Discussion in 'News and Current Events' started by Consensus, Mar 8, 2011.
i guess he'll get some. From Anon or not.
Faggotry yes, but this guy certainly thinks he is the face of anon. The buttwipe logs into anonops IRC using his real name and chats with no discretion. He fancies himself a journalist, but appears to be more of an attention whore. Anons often eat their own. I do not see this ending well.
He needs to remember that none of us speak for all of us.
Needz officail Anonymous press release saying Barett Brown is not a leader of Anonymous. Our leader is Wu Kapauw. Then let the media figure out who Wu Kapauw is.
I think I smell lulz in the water...
None of us speak for all of us, sure. But therein lies the rub of Anonymous... he can tell them that he's a leader, they can broadcast that he's a leader, everyone who watches will think he's a leader because they don't understand that fundamental "leaderless" concept we've got going on.
IMHO, he came off like a whiny baby with an inferiority complex and a chip on his shoulder. Something about the whole thing felt, well, phony.
The beauty of all this (from his point of view) is that none of what he claimed is verifiable by the media. He got his 15 minutes of fame at virtually no cost. The idiot reporters just took his word for it. My respect for so-called "journalists" just took another hit.
No cost? He just stuck his penis in the hornet's nest. Two, really. You don't honestly think he's not gonna get cavity-searched by the feds after this?
Don't think he is. Fairly high profile, and despite what we would all like to think the Feds aren't stupid - they know plenty about Anonymous, far far more than he told NBC. They'll see this as just another bit of self promotion on the part of a jobbing journalist who has a large ego but, I am led to believe, didn't claim to be any kind of leader.
NBC were basically after a story so looked for someone who openly talks about Anon and looks a bit like JA. Result: we're all talking about it.
Joined Newsweek magazine as an investigative correspondent in June, 1994
Isikoff had been prepared to break the Monica Lewinsky scandal...
His book on the subject, Uncovering Clinton: A Reporter’s Story,...
...perhaps he should go back to investigating blowjobs...
He admitted he was not Anonymous because he namefagged and facefagged himself. Just going by what the moron said.
I think we all know how, because we've seen it before. Discussing it may run afowl (yes, I did go there, and I know the pun sucks) of the rules against promoting illegal activity. As for me, I hope he gets the Hal Turner treatment.
What's the difference between an onion and an accordion? Nobody cries when you cut an accordion in half.
Am I off topic?
1. You're right, the feds aren't stupid. Sometimes slower than you'd like? Yeah. Stupid? No.
2. They know quite a bit about Anonymous, including the good stuff. (As I said - they're not stupid.) Some of us talk and meet with them on a regular basis (related to other things), and promote the good whenever we can fit it in. (Don't piss and moan about my choice of words. It's the easiest way to describe it. I hope you understand what I am trying to say when I use the words "good" or "good stuff".) They actually, from my personal experience, understand the part about the need to stay anonymous as it relates to getting fair gamed, whether by the cult, by other anons, etc. They also understand the leaderless concept.
3. Don't be too sure that they'll see this as self-promotion. Go back to the Forbes article, where he lists the Department of Defense Press Secretary as a target and says the op will dox the guy, among others, and gives the US government one week to meet the demands. Stating that Anonymous is in the "ruining lives" business and that "business is good" is also not smart. He says that he expects to go to prison - that's like painting a target on himself and saying "bring it" to the feds. Playing the martyr card?
4. This wasn't an NBC thing. Did they bite? Yeah, but he was bragging about this shit before he even met with them. Google is your friend.
5. If you're not breaking laws, don't worry. If you are, you might want to reconsider what consequences you're willing to face. It's got to be a personal choice for each individual, obviously.
Goddamn Miscaviges everywhere
More marblecake from the interviewee. I thought nobody represents Anonymous.
I'm going to write "I R teh leaderr" on my "My name is..." tag for our protest this weekend.
Your move Mr. Brown.
I know several people are gay on these forums, but this Barrett Brown guy is a really stupid faggot, and that's true regardless of his or her sexual orientation. What? He looks a little androgynous to me. Glad he smokes. Lung cancer couldn't happen to a nicer fellow.
I am starting to cool to him...
BARRET BROWN geting attention, where his is gay ass.
Not any more.
Just got my daily security news. A certain person possibly named Barrett need to STFU. Sheesh.
The Pentagon asked for an investigation yesterday (March 8) into the online “hacktivist” group Anonymous after at least one member of the group threatened to harass military officials in charge of the imprisonment of Army Pvt. Bradley Manning, according to news reports.
Last night, that member, occasional Anonymous spokesman Barrett Brown, gave an to NBC News, vowing a “guerrilla cyberwar” against the U.S. government, major corporations and other targets
I've been needling him on Twitter..letting him know what a twit he is. ;-)
One redeeming line in the article:
Yet Anonymous has no official spokesmen and no leaders, and it’s not clear — even to him — whether Brown has been speaking for anyone other than himself.
i called them told them LRN is our leader without him none of this would be possible lol.
Barrett Brown December 17, 2010 at 12:21 pm
"I don’t think this is a very accurate description of what is going on. For one thing, Anonymous and particularly the faction with which I am working, which I’ll term the Chanology faction for convenience, was responsible for one of the most extensive, global, and effective protest actions in history. On one day alone in 2008 when this project begain, participants protested in front of Scientology centers in 100 different cities across the globe."
I kinda feel like we need more 'spokespersons', not fewer. Gregg, Barrett and Coldblood have all stepped up, and all drawn ire for doing so. A proliferation of people speaking as anons, offering insights into Anonymous (that the press and governments lack), and speaking only for themselves - and any person that shares their viewpoint - would go a long way towards achieving our (undefined) goals.
From my perspective, the goal is simply to afford the 'cognitive surplus' (as defined by Clay Shirky) a greater degree of influence in public and private policy.
edit - seriously guys, I've done a couple press interviews (without putting my name on them), if I started using my 'IRL' name, would you come down on me like this? Barrett may make mistakes, but he's far from our 'enemy.' There's a difference between CLAIMING self-importance (in words alone) and actually exhibiting unwarranted self-importance. He's not demanding obedience or claiming any authority. We need MORE people stepping up and expressing what they've learned through participation in Anonymous, so that the strongest ideas might rise to the top. The fewer people doing what Barrett does, the weaker the quality of writing the press will offer.
Barrett Brown December 17, 2010 at 3:22 pm
I’ve lived in Tanzania, various cities in Texas, New York, Los Angeles, and several different Mexican states, while also having spent some time in other countries and locales. I have worked as a journalist in most of those places and in other capacities in others. I am the author of two books so far and am cited in several others. I have written for dozens of publications. I have worked in politics. I have been discussed in at least one sermon at a major Episcopal church. I have founded and continue to run an organization with ties to a dozen others as well as over 100 members of its own including prominent scientists, journalists, authors, activists, war veterans, and producers. The idea that I have not seen the world and experienced it to its fullest is ludicrous, particularly since you know almost nothing about me.
[COMMENT REDACTED - EDK]
RTod December 17, 2010 at 4:15 pm
[REDACTED - EDK]
How do you know these things?
20 Barrett Brown December 17, 2010 at 4:24 pm
I am resourceful. Not that I would have to be to glean the information that I did, but suffice to say that I am not going to reveal my methods because someone else might be inclined to reveal actual identifying information about the fellow, whereas I am not going to do that because Scott has done nothing to warrant any such response yet and also out of respect for my hosts here at The League.
21 RTod December 17, 2010 at 4:29 pm
Let me get this straight – folks from the League use our email addresses or whatever they glean off us here to do research on us and post things that hint that you know all about us and our little lives, but may or may not be willing to REALLY spill the big nasties on this site?
This just months after asking us to electronically help fund the site (which a bunch of us did)?
Are you fucking serious?
we most certainly are.
and let's not forget the wrath of Anon.
edit: i'm enjoying the thought of him getting raep'd by bubba, the big huge cock inmate he's going to share his cell with
I can see that there might be times when an interview could be beneficial, when say, a story on Scientology or Middle East etc. crops up, and defining a 'common' position would help, but the interviewees who seem to struggle most in my opinion are those who get drawn into explaining the nature of Anonymous by the obviously curious journalist. This is usually always going to be a component of any mainstream interview I'm sure, but if from the outset it looks that way, I don't see any value in it. I don't hate, or even strongly disagree with those who have appeared in tv/radio/press interviews, but I am often left with the feeling, 'Why did they bother?'. No-one ever seems to be super-satisfied with the outcome either. The lack of time on TV especially means you're always going to get edited down to a caricature; one which you like or not. Apart from specific issues on a case to case basis, I don't see the reason for any interviews. The media can look online and make their own little story up and it probably won't be much different from the ones they release now, but at least they won't have an IRL neck to hang it round and give their claims credibility.
OK Garry with 2 rs. That made me LOL!
In the context of the present moment making threats against the US government and attaching them to Anonymous, no matter how vague or 'virtual', would appear to me to be an exhibition of unwarranted self-importance. If you don't believe that words have power how come you use so many? Just sayin.
It's one thing when someone that at least some of us know steps forward.
It's something else entirely when someone unknown steps forward and not only facefags himself but also says a bunch of inaccurate shit.
By the way, anything any of us say is going to be inaccurate because the only uniting principle we have is... really... anonymity.
The faggotry continues.
Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!