Comment by socillion | Hacker News Reader

Comment by socillion | Hacker News Reader

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

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

http://www.scribd.com/doc/121967213/Barrett-Brown-1-23-13-In...

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

http://www.scribd.com/doc/132408951/Karen-McCutchin-Plea-Agr...

* 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...

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/

2. http://pastebin.com/QNuXwRTn

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.

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

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

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

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

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

[1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/mar/20/barrett-bro...

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

[2] http://www.reddit.com/r/anonymous/comments/zt41f/barrett_bro...

[2] http://wearelegionthedocumentary.com/

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

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

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

-- Edit --

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

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

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

I wouldn't have known that and didn't have time to click the link.

So being interested in a particular group, collecting data on them and reporting on that makes someone the public face of that group and a leader?

Sounds like using that criteria is a good way of accusing independent journalists of guilt by association.

Barrett Brown did a lot more than that in Anonymous.

Anonymous is like a mosh pit. It is a swirl of activity by different actors that come together in a very loose way with very little organization but that brief shared purpose.

Brown may have joined the fray when certain songs came on and maybe influenced the dynamic of the activity for a little while, but it seems like he was mostly on the edge looking in. But it is absurd to call him a leader in the same way it is absurd to say someone 'leads' a mosh pit.

HBGary got pulled into the pit and some blood was splattered on Brown. That doesn't make him guilty of assault just by being able to accurately describe the activity that led to HBGary's broken nose and pointing out the blood stains to the media after the fact.

From the number of conversations I've had with folks, Barrett Brown has never garnered much respect from any party. Anons in particular view him as a hack that is, at best, only semi-informed on the topics he takes on. He's known as a borderline-schizophrenic, self destructive drama queen that was bound to get partyvan'd eventually.

Guy was still fighting for what he believed in, and most certainly doesn't deserve even 1/10th of the sentence he's being threatened with.

This was my impression of him as well. I always thought he performed a uniquely valuable service both to anon and to those of us outside anon (and the media etc.).

It's sad to hear what all has happened to him. The way they treated his mother is especially shameful. Really this is just a very upsetting piece in general.

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?

The release was announced here: http://pastebin.com/f7jYf5Wd

See also: 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.

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.

It was stratfor subscriber information that contained billing information.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com