if the system becomes corrupted over time, it is our duty as citizens in a democracy to suss that out and eliminate it. Beyond that, it is our duty to figure out what allowed the corruption in the first place and at least try to make sure it cannot happen again.

shanelja 13y ago

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.

dobbsbob 13y ago

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.

calhoun137 13y ago

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-barrett-browns-legal-defense-fund/ http://frontburner.dmagazine.com/2013/04/18/feds-seize-barre...

thatthatis 13y ago
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 13y ago
  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.

flyinRyan 13y ago

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 13y ago

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?