PDA

View Full Version : BARRETT BROWN: political prisoner of the information revolution




presence
07-18-2013, 09:10 PM
http://25.media.tumblr.com/bed3c2dd659989857ff1b06aed2b916a/tumblr_mhjxqi2fPx1qzikspo1_500.jpg
Barrett Brown














Barrett Brown
Barrett Brown
Barrett Brown


Remember that name.







































Barrett Brown, political prisoner of the information revolution

If the US government succeeds in criminalising Brown's posting of a hyperlink,
the freedom of all internet users is in jeopardy








Kevin M Gallagher (http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/kevin-m-gallagher)
guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/), Saturday 13 July 2013 08.00 EDT







http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/6/21/1371850814595/barrettbrown_460x276.jpg

The journalist Barrett Brown, now awaiting trial on charges carrying a possible 105-year prison term. Photograph: Nikki Loehr
(http://nikkiloehr.com/)

(http://nikkiloehr.com/)


When I first noticed Barrett Brown (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrett_Brown) in early 2011, I never thought that two years later I'd be directing Free Barrett Brown (http://freebarrettbrown.org/). Intrigued by his irreverence, I became familiar with his work, admiring him for his skill as a writer. I spoke to him briefly on IRC (internet (http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/internet) relay chat) and occasionally dropped into the same channels he frequented; later I met him in person at a conference in New York City. But it's the US government's behavior in this and other cases – see also, Manning, Hammond, Swartz, Assange, etc – that have made running his legal defense fund a labor of love for me.


The distributed research project Brown founded, Project PM (http://wiki.echelon2.org/wiki/Main_Page), is important and necessary. Since 9/11, the intelligence and cyber-security contracting industries have exploded in size. I believe, as Barrett does, that the public/private partnership on surveillance constitutes a threat to civil transparency and the health of democratic institutions. Large and very profitable companies like Booz Allen Hamilton obtain most of their revenues from the federal government; yet, the majority of their work is performed in secrecy.

Barrett had the insight to realize early on that the troves of emails that were hacked by Anonymous (http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/anonymous) out of HBGary Federal and Stratfor and subsequently made public had the potential to provide a rare window into the activities of the cyber-intelligence industry. I believe it was this journalistic work of digging into areas that powerful people would rather keep in the dark that made him a target.


Contrary to claims, Brown is not a hacker (he is unabashedly lacking in technical skills). Nor was he a spokesperson for Anonymous (the very idea is ridiculous). He is an iconoclastic writer with a penchant for satire and hyperbole. He became an activist by observing the media's failure to cover the issues or stories that he deemed important. Some of his proudest work was the assistance rendered by Anonymous to citizens in North Africa during the first months of the Arab Spring.


As an information activist who understands how information can be distributed and have an impact, Brown was extremely skilled and media-savvy. With Anonymous, he fulfilled a function that was necessary, and which few others were willing to do: put a public face to a movement for transparency. He was highly effective – and that's why he's being punished so severely.


The fact that he's now facing a possible maximum of 105 years in prison is distressing, but it's indicative of the larger pattern: an out-of-touch government at war with the press, prosecuting whistleblowers and activists, trying to silence dissent. Brown's work has been interrupted, but many of the things he warned about – mass surveillance of journalists, the threat to privacy presented by intelligence contractors, have turned out to be correct. He has been hugely vindicated – and public support for him is growing.

Overzealous and excessive prosecutions like Brown's use flawed tactics, without focusing on the facts or the merits, and are in reality persecutions. They have invented crimes out of thin air, piling charge on charge; and they have extracted a guilty plea from a family member. In April, they went on a fishing expedition against the Project PM website, with a subpoena intended to identify other activists. They also tried, but failed, to seize $20,000 that my organization had raised for Barrett's legal defense.


Brown was arrested during a heavily-armed FBI raid for, allegedly, making threats in YouTube videos and via tweets. The fact that the same FBI agent who is an alleged "victim" in the case continues to be the one doing the investigative casework and serving subpoenas is a clear conflict of interest.


The government also argues that because Brown copied a hyperlink to data from the Stratfor dump from one chatroom to another, he's guilty on numerous counts of identity theft and fraud. This is not just totally absurd, it threatens the rights of internet users worldwide, not to mention reporters who link to primary source documents.


The potential criminalization of linking – a basic function of hypertext, the foundation of the worldwide web – is an affront to us all and must be resisted. With the obstruction charges, prosecutors want to set a precedent whereby a journalist is not allowed to protect his work and his sources from government agents – the essence of reporter's privilege.


Those things that Barrett helped uncover and shed light on while he was a free man are notable in themselves: the capability termed persona management, which "entails the use of software by which to facilitate the use of multiple fake online personas, or 'sockpuppets', generally for the use of propaganda, disinformation, or as a surveillance method by which to discover details of a human target via social interactions"; an initiative called Team Themis proposing to infiltrate, attack and discredit WikiLeaks, its supporters, and established journalists such as Glenn Greenwald; and Romas/COIN, a massive program of disinformation and surveillance aimed at Arab countries.


We are at a crossroads, and the US government seeks to deter and make examples out of those who work for a better world and reveal uncomfortable truths. But it's too late: information and the internet will be free, and so will its heroes. Barrett Brown is a political prisoner of the information revolution, and he deserves our support.





see also:


Thread: Court seizes legal defense fund of activist who told Greenwald didn't want to b informant (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?411780-Court-seizes-legal-defense-fund-of-activist-who-told-Greenwald-didn-t-want-to-b-informant)
Thread: Indicted on Federal Charges for Posting a PUBLIC HYPERLINK (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?397912-Indicted-on-Federal-Charges-for-Posting-a-PUBLIC-HYPERLINK)

Peace Piper
07-18-2013, 11:38 PM
The persecution of Barrett Brown - and how to fight it

Glenn Greenwald guardian.co.uk, Thursday 21 March 2013

The journalist and Anonymous activist is targeted as part of a broad effort to deter and punish internet freedom activism

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/3/21/1363863149573/brown.png

Aaron's Swartz's suicide in January triggered waves of indignation, and rightly so. He faced multiple felony counts and years in prison for what were, at worst, trivial transgressions of law. But his prosecution revealed the excess of both anti-hacking criminal statutes, particularly the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), and the fixation of federal prosecutors on severely punishing all forms of activism that challenge the power of the government and related entities to control the flow of information on the internet. Part of what drove the intense reaction to Swartz's death was how sympathetic of a figure he was, but as noted by Orin Kerr, a former federal prosecutor in the DOJ's computer crimes unit and now a law professor at GWU, what was done to Swartz is anything but unusual, and the reaction to his death will be meaningful only if channeled to protest other similar cases of prosecutorial abuse:


"I think it's important to realize that what happened in the Swartz case happens in lots and lots of federal criminal cases. . . . What's unusual about the Swartz case is that it involved a highly charismatic defendant with very powerful friends in a position to object to these common practices. That's not to excuse what happened, but rather to direct the energy that is angry about what happened. If you want to end these tactics, don't just complain about the Swartz case. Don't just complain when the defendant happens to be a brilliant guy who went to Stanford and hangs out with Larry Lessig. Instead, complain that this is business as usual in federal criminal cases around the country - mostly with defendants who no one has ever heard of and who get locked up for years without anyone else much caring."

Prosecutorial abuse is a drastically under-discussed problem in general, but it poses unique political dangers when used to punish and deter online activism. But it's becoming the preeminent weapon used by the US government to destroy such activism.

Just this week alone, a US federal judge sentenced hactivist Andrew "Weev" Auernheimer to 3 1/2 years in prison for exploiting a flaw in AT&T's security system that allowed him entrance without any hacking, an act about which Slate's Justin Peters wrote: "it's not clear that Auernheimer committed any actual crime", while Jeff Blagdon at the Verge added: "he cracked no codes, stole no passwords, or in any way 'broke into' AT&T's customer database - something company representatives confirmed during testimony." But he had a long record of disruptive and sometimes even quite ugly (though legal) online antagonism, so he had to be severely punished with years in prison. Also this week, the DOJ indicted the deputy social media editor at Reuters, Matthew Keys, on three felony counts which carry a maximum penalty of 25 years in prison for allegedly providing some user names and passwords that allowed Anonymous unauthorized access into the computer system of the Los Angeles Times, where they altered a few stories and caused very minimal damage. As Peters wrote about that case, "the charges under the CFAA seem outrageously severe" and, about Keys' federal prosecutors, observed: "apparently, they didn't take away any lessons from the Aaron Swartz case."

MORE: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/21/barrett-brown-persecution-anonymous

Why FBI Agent Robert Smith Has Two Weeks To Send my Property Back, Part 1/3


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klvP1Xx6OH4

Published on Sep 11, 2012

See Echelon2.org for why I'm being raided, harassed, threatened, put at risk by law enforcement officers and private contractors. Echelon2.org is listed on my FBI search warrant which may be seen at Buzzfeed. Journalists with proven history of covering our ProjectPM and/or Anonymous operations may receive exclusives on certain materials being released over next several months by writing to barriticus@gmail.com (also a great way to get in touch with FBI, which no doubt reads my e-mails)