Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Anonymous' Barrett Brown Raided By FBI During Online Chat

Soulskill posted about 2 years ago | from the caught-on-tape dept.

Crime 208

SternisheFan sends this excerpt from Wired: "For the second time this year, self-proclaimed Anonymous spokesman Barrett Brown was raided by the FBI. The latest dramatic incident occurred late Wednesday evening while Brown and another woman identified by some as his girlfriend were participating in an online chat on TinyChat with other individuals. Two minutes into the recorded chat session, loud voices could be heard in the background of Brown's residence in Texas while the woman in the room with him was in front of the computer screen. She quickly closed the computer screen, but the audio continued to capture events in the room as the FBI appeared to strong-arm Brown to put handcuffs on him. Brown could be heard yelling in the background. A spokeswoman in the Dallas County sheriff's office confirmed to Wired that Brown was raided last night and was booked into the county jail around 11 p.m." (Warning: the video embedded with the article contains mature language.)

cancel ×

208 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Just self defense (4, Insightful)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#41340039)

In my opinion every individual has a right to defend himself when an intruders (or intruders) suddenly busts down the door and puts you in fear for your life. I would have no problems if a resident shot & killed the intruders.

AMERICA HELL YEAH (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41340073)

U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A.!

Re:AMERICA HELL YEAH (0)

x0d (2506794) | about 2 years ago | (#41340127)

Murrica, hell yea!

Re:AMERICA HELL YEAH (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41341357)

LONG LIVE ANONYMOUS!!! You guys rock. Never stop protecting us.

Re:Just self defense (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41340093)

True, but if they're wearing police uniforms you'll almost certainly get your butt kicked if you resist arrest. And they'll shoot back.

Re:Just self defense (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41341027)

Depends on the nature of the "arrest"- without a Warrant, they're not operating within their authority. Seriously.

Re:Just self defense (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41341149)

Nope, see "probable cause".

Re:Just self defense (5, Informative)

BlueStrat (756137) | about 2 years ago | (#41341411)

Depends on the nature of the "arrest"- without a Warrant, they're not operating within their authority. Seriously.

Doesn't matter.

You'll still be ventilated if they even think you look like you're going to resist, whether or not the raid is legal or not. They're trained to treat every raid as if they were going up against hardened, experienced, and well-armed enemies.

And that's what you are at that moment. An enemy to be neutralized and rendered helpless and harmless as swiftly as possible with the least risk to themselves. not the least risk to the people they're charged to protect, themselves.

Whether or not you are guilty of anything isn't their job or worry. They are a paramilitary assault & entry team. They assault and enter like they face at least an equally-armed & trained force at a minimum. Until you are face-down, restrained/cuffed, and have been searched you are potentially a heavily-armed threat.

Just look at how Amish dairy farmers were raided, and Gibson Guitars were raided. Guns drawn, like the Amish or a luthier normally pack an H&K MP5.

Strat

Re:Just self defense (1)

Maho Shoujo (2729697) | about 2 years ago | (#41340247)

If it were a no-knock raid perhaps, but if they announce that they are police, then such action would be inexcusable murder.

Re:Just self defense (2)

CoderJoe (97563) | about 2 years ago | (#41340509)

Even in a no-knock raid, if you fire on the police, and especially if you kill one of them, you are going to be in for a world of hurt from the brotherhood of blue.

Re:Just self defense (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41340629)

Doesn't matter, as long as you kill the motherfucker. Whatever they do to you isn't going to bring their buddy back.

Re:Just self defense (3, Insightful)

silas_moeckel (234313) | about 2 years ago | (#41340715)

And this is right how? That is exactly the abuse of power governments are supposed to protect us from.

Re:Just self defense (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41340819)

Government: Arrest this criminal.
Police: *Go to arrest criminal*
Criminal: *Shoots and kills cop* Self defence!
Government: You're right, self defence. Sorry, you're free to go.

Are you retarded, or really fucking retarded?

Re:Just self defense (1)

CoderJoe (97563) | about 2 years ago | (#41341145)

Where, exactly, did I say that it was alright?

Re:Just self defense (4, Interesting)

SternisheFan (2529412) | about 2 years ago | (#41341627)

And if you ever do end up in ANY jail, be respectful to the guards, or they WILL hurt you badly. In the 90's I served 15 days in the county jail in Long Island. A guy who came in was "mouthy" to the guards there, after a couple of days they pulled him out of his cell, which was next to.mine)surrounded him (15guards) while one head guard kicked him mercilessly. Between every kick, the guard yelled, "Who's the big man NOW!! HUH? Who's the big man NOW!" I'll never forget this. Four days later they bring him back to his cell, and he must've gotten their 'message', because he didn't cause any more problems. So, if you're dealing with law enforcement, play it cool, my advice.

Re:Just self defense (2, Interesting)

sjames (1099) | about 2 years ago | (#41340511)

If they don't show credentials, it doesn't mean much. Any thug can yell police.

Re:Just self defense (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41340551)

Ofcourse, everyone knows intruders can't scream "Police"...

Re:Just self defense (4, Insightful)

silas_moeckel (234313) | about 2 years ago | (#41340673)

Have we stopped being civil? Was this guy a risk of flight? Did he have a history of violence? A friend committed mail fraud, they called him told him there was a warrant out for his arrest. He was asked to turn himself in, he got council they had time to review it. Assuming that everybody is a violet offender that will run is a core issue of our police system these days.

Re:Just self defense (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41341585)

There are two reasons for a no-knock arrest. Either they think the suspect will resist or they thing evidence might be destroyed; in either case surprise and overwhelming force are used whether you approve of it or not.

Re:Just self defense (-1, Troll)

emj (15659) | about 2 years ago | (#41341609)

Apparently the guy posted a Youtube video stating "I'm armed and dangerous, and I will shoot to kill police officers if they try to take me out"..

Re:Just self defense (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41342165)

That isn't what was said in the video. Stop propagating propaganda. He said he would defense against those he believed NOT to be government officials.

Re:Just self defense (1)

TheSwift (2714953) | about 2 years ago | (#41340755)

If it were a no-knock raid perhaps, but if they announce that they are police, then such action would be inexcusable murder.

I agree. I'm all for justice and for protecting our rights, but police who have legitimate warrants to arrest people shouldn't have to worry that they'll get shot when they announce they're coming in. Maybe I'm a little biased since Barrett sounds unnecessarily inflammatory to me.

Re:Just self defense (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 2 years ago | (#41340937)

If it were a no-knock raid perhaps, but if they announce that they are police, then such action would be inexcusable murder.

I agree. I'm all for justice and for protecting our rights, but police who have legitimate warrants to arrest people shouldn't have to worry that they'll get shot when they announce they're coming in.

Totally.

Of course, if they have a legitimate warrant, there is zero excuse for executing a "no-knock" search unless the individual being served is a known violent/flight risk. Being an attention-hungry diva doesn't quite qualify, IMO.

Re:Just self defense (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41341599)

He's a fucking nerd. They could have knocked on his door, politely informed him that he was going to be arrested, then given him the chance to accompany them peacefully.

This is how it works where I live.

Re:Just self defense (1)

morari (1080535) | about 2 years ago | (#41340931)

Murder in a uniform is heroic, in a costume it is a crime.

Re:Just self defense (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41340361)

Down in momma's basement you'll never worry about it.

Re:Just self defense (1)

kurt555gs (309278) | about 2 years ago | (#41340789)

You can in Indiana! Really.

Re:Just self defense (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 2 years ago | (#41340971)

You can in Indiana! Really.

Missouri too, provided they do not identify themselves as LEO's prior to kicking in the door.

Even then... anybody can buy blue shirts and badges from a variety of online retailers, and there have, locally, been several incidents in recent years of people impersonating cops so they can rob/rape/whatever.

Re:Just self defense (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 2 years ago | (#41341179)

If I were constantly being harassed and raided by the police, I'd simply cut a 6'x6' hole in my floor just inside the front door and staple a rug across it. Start using the garage door and keep it closed from the inside. Next time they entered without knocking they'd end up in my basement.

Re:Just self defense (2)

shiftless (410350) | about 2 years ago | (#41341683)

For bonus points put some long spikes at the bottom.

Re:Just self defense (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41341353)

Why was that marked as flamebait? If they didn't have a warrant, Brown would have every right to shoot them.

He may be the next Sabu informant (1)

elucido (870205) | about 2 years ago | (#41341989)

If it's true that he was raided by the FBI they don't just do that. They are likely going to make him an offer he cannot refuse.

Brown isn't going to remain active in Anonymous for much longer if he ever was to begin with.

fp (-1)

lord_rob the only on (859100) | about 2 years ago | (#41340045)

Fkuc !

Not news (3, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 2 years ago | (#41340059)

"In other news, the spokesperson for an organization responsible for dozens of high profile electronic attacks, distributing classified data, and hundreds of other felonies was taken into custody today..."

Agree or disagree with Anonymous, it shouldn't be a surprise that he took the ride.

Re:Not news (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41340203)

Generally, a spokesperson for a group of interest would be approached calmly, not raided (which makes it news).

Re:Not news (4, Funny)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 2 years ago | (#41340245)

Generally, a spokesperson for a group of interest would be approached calmly, not raided (which makes it news).

The spokespeople of multinational crime syndicates tend not to be well-regarded by law enforcement. I know, it's confusing.

Re:Not news (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41340295)

Troll.

Re:Not news (1)

Eth1csGrad1ent (1175557) | about 2 years ago | (#41341939)

Careful with the labels there... trolling is about to be illegal in Australia, and if you go using labels like that then we'd have to try and extradite his arse...

Re:Not news (2, Insightful)

Applekid (993327) | about 2 years ago | (#41340305)

Generally, a spokesperson for a group of interest would be approached calmly, not raided (which makes it news).

The spokespeople of multinational crime syndicates tend not to be well-regarded by law enforcement. I know, it's confusing.

Was Barrett armed? Was he dangerous? Was there any reason to believe he was a threat to the officers' personal safety whatsoever? People get taken into custody all the time without being raided. This was an excuse by the police to let out some steam by bashing down the door and busting heads.

Re:Not news (1, Troll)

tsa (15680) | about 2 years ago | (#41340377)

How do you know that?

Re:Not news (2, Funny)

mooingyak (720677) | about 2 years ago | (#41340437)

-- I got my nickname tsa long before the TSA existed so please refrain from making remarks about the TSA.

OT, but
I suppose you would describe the TSA as a bunch of no-talent ass clowns?

Re:Not news (1)

Jafafa Hots (580169) | about 2 years ago | (#41340493)

Actually its more likely they wanted the surprise so that no hard drives could be wiped.

Pretty standard for computer-related stuff.

Re:Not news (1, Insightful)

Microlith (54737) | about 2 years ago | (#41340553)

You don't have to bust down doors and charge in with guns for that. Over-application of force, however, is pretty standard these days.

Re:Not news (1, Troll)

Jafafa Hots (580169) | about 2 years ago | (#41341001)

I'm not defending the raid, but yes, you DO.

Hard drives can be destroyed in seconds. You do have to bust down the doors to get them in time... (though that should be saved for actual criminals, not internet trolls IMO)

And when you bust down doors you have to have guns because you don't know if the people inside have them and will react.

I agree on over-application of force and wouldn't disagree with the argument that the raid may not have been necessary in the first place, and I personally hate and distrust cops and want their powers scaled back... ...but if law enforcement wants your HD without going through the use of a subpeona and the attendant risk that you'll wipe it first, this is really the only way for them to do that.

Re:Not news (3, Insightful)

shiftless (410350) | about 2 years ago | (#41341759)

Hard drives can be destroyed in seconds. You do have to bust down the doors to get them in time... (though that should be saved for actual criminals, not internet trolls IMO)

Define an "actual criminal"? Would you say people who are peacefully growing plants inside their own house and causing no harm to others are "actual criminals"? Because no-knock warrants are becoming more and more commonplace in the War on (Some) Drugs. How easy do you think it would be to destroy an entire garden full of plants leaving no trace of evidence? How much of an effect do you think the police announcing their presence beforehand would have on that?

nd when you bust down doors you have to have guns because you don't know if the people inside have them and will react.

Mother fucking bullshit. Stop repeating police state propaganda. Only if cop is a fucking moron would they have no clue whether someone is likely to be violent, etc. What a cheap, flimsy excuse to throw away our rights in favor of more police power.

I agree on over-application of force and wouldn't disagree with the argument that the raid may not have been necessary in the first place, and I personally hate and distrust cops and want their powers scaled back...

So why do you keep arguing and apologizing for them?

...but if law enforcement wants your HD without going through the use of a subpeona and the attendant risk that you'll wipe it first, this is really the only way for them to do that.

Which is more important and worthy of protection: my rights, or the cops' God-given need to arrest and imprison people for non-violent "crimes"? It's either one or the other. Choose.

Re:Not news (0)

shiftless (410350) | about 2 years ago | (#41341717)

Yeah, it's standard now that we live in a police state.

Hint: if erasing a hard drive is all that it would take to completely get a "criminal" off the hook for his "crime", and if police announcing their presence before barging is enough time to erase that evidence, then you know what? No crime was actually committed.

Re:Not news (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41340603)

like when they could have apprehended david koresh during one of his many routine outings, but they chose to do the worst.

Re:Not news (1)

jeffasselin (566598) | about 2 years ago | (#41340351)

Would you consider it normal if a GoldmanSachs spokesperson were arrested?

Re:Not news (1)

Hatta (162192) | about 2 years ago | (#41340859)

Lloyd Blankfein, Jamie Dimon, Vikram Pandit, etc seem to be well-regarded by law enforcement.

Re:Not news (3, Insightful)

Mitreya (579078) | about 2 years ago | (#41340919)

The spokespeople of multinational crime syndicates tend not to be well-regarded by law enforcement. I know, it's confusing.

Ah, you are one of "those" people
As long as the person in question is likely/potentially an asshole, he deserves everything he gets, right? You don't even wonder if there had been a valid (i.e. legal) reason to arrest him.

Next step would be to arrest and harass any lawyer that will dare to represent that guy. I mean, the guy's got some bad connections, so anyone working for him is probably fair game too.

Re:Not news (1)

shiftless (410350) | about 2 years ago | (#41341693)

The spokespeople of multinational crime syndicates

Anonymous? No, actually, that's just a word. Not an organization. Not a crime syndicate. A word.

Re:Not news (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41341223)

We don't know (yet), but there is the possibility that he is more than just a spokesman.

Re:Not news (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41341985)

Exactly!

After they put him in jail for the rest of his natural life, they'll have plenty of time to work out what he actually did wrong...

Re:Not news (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41340233)

Thanks for telling how it should be. Not, your comment was lame.

Re:Not news (4, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | about 2 years ago | (#41340659)

In other news, we're still waiting for Lloyd Blankfein, CEO of a company responsible for hundreds of felony counts of perjury and fraud, to take the same ride. The rule of law is dead in America.

Re:Not news (2)

mmell (832646) | about 2 years ago | (#41341185)

Add to this the allegation that he made public threats against an F.B.I. agent and the agent's family . . .

But everyone here is right . . . the F.B.I. shouldn't have gone all S. S. on this guy. Now, if the agent who was threatened had come alone and blown Brown's brains out I would've found that perfectly acceptable. Of course, that agent would now be in custody facing charges of murder; but I'd like to think that a self-defense plea would work for him there.

Yes, I know - I'm not supposed to RTFA before posting. Man, am I gonna get downmodded and flamed for this . . . but again, just because B. Brown is a hacker doesn't give him a free ticket to issue threats (which no matter how veiled they are were still threats) agains an F.B.I. agent and his children. If it had been the F.B.I. agents threating Mr. Brown and his family, everyone here would be organizing for war; but since it's Mr. Brown who made the threats, everyone here appears to be mobilizing for war.

Just stop and think for with your heads instead of your endocrine systems for a minute, will ya folks?

Re:Not news (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41341387)

Oh, for a moment I thought you were talking about the US government. Except no one seems prepared to take them into custody.

Re:Not news (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41341525)

My favorite part was how everyone else in the chat was all "holy shit that was awesome!" These people are thrill seekers, nothing else. Their only cause is to feed the amygdala.

Re:Not news (2)

elucido (870205) | about 2 years ago | (#41342007)

"In other news, the spokesperson for an organization responsible for dozens of high profile electronic attacks, distributing classified data, and hundreds of other felonies was taken into custody today..."

Agree or disagree with Anonymous, it shouldn't be a surprise that he took the ride.

Yeah but at this point he cannot be considered as the spokesperson anymore. He just got raided, why would any active hacker or activist trust him now that he has been raided and arrested by the FBI? They can plant bugs in his house, they can force him to cooperate, so it's basically over for him. His days as an online spokesperson/activist are over and he will be lucky if he avoids prison.

So uh (1)

Dyinobal (1427207) | about 2 years ago | (#41340061)

So uh what are the charges?

Re:So uh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41340159)

I've read something about this guy threatening an FBI agent in some video on youtube. No proof, as I haven't seen the video.

Re:So uh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41340189)

Positive, Negative, or Neutral.

Re:So uh (1)

Tharkkun (2605613) | about 2 years ago | (#41340611)

So uh what are the charges?

He could be a terrorist technically and rot in Guantanamo for a couple years before being released.

it is illegal to disrupt electronic comms (1)

swschrad (312009) | about 2 years ago | (#41340717)

or to release sensitive data. and if he's spokespersoning for Anonymous, he's an accessory at the least. they could also go RICO (Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization) on Anonymous, it's a great little Swiss Army Lawbook for repeat offenders. so it's definitely FBI material, and Brown might well find himself without much of a legal defense.

Wrong because you're a moron (1)

shiftless (410350) | about 2 years ago | (#41341787)

or to release sensitive data. and if he's spokespersoning for Anonymous, he's an accessory at the least. they could also go RICO (Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization) on Anonymous, it's a great little Swiss Army Lawbook for repeat offenders. so it's definitely FBI material, and Brown might well find himself without much of a legal defense.

How can one be a "spokesman" for an "organization" that doesn't actually ...you know... exist?

Mature language??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41340083)

Fuck this shit! We're all adults here...

Re:Mature language??? (1)

Hartree (191324) | about 2 years ago | (#41340685)

Maturity is highly overrated.

Barrett Brown only claimed to be Anonymous (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41340101)

Barrett Brown is not Anonymous. Most of the Anons I know worth their salt think of him as a fraud. This is the problem of a leaderless, hierarchyless political movement: anyone can claim affiliation. All Barrett did was claim to orchestrate some invisible campaign against Mexican drug gangs, of which no evidence was ever actually presented, and idiot reporters lined up to print his lies verbatim.

Barrett Brown claimed affiliation with Encyclopedia Dramatica, another Internet community, on Twitter recently. Current and former ED admins lined up to denounce him as never being known there.

Barrett Brown is a liar and a fraud. His days are up now that he's finally committed the crime of threatening an FBI agent. There's no way he's getting bail.

Re:Barrett Brown only claimed to be Anonymous (5, Insightful)

Sydin (2598829) | about 2 years ago | (#41340413)

So he's an attention whore. That's all fine and dandy, but the last time I checked the FBI had better things to do. You just said it yourself: There's no evidence at all that he had anything to do with anonymous, its activities, or any of its affiliated groups, everything about the guy can be laid at the feet of the media, who are more than happy to sensationalize lies. If the layman on the internet knows that, the FBI knows that. So why are they raiding his house? What's there to gain? Well, it sends a strong message. It scares people. Oh right, that's what the FBI is for these days. Barrett Brown's lack of affiliation with anonymous isn't what makes this newsworthy, it's that despite knowing that, the FBI were more than happy to ruin him in order to send a message.

Re:Barrett Brown only claimed to be Anonymous (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41340585)

Yes, but if you're an attention whore and you flaunt your (however tenuous) attachment to a high-profile group that causes "The Man" to "look bad", don't be surprised if the attention you get isn't the kind of attention you wanted. If absolutely nothing else, "The Man" will use those who are easy to find as examples to strike fear into others.

Short version: don't paint targets on your own back unless you intend to get shot.

LOL: the capcha is AMATEURS...

Re:Barrett Brown only claimed to be Anonymous (1)

shiftless (410350) | about 2 years ago | (#41341811)

Yes, but if you're an attention whore and you flaunt your (however tenuous) attachment to a high-profile group that causes "The Man" to "look bad", don't be surprised if the attention you get isn't the kind of attention you wanted.

Yes, I agree you shouldn't be surprised....if you live in Soviet Russia....or if you're completely aware that the U.S. is now under the rule of fascism. But for the average citizen who still thinks this is the "Land of the Free" etc, it certainly should be a surprise. Unfortunately they're too busy chanting right along with the "WELL YOU SHOULDNT BE SURPRISED LOL" fucking cocksuckers who sit amongst us, cheering on fascism.

Re:Barrett Brown only claimed to be Anonymous (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | about 2 years ago | (#41341047)

he threatened an fbi agent

it's really not that complicated

Re:Barrett Brown only claimed to be Anonymous (1)

BlueStrat (756137) | about 2 years ago | (#41341623)

he threatened an fbi agent

it's really not that complicated

Here's the YT video in question: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=TOW7GOrXNZI [youtube.com]

Strat

Re:Barrett Brown only claimed to be Anonymous (0)

circletimessquare (444983) | about 2 years ago | (#41341685)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49031630 [msn.com]

In a profanity-laced tirade, Brown threatens in the video to strike back at Smith.

"So that's why Robert Smith's life is over," Brown said. "But when I say his life is over, I don't say I'm going to go kill him. But I am going to ruin his life and look into his (expletive) kids."

Brown then smiles before adding: "How do you like them apples?"

are you saying he shouldn't be arrested for that?

Re:Barrett Brown only claimed to be Anonymous (2)

BlueStrat (756137) | about 2 years ago | (#41341821)

In a profanity-laced tirade, Brown threatens in the video to strike back at Smith.

        "So that's why Robert Smith's life is over," Brown said. "But when I say his life is over, I don't say I'm going to go kill him. But I am going to ruin his life and look into his (expletive) kids."

        Brown then smiles before adding: "How do you like them apples?"

are you saying he shouldn't be arrested for that?

Many political "opposition research" teams as well as political organizations and groups attack enemies the way Barrett describes. Heck, the government uses such tactics when they deem it to their advantage. Look what kinds of tactics were employed against Sarah Palin, for example. Teams of investigators and lawyers flown into AK, pouring over every detail they could dig up to destroy her. This isn't limited to one political party or ideology either.

Are you saying they should be arrested?

Strat

Re:Barrett Brown only claimed to be Anonymous (0)

circletimessquare (444983) | about 2 years ago | (#41341883)

oh, i'm talking to a wack job, sorry, i didn't know

carry on then, don't mind me, i'm lucid

He asked for it so they closed him, he's done. (1)

elucido (870205) | about 2 years ago | (#41342085)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49031630 [msn.com]

In a profanity-laced tirade, Brown threatens in the video to strike back at Smith.

"So that's why Robert Smith's life is over," Brown said. "But when I say his life is over, I don't say I'm going to go kill him. But I am going to ruin his life and look into his (expletive) kids."

Brown then smiles before adding: "How do you like them apples?"

are you saying he shouldn't be arrested for that?

From this point on Mr. Brown is irrelevant. He's part of the system now.

Re:He asked for it so they closed him, he's done. (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | about 2 years ago | (#41342219)

?!

i think this thread is attracting all the crackpots

Re:Barrett Brown only claimed to be Anonymous (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41342237)

WTF. That's protected speech. It ISN'T a death threat and he shouldn't be arrested. As far as actions he might claim it isn't apparent he even plans to commit a crime. He explicitly states he has no intention to commit a criminal act.

Re:Barrett Brown only claimed to be Anonymous (1)

elucido (870205) | about 2 years ago | (#41342081)

he threatened an fbi agent

it's really not that complicated

If he did that then he's a friggin idiot and deserves what he got. Doesn't he know the law? Doesn't he know what happened to Jim Bell?

Re:Barrett Brown only claimed to be Anonymous (1)

mmell (832646) | about 2 years ago | (#41341233)

Better things to do than arrest people who threaten their officers and their families? In a HIGH VISIBILITY, PUBLIC FORUM, no less?

Re:Barrett Brown only claimed to be Anonymous (1)

Kaenneth (82978) | about 2 years ago | (#41341667)

"Well, it sends a strong message. It scares people."

And we all know the word for that.

Re:Barrett Brown only claimed to be Anonymous (1)

penguinbrat (711309) | about 2 years ago | (#41341711)

Whats the message they are sending though? If I were a legit member of anonymous, knowing that Brown was not a member - what am I suppose to take from this? That the FBI has no idea who they really are (good thing for anonymous), that they are the bad guys (the point anonymous exists) and will destroy ones life on a whim (already knows this)? From the sounds of it, my reaction would be the same that was in the video - LOL, OMG, that sux! and continue chatting.

Personally, I sincerely hope the FBI didn't raid this guys place because they "thought" he was a spokesman for anonymous when he wasn't even involved - that would just mean that the KGB (?) of the USA is out gunned by the out laws of the internet, and flat out embarrassing that as a country we are at the mercy of such an elite clueless power.

Re:Barrett Brown only claimed to be Anonymous (1)

elucido (870205) | about 2 years ago | (#41342069)

So he's an attention whore. That's all fine and dandy, but the last time I checked the FBI had better things to do. You just said it yourself: There's no evidence at all that he had anything to do with anonymous, its activities, or any of its affiliated groups, everything about the guy can be laid at the feet of the media, who are more than happy to sensationalize lies. If the layman on the internet knows that, the FBI knows that. So why are they raiding his house? What's there to gain? Well, it sends a strong message. It scares people. Oh right, that's what the FBI is for these days.

Barrett Brown's lack of affiliation with anonymous isn't what makes this newsworthy, it's that despite knowing that, the FBI were more than happy to ruin him in order to send a message.

Do you think that matters? If the FBI is at war with Anonymous they can make use of Mr. Brown.

He is irrelevant now as he has been closed by FBI (1)

elucido (870205) | about 2 years ago | (#41342049)

Barrett Brown is not Anonymous. Most of the Anons I know worth their salt think of him as a fraud. This is the problem of a leaderless, hierarchyless political movement: anyone can claim affiliation. All Barrett did was claim to orchestrate some invisible campaign against Mexican drug gangs, of which no evidence was ever actually presented, and idiot reporters lined up to print his lies verbatim.

Barrett Brown claimed affiliation with Encyclopedia Dramatica, another Internet community, on Twitter recently. Current and former ED admins lined up to denounce him as never being known there.

Barrett Brown is a liar and a fraud. His days are up now that he's finally committed the crime of threatening an FBI agent. There's no way he's getting bail.

What I mean is he will never again be considered a part of any serious activist movement. Once they know he got raided by the FBI they know he's the new FBI bitch. Many people suspected that Sabu was the FBI bitch after he got raided but somehow people still trusted him and look what happened there?

If an activist gets raided by the FBI they need to find a new profession because their activism days are over. They can look forward to lifetime surveillance from that point on and pressure potentially for 10 or 20 years straight by the FBI to cooperate and that is if they don't go to prison. Since I doubt Mr. Brown will be going to prison it's much more likely that he will cooperate and what does that mean?

Anyone with common sense at this point will watch what they say and do around Mr. Brown or anyone associated with him. You can bet if the FBI raids someone they had that someone under surveillance for a long time and will continue to have that someone under surveillance or control for the foreseeable future.

What's with the audio? (1)

ArsenneLupin (766289) | about 2 years ago | (#41340105)

Any version anywhere where you can actually understand what they are saying/yelling?

Re:What's with the audio? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41340379)

Who cares! Any versions of this where the blitzkrieg girl keeps stripping at the end?

Re:What's with the audio? (2)

TheSwift (2714953) | about 2 years ago | (#41340701)

I think there's a transcript on pastebin if you look through the article. Not sure I'm convinced that it caught all of those words though. They sound pretty unintelligible to me. Moreover, how did they know he was getting handcuffed? For all we know, he may have just seen a light shining in his window and he started having a seizure and began screaming.

Re:What's with the audio? (1)

SternisheFan (2529412) | about 2 years ago | (#41341799)

The article does link to the site (pastebin?) where it says an audio is. If someone can post a link to it... I watched some of the video, this guy is not "operating on all cylinders", as they say. Right off he states he been off heroin for over a year. Maybe he is, who the f knows for sure. He sure doesn't act sober to me.

This guy is a joke... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41340197)

He completely deserved his party van. Congrats!

Laptops (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41340205)

Didn't he threaten the FBI the other day to reveal all kinds of information unless he got his laptops back from the FBI taken in the first raids? There were two videos on his Youtube channel (can't check now).

Re:Laptops (1)

elucido (870205) | about 2 years ago | (#41342095)

Didn't he threaten the FBI the other day to reveal all kinds of information unless he got his laptops back from the FBI taken in the first raids? There were two videos on his Youtube channel (can't check now).

Yeah real smart, threaten the FBI and think they wont do anything.

That's what you get (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41340439)

When you pull stunts like Anonymous online.

Blanks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41340517)

Blanks are beautiful!

"mature"??? (1, Redundant)

mark-t (151149) | about 2 years ago | (#41341471)

I'd question calling offensive language "mature", when that's not really the case.

Not that I'm saying that adults don't often talk like that... I know many that do. But in my own experience, it really seems to me that such offensive language is far more frequently used by younger people than by older.

It reminds me of how some kids will sometimes start smoking because they think it's "grown-up", whereas almost everybody who smokes these days actually started before they even turned 18.

Too bad (1)

Guru80 (1579277) | about 2 years ago | (#41341485)

It's too bad this guy went down the conspiracy and lies route...he could have been on hell of a speaker for a legitimate (i.e., not made up in his own head) movement.

Transcript (1)

shiftless (410350) | about 2 years ago | (#41341841)

Anyone got a transcript of this guy's ramblings so I don't have to spend twenty minutes on the video to figure out where he fucked up? Thanks.

Thank you, Slasdot editors... (1)

SternisheFan (2529412) | about 2 years ago | (#41341499)

Submitter here. I'd like to express my gratitude here, to "Soulskill", and all the other /. editorial staff. I've had a few of my submissions 'cleaned up', and made better by their work. (See, I haven't yet figured out how to embed links professionally here.) They make my submissions far more professional looking, and add their own expert knowledge to them. This site has 'schooled' me greatly over the last few years. So, "KUDOS" to all the people who make this such a great site to visit. S.F. :-)

The guys who leak stolen credit card data? (2)

gelfling (6534) | about 2 years ago | (#41341781)

Curb stomp him and throw his dead body on his mom's lawn.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>