The Obama Administration vs A Free Press

[Crazed Rabbit]

A journalist investigating the links between government surveillance and private security firms is facing 100 years in prison - for linking to documents Anonymous hacked that included credit card numbers. Yay hope and change and transparency. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/21/barrett-brown-persecution-anonymous)


But the pending federal prosecution of 31-year-old Barrett Brown poses all new troubling risks. That's because Brown - who has been imprisoned since September on a 17-count indictment that could result in many years in prison - is a serious journalist who has spent the last several years doggedly investigating the shadowy and highly secretive underworld of private intelligence and defense contractors, who work hand-in-hand with the agencies of the Surveillance and National Security State in all sorts of ways that remain completely unknown to the public. It is virtually impossible to conclude that the obscenely excessive prosecution he now faces is unrelated to that journalism and his related activism.

...

But the work central to his prosecution began in 2009, when Brown created Project PM, "dedicated to investigating private government contractors working in the secretive fields of cybersecurity, intelligence and surveillance." Brown was then moved by the 2010 disclosures by WikiLeaks and the oppressive treatment of Bradley Manning to devote himself to online activism and transparency projects, including working with the hacktivist collective Anonymous.

...

In December, the DOJ filed a second indictment, which is now the heart of the government's case against him. It alleged that he "trafficked" in stolen goods, namely the Stratfor documents leaked by Anonymous and published by WikiLeaks. The indictment focuses on one small part of the leak: a list of Straftor clients and their credit card numbers. Critically, the indictment does not allege that Brown participated in the hack or in obtaining any of those documents.

Instead, it simply alleges that he helped "disseminate" the stolen information. He did that, claims the DOJ, when he was in a chat room and posted a link to those documents that were online. As the harsh Anonymous critic Adrian Chen of Gawker wrote:



"Is it a crime for someone simply to share a link to stolen information? That seems to be the message conveyed by today's indictment of former Anonymous spokesman Barrett Brown, over a massive hack of the private security firm Stratfor. Brown's in legal trouble for copying and pasting a link from one chat room to another. This is scary to anyone who ever links to anything . . . .

"This charge does not allege Brown actually had the credit card numbers on his computer or even created the link: He just allegedly copied a link to a publicly-accessible file with the numbers from one chat room and pasted it into another. . . . As a journalist who covers hackers and has 'transferred and posted' many links to data stolen by hackers - in order to put them in stories about the hacks - this indictment is frightening because it seems to criminalize linking."

...

The US government's serial prosecutorial excesses aimed at internet freedom activists, journalists, whistleblowers and the like are designed to crush meaningful efforts to challenge their power and conduct. It is, I believe, incumbent on everyone who believes in those values to do what they can to support those who are taking real risks in defense of those freedoms and in pursuit of real transparency. Barrett Brown is definitely such a person, and enabling him to resist these attacks is of vital importance.

Some more information on this story: http://whowhatwhy.com/2013/02/21/the-saga-of-barrett-brown/

CR

[Sarmatian]

Under the exact same principle were owners of Pirate Bay prosecuted. They didn't host the content, they didn't upload it or provide it, they simply shared the links to something publicly accessible.

Just because something is publicly accessible, doesn't mean it's legal.

[Greyblades]

And just because it is illegal doesn't make the punishment right.

[Sarmatian]

And just because it is illegal doesn't make the punishment right.

Naturally, punishment should fit the crime.

[HoreTore]

I die a little on the inside everytime I see the phrase "internet freedom activists".

[johnhughthom]

I don't care how they regulate the internet, so long as they don't touch the pron. If they go after that, I'm joining the IFAs.

[HoreTore]

I don't care how they regulate the internet, so long as they don't touch the pron. If they go after that, I'm joining the IFAs.

They can make all the legislation they want to. Ban everything, I don't care.

The only effect it will have on reality is to make some hipsters enter rage-mode. And I think that's good enough reason to ban the internet.

[Husar]

I wish we had Bush back, he would surely provide more freedoms and he obviously abolished the laws that made this punishment possible before Obama the socialist nazi reinstated them. :no:

[Tellos Athenaios]

I don't care how they regulate the internet, so long as they don't touch the pron. If they go after that, I'm joining the IFAs.

Touching the pron is the favourite past time of Anglo-Saxon regulators all over the world. There are children to think of and there is incoherent railing against social evils to be done whilst waving the law & ban sticks.

[johnhughthom]

They like to talk about it, but don't actually do anything. We all know they are going straight home for a Pete Townshend style 'investigation' after the press conference.

[Xiahou]

I wish we had Bush back, he would surely provide more freedoms and he obviously abolished the laws that made this punishment possible before Obama the socialist nazi reinstated them. :no:Or rather, people would have roundly criticized Bush for doing the same thing. I look forward to having a Republican president if for no other reason than that liberals won't have any hesitation to criticize what he does.

[Husar]

Or rather, people would have roundly criticized Bush for doing the same thing. I look forward to having a Republican president if for no other reason than that liberals won't have any hesitation to criticize what he does.

Actually I prefer Bill Clinton over Obama. When Bill was president I was a huge fan of America, it went downhill after 9/11 and Obama could never fully reestablish my trust. Drones, the continuing existance of gitmo and so on do not speak too well for him. It's just funny how republicans make him look even worse than he is, then again they do the same with poor Kim Jong Un.

[Major Robert Dump]

You crossed the line, Husar. Kim Jong threatened Guam directly, which is a direct threat to not only me, but to all members of The Org and my future resto bar, Cheap Food and Quality Wool.


I like how he is the most closed administration to the press since Nixon, even having "transparency meetings" with no press present, yet puppet mouthpiece press secretary talks about how they are the most open administration in history, which is a bold faced lie that the sheeple eat up hook, line and sinker.

I like how he stifles FOI yet the press sucky sucky cuz Republican so yucky yucky

I like how all the stuff he is doing regarding drones, detainees, national security, DHS etc was all cool with many Republicans and Democrat knee jerkers when GWB was doing it. From listening to Fox and Rush, the TSA was invented by Obama. Who knew???????????????

And I'm still trying to figure out who the DHS is going to war with.

[Lemur]

It's good that people are writing and making noise about cases such as this one. Prosecutorial overreach is a clear and present danger to activists of all stripes.

Although, skimming the materials, Barrett Brown did not button down his Scheiße to the degree you should when taking on the rich and powerful. If you're going to antagonize the national security establishment, you'd better not have leave any easy angles for them to take you out.

Creating a YouTube video in which you promise to "destroy" an FBI agent: Not smart. Ongoing substance abuse problem while you're irritating Federal agencies: Not great. Being closely associated with Anonymous and other gray-hat and black-hat hackers: Bloody chum in shark-friendly waters.

So ... sympathies to Barrett Brown, and I hope the media attention brings a dose of sanity to his prosecutors. But seriously, don't bring a knife to a gunfight.

[Major Robert Dump]

Somebody should have also told that to Bob Woodward. Oh, how the winds change when the glove is on the other foot

[Lemur]

Somebody should have also told that to Bob Woodward. Oh, how the winds change when the glove is on the other foot
No lo comprendo. Woodward was a young journalist with the full backing of what was (in 1972) a very powerful newspaper when he helped break the Watergate scandal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal#Role_of_the_media). And even given this protection, there were some serious calls for his scalp.

Woodward was young, stupid, spitting in the eyes of powerful men ... and he had backup. And once he was in the crosshairs, he did not do anything notably stupid to give those powerful men leverage to destroy him. These seem like critical differences.

[Note that in his later career, Woodward became the leading expert at sucking up to powerful men. His access to the Clinton, Bush, and Obama admins was based on stupendous acts of bootlicking. There's a lesson in there, somewhere.]

[Major Robert Dump]

I was referring to Woodward of today, and his riling of the current administration. After seeing how the White House and SOS staff responded to the diary/journal in Libya, I would have thought that Woodward would know that the WH doesn't give a hoot who he is or what he's done. Hell, half of the young whipper snappers on the WH staff probably don't even know who he is.

although, to be fair, he is not facing threat of prison

[Lemur]

I was referring to Woodward of today, and his riling of the current administration.
What, the "email threat" thing that kept the rightwing media in business for a couple of weeks? That was debunked. By an intrepid reporter named Bob Woodward (http://thehill.com/video/in-the-news/285657-woodward-on-white-house-email-i-never-said-it-was-a-threat). Or maybe you're referencing something else.

Woodward has done with BHO exactly what he did with GWB: flatter the president (http://www.amazon.com/Bush-at-War-Bob-Woodward/dp/B000C4SSQW) in the first term, then attack him (http://www.amazon.com/State-Denial-Bush-War-Part/dp/B00164CN0Y) in the second term. I can't imagine anyone with a functioning brain is surprised.

[Greyblades]

I like how he is the most closed administration to the press since Nixon, even having "transparency meetings" with no press present, yet puppet mouthpiece press secretary talks about how they are the most open administration in history, which is a bold faced lie that the sheeple eat up hook, line and sinker.

I like how he stifles FOI yet the press sucky sucky cuz Republican so yucky yucky

I like how all the stuff he is doing regarding drones, detainees, national security, DHS etc was all cool with many Republicans and Democrat knee jerkers when GWB was doing it. From listening to Fox and Rush, the TSA was invented by Obama. Who knew???????????????


I like how taking everything into consideration he's still infinitely preferable to the republican alternative.

[Major Robert Dump]

I knew about the threat being exaggerated. However, the administration is thin-skinned as are some of its fan bois in the press, and before Woody had a chance to explain himself he had the republicans using him as a source, a martyr, a democrat version of what happened to Chris Christie.... and more than a few meanie weanie comments were made by the left directed at Woodward, some of them downright hateful. I still am not sure if Woody played his editors or if his editors played him

They may be now poking fun of the incident at the WH dinners and such, but all sides got pretty riled up for a few days, and I find it hard to believe that "former staffers" and other publications in regular contact with WH staffers did not have a blessing to go on the offensive. At the least, I doubt they were discouraged from doing so

In all, though, the comment about Woodward was tongue in cheek, I know it is nothing in comparison to what is happening in the OP. I was just getting all uppity about this transparency thing, and how the emporers crew gets mad when you point out he is naked. But when Bob Woodward commits suicide by shooting himself in the back of the head, don't say I didn't warn you

curse words:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IONyLZn0pLI

[Major Robert Dump]

I like how taking everything into consideration he's still infinitely preferable to the republican alternative.

Never said he wasn't, but then I've never been one to gloss over something I don't like just because he is "my guy." In fact, I cannot stand him. Romney, however, was a Mormon version of Bush and I prefer not to pursue that avenue again. Ever.

[Sarmatian]

I'm of a mind that it's all functionally Bush from here on out. Take away the divisive social issues (made worse by a Media that benefits from them) and the parties are identical. Big government, big business, big defense contracts, lots of foreign intervention. The only difference between the two parties is which target audience they play to. The two party system is a very successful commercial enterprise in that respect.

I'm not much for tin foil hats, but when you follow the money and try to ignore the noise the system sure looks bogus. The end result of a system that rewards people with the qualities of snake oil salesmen with leadership positions is (surprise) probably a ponzi scheme..

Chomsky described it best when he said that America has a single party system - only one party exists, the Business Party, with two factions, Democrats and Republicans.