8 ms·

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://ww

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?
- socillion 13y ago
  The release was announced here: http://pastebin.com/f7jYf5Wd http://pastebin.com/f7jYf5Wd See also: http://venturebeat.com/2011/12/30/stratfor-data-dump/ http://venturebeat.com/2011/12/30/stratfor-data-dump/ "It's time to dump the full 75,000 names, addresses, CCs and md5 hashed passwords to every customer that has ever paid Stratfor." That is followed by a request for other people to make use of that credit card information. I don't know enough to make a judgement on whether he can be expected to have known that the data dump contained credit card information.
  - eliasmacpherson 13y ago
    So he was not the one that actually released it then. A forbidden URL, he really is being charged for copying and pasting it. Bizarre language, "caused the data to be made available to other persons online". The indictment has the hyperlink in it itself, I would imagine the indictment has been read by more people than were in the IRC channel. Seems hypocritical to me.
- dantheman 13y ago
  It was stratfor subscriber information that contained billing information.
clarkm 13y ago
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 13y ago
  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-brown-anonymous-pr-federal-target http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/mar/20/barrett-bro...
  - clarkm 13y ago
    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_brown_finally_gets_v_for_being_an_ugly/c67vjz8 http://www.reddit.com/r/anonymous/comments/zt41f/barrett_bro... [2] http://wearelegionthedocumentary.com/ http://wearelegionthedocumentary.com/

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?

socillion 13y ago
The release was announced here: http://pastebin.com/f7jYf5Wd http://pastebin.com/f7jYf5Wd See also: http://venturebeat.com/2011/12/30/stratfor-data-dump/ http://venturebeat.com/2011/12/30/stratfor-data-dump/ "It's time to dump the full 75,000 names, addresses, CCs and md5 hashed passwords to every customer that has ever paid Stratfor." That is followed by a request for other people to make use of that credit card information. I don't know enough to make a judgement on whether he can be expected to have known that the data dump contained credit card information.
- eliasmacpherson 13y ago
  So he was not the one that actually released it then. A forbidden URL, he really is being charged for copying and pasting it. Bizarre language, "caused the data to be made available to other persons online". The indictment has the hyperlink in it itself, I would imagine the indictment has been read by more people than were in the IRC channel. Seems hypocritical to me.
dantheman 13y ago
It was stratfor subscriber information that contained billing information.

clarkm 13y ago

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 13y ago
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-brown-anonymous-pr-federal-target http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/mar/20/barrett-bro...
- clarkm 13y ago
  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_brown_finally_gets_v_for_being_an_ugly/c67vjz8 http://www.reddit.com/r/anonymous/comments/zt41f/barrett_bro... [2] http://wearelegionthedocumentary.com/ http://wearelegionthedocumentary.com/