Hazel Press

LulzSec's FBI Asset and WikiLeaks

In Parmy Olson's (ex London bureau chief for Forbes Magazine) June 2012 book 'We Are Anonymous: Inside the Hacker World of LulzSec, Anonymous, and the Global Cyber Insurgency', she details an alleged meeting between Julian Assange and members of LulzSec. Olson's account of this online meeting is a fantasy, lifted by distortions, inaccuracies and imaginative opinion from the first paragraph:


How can Parmy Olson know that Assange was "chuckling to himself" on hearing of LulzSec's suicidal DDos protest of CIA.gov, which only disabled the website for a few minutes? Julian Assange is not accused of treason (that is Bradley Manning), he is being accused of espionage. Julian Assange is not charged with rape, he is wanted for questioning. That LulzSec had "skilful hackers on the team", who so "impressed" Assange that he felt compelled to contact them.


LulzSec, for the most part, relied on off-the-shelf software and had one or two semi-competent hackers. Jeremy Hammond (an adept hacker) is often reported as being part of LulzSec, however he only interacted with them during #Antisec and carried out the significant hacking of Stratfor (which was very likely undertaken by Hammond with the express intention of passing any gathered material to WikiLeaks) six months after LulzSec had disbanded. The HBGary hack on the 5th and 6th February 2011 unearthed content which was of interest to WikiLeaks (the Bank of America discussions with HBGary Federal regarding disrupting Wikileaks, among many instances), but wasn't passed to them (the HBGary hack was undertaken by the 'Internet Feds' - Sabu, Kayla, Topiary, tflow and pwnsauce, who would form LulzSec four months later). Not one single other action by LulzSec was of any interest, whatsoever, to either Julian Assange or WikiLeaks. What would the world's most famous ethical computer hacker - who codified ethical hacktivism - find of interest in LulzSec other than viewing their actions as almost entirely 'unhelpful' to the causes pursued by serious activists?


In Parmy Olson's account, a lack of technical understanding of the realities of security inhibits her from constructing a plausible scenario.


In a surreal passage, she states "[Topiary] asked for someone to post something from the WikiLeaks Twitter account. Assange did so, putting out something about Ebay, then deleting the post." Topiary remains sceptical and asks for further proof, "within five minutes, he [Julian Assange] pasted a link to YouTube into the IRC chat, and he said to look at it quickly. Topiary opened it and saw video footage of a laptop screen and the same IRC chat they were having, with the text moving up in real time. The camera then panned up to show a snowy-haired Julian Assange sitting directly opposite and staring into a white laptop, chin resting thoughtfully in his hands." Julian Assange employed the second computer worm (WANK) to attack NASA's computer system, an anti-nuclear protest that delayed the launch of the plutonium-carrying Galileo spacecraft. This was the "origin of hacktivism" conducted 22 years ago, before all but one of LulSzec had even been born. That he would create and delete WikiLeaks tweets, create and delete a YouTube live stream and reveal his identity on the insecure IRC platform to LulzSec is remarkably implausible.


Olson continues, stating that WikiLeaks asked LulzSec to hack Icelandic websites and servers in revenge for a WikiLeaks employee being arrested and through the release of files detailing government corruption help "instigate an uprising in Iceland". She then states that WikiLeaks asked Sabu to help them crack a file called RSA 128 which even MIT could not break.


Her interview of the LulzSec hacker Topiary (which is Olson's only stated source for the details of the WikiLeaks-LulzSec encounter) was conducted on the 16th of June, whilst Topiary was at the mercy of U.S. authorities, and it is used without mentioning this context or stating clearly how it might affect the validity of Topiary's account; it is biased and slanted journalism. To see Olson disregarding Topiary's plight and her willingness to use his coerced words to authoritatively underpin a version of the 'encounter', in a manner suggestive of a factual description of events, makes for difficult reading. The narrative continues for several pages in the vein seen above, before suddenly questioning everything preceding, by finally writing something credible - as speculation; "another possibility: the FBI was encouraging Sabu to reach out to Assange to help gather evidence on one of the most notorious offenders of classified government data in recent times. It seems probable that if Sabu had helped, for instance, extradite Assange to the United States, it would have improved his settlement dramatically." Five lines in one hundred and sixty are given to this sole caveat.


Parmy Olson has described the attempt by Sabu and the FBI to entrap Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. Despite deforming events, her writing cannot hide their obvious shape.


On the 29th November 2012 Assange, spoke to Democracy Now! about Stratfor Global Intelligence (formerly Strategic Forecasting, Inc.) and Jeremy Hammond. The section of the interview below explores one particular methodology being pursued by the FBI, the Pentagon and the U.S. Department of Justice to counter WikiLeaks, it also shows how Sabu's actions and entrapment attempt fitted into this approach.

Amy Goodman: Can you talk more about Jeremy Hammond, who is in prison here in New York City? Explain what Stratfor is; if you can, how you got the documents; or just explain what has taken place.


Julian Assange: Stratfor is a organization based in Texas. It has tried to model itself after some weird combination between doing private intelligence work, on the one hand, and covering that with an illusion of journalism by creating this thing called the Stratfor report, which has become very influential within - within the military and within government. It has a particular worldview, which the head of Stratfor, Friedman, admits to being a Kissingeresque realpolitik. And through stealing, bribing, gathering information in various ways, they’re able to influence U.S. policy and, more broadly, Western policy. Now, it’s done all the usual nasty stuff, like working for Coca-Cola, making reports on PETA, making reports on Bhopal activists and so on. But its greatest importance is its private influence into the decision making of different people throughout government.

But we have found through the Stratfor files, which this young activist Jeremy Hammond is accused of hacking out of Stratfor and giving to us - that actually the information or the sourcing for these reports is rather thin in many places or politically biased or is used to feed something that Stratfor set up called StratCap, which is a private capital investment company which takes the information that they’ve gained from bribery and uses it to make investments in, say, gold futures and so on. Whoever the source is of the Stratfor material deserves enormous credit. Story after story has come out from all around the world of - about material that Stratfor collected and didn’t publish or gave to their private clients.


Amy Goodman: And Julian, one of the emails that WikiLeaks released of Stratfor of the vice president said that there was a secret indictment against you by the secret grand jury that we believe is convened in Alexandria, Virginia, that is going after you and other WikiLeaks volunteers. Do you know any more about this information or any confirmation that there is this sealed indictment against you?


Julian Assange: There are some 3,000 emails in the Stratfor collection about me personally and many more thousands about WikiLeaks. The latest on the grand jury front is that the U.S. Department of Justice admits, as of two weeks ago, that the investigation is ongoing. On September 28th this year, the Pentagon renewed its formal threats against us in relation to ongoing publishing but also, extremely seriously, in relation to ongoing, what they call, solicitation. So, that asking sources publicly, "Send us important material, and we will publish it." They say that that itself is a crime. So this is not simply a case about - that we received some information back in 2010 and have been publishing it and they say that that was the crime; the Pentagon is maintaining a line that WikiLeaks inherently, as an institution that tells military and government whistleblowers to step forward with information, is a crime, that we are - they allege we are criminal, moving forward.

Now, the new interpretation of the Espionage Act that the Pentagon is trying to hammer in to the legal system, and which the Department of Justice is complicit in, would mean the end of national security journalism in the United States, and not only the United States, because the Pentagon is trying to apply this extraterritorially. Why would it be the end of national security journalism? Because the interpretation is that if any document that the U.S. government claims to be classified is given to a journalist, who then makes any part of it public, that journalist has committed espionage, and the person who gave them the material has committed the crime, communicating with the enemy. And we released other material about a young Air Force woman who was suspected of communicating with us, and they went to internally prosecute her under 104-D, which is communications with the enemy. The enemy is either WikiLeaks, formally an enemy of the United States, or the interpretation is that any time that there is a communication to the public - and we saw this in the Bradley Manning case - there is a chance for al-Qaeda or the Russians or Iran to read it; therefore, any communication to a journalist is communication to the public, is communication to al-Qaeda, which means that any communication to a journalist is communicating to the enemy.

Michael Ratner: There was an informant in Anonymous, apparently, named Sabu, who is somewhat well known, who actually set up this crime for Stratfor. The FBI gave him the computer that the Stratfor documents were actually uploaded to. There’s a pretty clear case of entrapment, in terms of trying to get Jeremy Hammond. And they may have even been trying to get our client, WikiLeaks, to do something with those documents that they (the FBI) could then make into something else.


Amy Goodman: So the government made the Stratfor documents available?


Michael Ratner: Right. That’s a very good way to say it, Amy. Yes. The answer is -


Amy Goodman: Was Stratfor aware of this?


Michael Ratner: That’s a good question. The government knew at some point - and we don’t understand this, or I don’t understand this - that there was access to the Stratfor emails and five million documents. They then gave Sabu a computer that all of those could be uploaded to. They’re put on that. And then, the FBI is in on this, and then they somehow allow them to go out to WikiLeaks, allegedly. So the government [was] following this - every step of the way. So, in some way, it’s like - I would hesitate to say typical entrapment cases we’re reading all the time about Muslims, but it is that. It seems to me that this is a government-made (enabled) crime.


Amy Goodman: Well, it’s as if they let the bomb blow up.


Michael Ratner: Right, exactly. This is a government-made crime. That’s correct. And Jeremy Hammond was considered one of the geniuses involved in - generally, in hacking, but in the Anonymous movement, and in particularly in the Stratfor emails.

6th March 2012, Jeremy Hammond indictment unsealed at the Lower Manhattan Federal District Court.




 17. Based on my participation in this investigation, including information provided by CW-1 (Sabu), I have learnt that in or about June 2011, several members of LulzSec joined with other individuals who were affiliated with Anonymous to create a new hacking group called “Operation Anti-Security,” or “AntiSec”. AntiSec has, among other things, publicly encouraged cyber attacks on government-related entities. In addition, AntiSec has publicly claimed responsibility for: (1) The intrusion into, and subsequent release of data stolen from, computer systems used by more than 50 police departments in the United States; (2) an intrusion into the computer systems of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (“NATO”); and (3) the Stratfor Hack.




A.    The Stratfor Hack


 18. Based on my participation in the investigation, including conversations I have had with another FBI agent who has spoken to representatives of Stratfor; my conversations with CW-1; my review of transcripts of online chats between CW-1, an individual later indentified to be JEREMY HAMMOND, a/k/a “Anarchaos,” a/k/a “sup_g,” a/k/a “burn,” a/k/a “yohoho,” a/k/a “tylerknowsthis,” a/k/a “crediblethreat,” the defendant, and others (discussed in detail below); and publicly available information, including confidential data from Stratfor that was publicly disseminated on various websites following the Stratfor Hack, I know the following:

     i. On or about January 6, 2012, an email purporting to be from a Stratfor executive was sent to email accounts belonging to the Stratfor customers whose account files had been compromised during the Stratfor Hack. Attached to the email was a document titled “Official Emergency Communiques Straight from the Anonymous Underground” and which referred to “Merry LulzXmas” and the IRC channels “#anonymous”, “#antisec”, “#lulzxmas”, among others. Regarding the Stratfor Hack, the document included the following statement:


The sheer amount of destruction we wreaked on Stratfor's servers is the digital equivalent of a nuclear bomb: leveling their systems in such a way that they will never be able to recover. We rooted box after box on their intranet: dumping their mysql databases, stealing their private ssh keys, and copying hundreds of employee mail spools. For weeks, we used and abused their customer credit card information (which was all stored in cleartext in their mysql database), eventually dumpling (releasing) all 75,000 credit cards and 860,000 md5-hashed passwords of their “private client list”. And if dumping everything on their employees and clients wasn't enough to guarantee their bankruptcy, we laid waste to their webserver, their mail server, their development server, their clearspace and srm portal and backup archives in such a way that ensures they won't be coming back online anytime soon.


     j. As discussed in more detail below, (note, this aspect is not discussed in greater detail) around the time the Stratfor Hack took place, CW-1, at the direction of the FBI, provided HAMMOND and his co-conspirators a computer server in New York, which could be used to store data, and to which HAMMOND and his co-conspirators in fact transferred data. I have spoken to an employee of the FBI who reviewed the transferred data, and learned that it was similar in content and format to the data found in the files found on the .onion server discussed above. (Based on my experience with the investigation, including my review of the chats described herein, I believe that  HAMMOND and his co-conspirators used multiple servers to store stolen data, including credit card data stolen during the Stratfor Hack. CW-1 did not further disseminate any data that HAMMOND or his  co-conspirators stored in the New York server).

In Jeremy Hammond's unsealed indictment, two actions by AntiSec are mentioned before the Stratfor Hack. The hacking of 77 different law enforcement websites hosted on the same server and the breaching of NATO servers on the 21st and 31st July 2011, respectively. The FBI had enough evidence to arrest Jeremy Hammond (whose identity was known to them by the 31st July hack) for either of two AntiSec actions mentioned below at any time and instead they waited.


Indeed, the FBI did not even begin physical and electronic surveillance of Hammond until the 28th February 2012, eleven weeks after the Stratfor Hack had begun and five weeks after the action had ended - leading one to ask why? The answer is the possibility of a successful entrapment of WikiLeaks.

Barrett Brown, a journalist and Anonymous 'spokesperson', was indicted on the 4th December 2012 by a federal grand jury on 12 charges. All of the charges relate to the Stratfor Hack and all of them stem from the sharing of information via copying a link to a downloadable archive of compromised data from one IRC channel and pasting it into another. The indictment states "Brown transferred the hyperlink ‘http://wikisend.com/download/597646/Stratfor_full_b.txt.gz’ from IRC channel ‘#AnonOps’ to an IRC channel under Brown’s control called ‘#ProjectPM’. By transferring and posting the hyperlink, Brown caused the data to be made available to other persons online, without the knowledge and authorization of Stratfor".

6th March 2012, Jeremy Hammond indictment unsealed at the Lower Manhattan Federal District Court.


The December 6, 2011 IRC Chat


 21. I have reviewed a copy of a private online chat that occurred on or about December 6, 2011 between an individual using the alias “sup_g”, later identified as the defendant, and CW-1. During this chat, the defendant describes how he was attacking Stratfor's computer systems:


<sup_g> yo

<sup_g> you round?

<sup_g> working on this new target

*     *     *

<CW-1> yo

<CW-1> im here

<sup_g> =)

<sup_g> we real good here

<sup_g> http://ibhg35kgdvnb7jvw.onion/inc0ming/startfor.jpg ,-their admin panel

*     *     *

<sup_g> basically this site [www.stratfor.com] is a paid membership where they gain access to articles

<sup_g> it stores billing info as well - cards

<sup_g> it's encrypted though

<sup_g> I think I can reverse it though but the encryption keys are stored on their server (which we can use mysql to read)

<sup_g> when I get the key I can write a script ti [to] export the data en masse



The December 14, 2011 IRC Chat


 22. I have reviewed a copy of a chat that occurred on or about December 14, 2011 over the #lulzxmas IRC channel between an individual using the alias “sup_g”, later identified as the defendant, and CC-2 (an unnamed co-conspirator). During this chat, the following exchange took place, in which the defendant bragged of having hacked into Stratfor's computer network and boasted of the damage that he and his co-conspirators would cause to Stratfor as a result of the hack:


<sup_g> =)

<sup_g> we in business baby

<CC-2> w00t?

<sup_g> oh yes

<sup_g> time to feast upon their spools [email databases]

<CC-2>  stratfor?

<sup_g> oh yes.

<sup_g> after yall left yesterday I spent another eight hours

<sup_g> and rooted [hacked] that mofo

<CC-2>  They're so done now...

<sup_g> Yeah it's over with.

<sup_g> In their emails they were complaining of a few minutes downtime as interrupting their business.

<sup_g> I think they'll just give up after this goes down



The January 11, 2012 IRC Chat


 34. I have reviewed a copy of a chat that occurred on or about January 11, 2012 over the #lulzxmas IRC channel between an individual using the alias “sup_g”, later identified as the defendant, CW-1, and CC-3 (an unnamed co-conspirator), during which the following exchange took place:


<CW-1>  sup_g: wanna release that list of 92% cracked stratfor hashes?

<sup_g> hrm

<sup_g> your call..

<sup_g> i'd err on the side of no, so that way we can more fully exploit

<sup_g> but then again we got even more targets to work on now

<sup_g> so

<CC-3> what about releasing it couple of days before mails go online

<sup_g> which btw I started unpacking on [CW-1's FBI] new server

<sup_g> and is [I'm] copying over to new server

<sup_g> as we speak

That CW-1, Sabu, reportedly did not disseminate any data (to WikiLeaks) from the FBI's New York server might very well be the case, but probably not for the want of trying. It is also likely that Hammond used his own "new server" to submit data to WikiLeaks mentioned at the end of the third chat log section.


In the end, the emails were not released as a BitTorrent file (containing target file locations which peer-to-peer programs then reassemble and disseminate) or put into Pastebin websites (document-sharing websites), instead, at some point between roughly the 16th January and the 26th February 2012, the company's email messages were passed on to WikiLeaks.


All that is needed under the new interpretation of the Espionage Act being pushed forward by the Pentagon and the Department of Justice, to show solicitation, is for WikiLeaks to receive classified information. This new reading of the law might be their intention but it is yet to be tested in court, where it could face significant obstacles given the catastrophic impact on journalistic practice any new case law of this kind would cause. The likelihood is that such a departure from a public interest based free press would mean any decision in favour of a new reading would be immediately overturned on appeal. The political fallout of such a move would be immense and international.


In the Stratfor Hack, the data is designated as being 'confidential information'. For the Department of Justice to clearly demonstrate solicitation by WikiLeaks in the Stratfor Hack, the evidential material must be more substantive.


In the same manner Sabu attempted to entrap others, he must find a pretext to trick WikiLeaks into actually asking for the data, or anything that could be construed as requesting or any other form of involvement. This is not as challenging as it may sound and if WikiLeaks was not extremely guarded, there is a danger that Sabu may have given his handlers the ammunition needed to harm the most significant 'transparency organisation' in history. For instance, "shall I send it to you in this format? At this time? All at once? I tried to submit it, but it isn't working - can you help? Are you more interested in this part, or this part - which shall I send? I have this, I think I can get this, do you want that also?" And of course, WikiLeaks cannot just point CW-1 to the submissions page..


When a former WikiLeaks staffer (Daniel Domscheit-Berg), whose actions were perceived by Julian Assange as maliciously sowing discord within the organisation and without - to the links between WikiLeaks and the Chaos Computer Club - led to him being suspended on the 25th August 2010 and later dismissed, stole and later deleted some of WikiLeaks most important data, including video footage of a massive atrocity by U.S. forces in Afghanistan, 5 gigabytes of data relating to Bank of America, a copy of the U.S. government's "No-Fly list", the internal communications of 20 neo-Nazi organizations and U.S. intercept information for "over a hundred internet companies", he also admitted to destroying the site's primary submission system.


Domscheit-Berg's motives seem abundantly clear. However, a few people have suggested that his actions could also be explained as those of someone unbalanced - by the immense emotional cost of losing his place within the organisation.


To maintain the protection of a source's identity, the entire submission system (the unique key technology of WikiLeaks) needed to be redesigned (if Domscheit-Berg was compromised, he would have unquestionably given details of the back-up submission system to intelligence agencies). The redesign is an ongoing project of immense complexity and it's still incomplete to this day.


Daniel Domscheit-Berg's actions created a trap for WikiLeaks. How do whistleblowers and those who obtain historically important data now submit it safely to WikiLeaks to be assessed and then published? In order to receive material of vast public interest, such as the Stratfor Hack files or the Bank of America files, WikiLeaks has had to relinquish their previously passive role in submissions. Already operating in dangerous waters, Domscheit-Berg, whether meaning to or not, pushed WikiLeaks into lethal straits, where Sabu and the FBI were inevitably waiting in ambush.

11th September 2012 Recorded Telephone Conversation


Barrett Brown: Oh. Speaking of you. So, what the fuck are the cops asking you?

Jake Davis: Ah.

Barrett Brown:  You know that WhiteKidney got raided as well, right?

Jake Davis: I have no idea. Oh, WhiteKidney..

Barrett Brown: Yes, they raided him in Norway, took all of his shit, haven't given it back, just like they haven't given mine back. I'm about to demand it back today. WhiteKidney is online, on Skype, what a coincidence, you should..

Jake Davis: I don't want to talk to him.

Barrett Brown: If you want to I can put him on speakers and you can probably talk to him over this.

Jake Davis: But he's a liability.

Barrett Brown: Oh, he's unreliable, he's, he's the most loyal kid I've.. Anyway, they raided him on some bullshit harassment charge over some girl, which is bullshit and then took all of his computers and shit. It's obviously because of ProjectPM and shit, 'cos, you know, he's still being involved the whole time. So they have all of his shit and they have his recordings so they know all kinds of bizarre shit about what we were up to back there. And that's besides whatever the fuck you recorded. And you apparently recorded quite a bit.

Jake Davis: You what?

Barrett Brown: Whatever you recorded back.. Anyway forget about it, don't worry, I don't even know what your.. status is, what they..


Barrett Brown: What's up with this fucking book arsehole?

Jake Davis: What book?

Barrett Brown: The fucking book, that's all about.. That all comes from you. That comes from Parmy, your little fellow fucking Parmy Brit who thinks I live in Houston.

Jake Davis: I didn't say you lived in Houston.

Barrett Brown: No, no, she did. She said that. You just said I think the military is going to assassinate me. Anyway it's a shitty book. It's all right. I mean there are interesting parts. I mean I didn't know.. There was a bunch of stuff in there I didn't know about, that you guys did over there in your idiot circus over at LulzSec that I just wasn't really clear on until I read the book. So, I learnt a lot from it actually. I didn't know like, I didn't know that Tflow was the one who wrote that fucking strip for the Tunisians.

Jake Davis: Allegedly he wrote a lot.

Barrett Brown: Make him the fucking hero and he should be getting half your.. You know you get a lot of free Topiary shit. Do you even know how much, how well liked you are.

Jake Davis: I get a few letters, I've responded to them and I say I'm not the only one, remember these other people [inaudible] think of the picture in America where Jeremy Hammond is going to do like 50 years and over here we're going to do like 2 years.

Barrett Brown: Did you ever talk to Hammond? Did you ever meet him online, Hammond?

Jake Davis: I can't comment because..

Barrett Brown: Oh, right, right, okay..

Jake Davis: I don't want to talk about the Hammond case because I don't know anything. But apparently he's a bit of a genius and a hero and that, and a scholar and a saint.

Barrett Brown: Well, I'll tell you what I know, because he was in ProjectPM with Sabu in the last two months before the raid, working on all of this stuff. The Stratfor things and all that.


Barrett Brown: I consider it your book because most of it comes from you. Half of the book. The other half comes from Parmy Olson being tricked by people. Oh God. Did you even read the fucking book? You sound like you don't know what's going on in the fucking book.

Jake Davis: Yeah, I read the book.

Barrett Brown: Okay, I'm just making sure. I just thought..

Jake Davis: Well you sound like you've read it a hundred times, especially your bit.

Barrett Brown: Actually, I haven't read the whole thing. Of course I read the stuff about me. I want to know what the fuck you told them and what she managed to get wrong about me from her own research. She wrote articles about me saying, “he's from Dallas, Dallas, Dallas, Dallas,” and then the book says he's from Houston. So, you can imagine, [inaudible] if the other stuff was wrong.


Barrett Brown: With people who are about to work with the Feds, like you.

Jake Davis: You got me there, there isn't much I can say about that.


Barrett Brown: How is your boyfriend Assange? How is he doing over there?

Jake Davis: He's just in the Ecuadorian Embassy.

Barrett Brown: I'm sure he's thrilled to see that book where you guys decided to tell Parmy Olson him secretly talking to you. I'm sure he was like – “oh, thanks guys, I'm glad I fucking dealt with LulzSec, that was a smart move on my part".

Jake Davis: There is NO PROOF that that was him. Parmy was just speculating.

Barrett Brown: Well, who the fuck was telling her that. Which one of you was telling her that shit.

Jake Davis: Nobody told her, she just guessed, like..

Barrett Brown: No, no. There's a whole part in the book about them talking and him appearing on this thing and she knew these details about shit, and she wouldn't just make up like, that he was looking at it through video chat on this one day, where did she get that shit from?

Jake Davis: She got it from somewhere, from something.

Barrett Brown: Didn't she say in the book.. Maybe you don't know who told her, I don't know. Maybe you weren't.. I haven't read the whole book, I've only read parts of it.

Jake Davis: Well the thing is, if that was the case, then the FBI would know because they would have been recording Sabu's screen when it happened, if it happened. It's irrelevant whether what Parmy wrote happened or not..

Barrett Brown: Yes, but you don't see the press, you don't see what happens afterwards. First of all, that part was published by Cryptome and others, hilariously her publishers sent the book to Cryptome, the site that specialized for 20 years in publishing shit without giving a fuck about whose it is and then they posted an excerpt.

In the conversation above (which sounds contrived and intended to extricate Topiary from Parmy Olson's claims), the danger of having to interact with sources to enable them to submit data is clear. "She got it from somewhere, from something", what was Parmy Olson's second source for this material? And to what end is it included? Because that was the best that could be rendered from a failed entrapment? Her section on the submission of the Stratfor Hack files reads like Sabu's FBI handlers' pipe dreams of what might have been, but which never came to pass. Often enough when a politically important investigation fails, what evidence there is, or whatever can be made to look like evidence, is turned from balloon fragments into a castle. If this material is insufficient or if it appears likely that a competent defence could too easily reveal its true substance, then evidence is simply manufactured.


The path from the birth of Anonymous to the LulzSec "idiot circus", to FBI operations intent on suffocating all meaningful dissent and protest within its grasp, has been duplicated elsewhere, especially regarding the Occupy and enviromental movements. Troublesome movement splitter groups have allowed oppressive law enforcement agencies to more freely assault the main body.

Wherever there is protest and dissent in the world, Anonymous is there, in spirit and often in being. It is an idea, a method of opposition that is now utilised by all activists. From ocean conservationists to climate change proponents, from anti-war activists to bank and inequality reformers, to the myriad people constantly campaigning on local issues - the critical importance of information and access to it has been imprinted onto the consciousness of every dissenting voice.


This approach is also the gatling gun of the encroaching surveillance state. The Partnership for Civil Justice Fund has recently released FBI documents which detail the merger of the DHS, the FBI and the police with private sector interests - an alignment that in some instances was named - The Domestic Security Alliance Council. The state fighting her own people on behalf of corporate interests is nothing new, what is very new is the technological means to reach such ends, supported by an ever expanding litany of loosely framed laws that allow critically needed political movements such as Occupy to be labelled as a "terrorist threat" or enviromental groups labelled as "eco-terrorists" and then assaulted as though such nonsense were a reality. The intention of the attack upon America on 9/11 has succeeded  - through the laws that were introduced to uncover terrorists who had already been found but were lost within the maze of competing security institutions.


WikiLeaks came into the public eye in the midst of the Iraq and Afghanistan war and has the power to stop a war. As part of a coordinated day of protests across the world, one million people took to the streets of London on the 15th February 2003 and failed to stop the invasion of Iraq. The invasion consumed 10,125 Iraqi soldiers, paramilitaries and police officers. The Iraqi insurgency and civil war accounted for 42,951 combatant deaths. All told between 121,227 (IBC) and 601,027 (Lancet) civilians died as the conflict descended into an inexpressible sectarian nightmare. In 2012, UNICEF published a report stating that 900,000 children under the age of eighteen had lost one or both parents. 1.24 million people fled the fighting internally and 1.4 became refugees. In comparison, the deliverers of democracy suffered 4,803 killed and 32,223 wounded.


If Anonymous and Wikileaks had existed at that time, the whistleblower Dr. David Kelly would have lived. His information which exposed the falsehoods within the United Kingdom's infamous 'September Dossier - Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction: The Assessment of the British Government' and not just a few spoken sentences would have been made public before the war and without the United Kingdom's government being able to drown it out by viciously attacking the institution (the BBC) and the journalist (Andrew Gilligan) who belatedly reported a handful of Kelly's words. In the process of drowning this truth, the UK government caused the death of this honorable man.


This is the context of the breach and the stakes ahead of us.


William Shakespeare, The Tempest: (And by that destiny) to perform an act, whereof what's past is prologue; what to come, In yours and my discharge

@exiledsurfer interviews Daniel Domscheit-Berg of OpenLeaks

WL Central, Daniel Domscheit-Berg

Democracy Now, The Other Bradley Manning: Jeremy Hammond

Democracy Now, Julian Assange on WikiLeaks, Bradley Manning, Cypherpunks, Surveillance State

Parmy Olson - We Are Anonymous. Extract

Jeremy Hammond Indictment

Jake Davis 'Topiary' and Barrett Brown telephone conversation

On the 27th December 2012 Michael Ratner, president emeritus of the Center for Constitutional Rights, spoke to Democracy Now! about Stratfor, Jeremy Hammond, WikiLeaks and Sabu's attempted entrapment.

The Rise and Fall of Jeremy Hammond: Enemy of the State

January 2, 2013