Also, uh, here's the thing I actually wanted to tell you, about the syndicated piece that went down from at least seven or eight Australian outlets without any explanation or acknowledgement. Forgive lack of run-on sentences and self-aggrandizement/settling of personal scores, was written in haste and for one person:
Backchannel explanation from one of the outlets that ran the scrubbed
piece, provided so far to Aussie activist who's been involved heavily,
is that Cubic contends central fact of the story - which was written
by two journos, one of who is tech editor - that Cubic is related to
Trapwire, which as we know is run directly by spin-off of subsidiary
Abraxas, is substantially incorrect, and that this prompted a
syndicated story that had in one incarnation been linked to heavily,
including by Wikileaks itself. Tweet an hour ago from one writer, the
editor, implied he hadn't himself realized that no explanation had yet
been put up as to why it was taken down, which to me sounds insane. In
last hour Telecomix folks and I have found a couple of things,
including two more state filings from Cubic on Abraxas relationship -
tax filings notes "synergies" between Cubic and Abraxas as well as
regular cross-over uses of software with another subsidiary. None of
this clearly proves that Cubic is making any decisions with regards
to, say, how the contracts of Trapwire itself are distributed, for
instance. We would have to have e-mails or other documents of any such
collaboration, officially or unofficially, to know that. What we do
know, and which is perhaps relevant to this question, is that the
already-known-to-be-scummy intel firm with its own extensive gov links
was itself involved in how Trapwire's day-to-day controllers, as Wired
noted today from other e-mails stemming from the batch. So, yeah,
between that and a few other factors, plus whatever else comes up in
the next hour, we're all very convinced that there's a lot more to
this that was hidden for a fairly good pragmatic reason, and at the
least that the story being entirely scrubbed, as opposed to even
corrected a bit (which may or may not be itself reasonable - I had an
op-ed for Guardian changed and slapped with editor's note about a
"correction" HBGary's lawyers made about alleged operational
difference between HBGary and HBGary Federal, which colluded on many
matters including only ones I discussed, without them even asking me
or checking to see if it was true - which it wasn't, as I and Ars
Technica and several more MSM outlets had already noted using their
own docs/e-mails. Also in in just last ten minutes from Telecomix and
other folks: "Abraxas Dauntless, Ntrepid and TrapWire Inc. have three
of four board members as an interlocking directorate" (Dauntless is
yet another subsidiary recently acquired, with documented
collaboration between Cubic and itself). There's even more and people
are looking for now, but that should do it. Links below.
*Edit, 16th 3:01
So why would Cubic attempt, and immediately achieve, its goal of getting a story pulled from six papers, without explanation, a story about what exactly its subsidiary is doing when it's presumably doing something good? And why, although as shown below they do work with at least three of their purchased or created firms (with none yet found on any subsidiary with which they do not work), and have hidden (and thus had reason to hide) their connections to their other "spin-off" subsidiaries-of-subsidiaries - and perhaps with some of whichever others they've actually managed to hide? Their dozens of known and often quite large "spin-offs" (a term which can still entail any degree of cooperation and certainly has with HBGary's and a couple of others among the the few from which e-mail correspondence was made public via hack in 2011) across the world. And since Stratfor was working in secret with Abraxas Apps (and that they changed the name so quickly is not necessarily proof that something about their existing name might become another of those don't-be-linked-at-all-to-the-above-company things they've pursued with Ntrepid and, again, however many firms under cover. Why, why, why would a very powerful institution with a very extraordinary revenue stream and super-connected officials whose job is to keep the contracts favorable and of course keep public from hearing them in association with a firm they, quite frankly, are more likely than not to be involved with on both a strategic level as well as a more coordinated level whenever it would make sense to do so. There's no particular reason not for that coordination to happen between a company and another company that bought that company because it does something similar to what they do in a way that makes sense to buy it and then try to make sure that it makes lots more money for the company that is a company, rather than a hobby or a phase teens go through, and which quite reasonably wants to maximize profit?
Well, probably it wouldn't want to be associated by name with a subsidiary it owns that clearly tracks people in some manner that provides not just information, but the ability to learn who in particular needs to have more information pulled up about them via other means, perhaps even things like Trapwire's iWatch program, or from the "See Saying, Say Something" program that it actually oversees. That's one of many things that didn't just seem noteworthy to the New York Times when it explained away concerns about the program as "wildly exaggerated" based in part on what they were told in a private conversation they had with some people at the DHS whose names or titles or evidence for what they claimed are coquettishly left to the imagination in the high New York Times reporting style that was always most polished in the work of Judith Miller (aside from whoever else hasn't gotten caught using it, of course).
The other thing we didn't hear from the media on Trapwire, and obviously on the six deletions that weren't originally caught, is that Cubic wants to be able to get more contracts doing public-space security of the sort that isn't focused on landmarks, but on everyone - transportation.
Perhaps they don't want connections made at all about itself and one of its firms, and to such an extent that they asked for and got an article deleted without initial explanation (and with a shitty vague semi-leaked one afterwards, and now a supposedly entirely true explanation you can buy for a buck at newstands in Australia) that doesn't explain why they didn't do what papers like themselves almost always do when such things happen, which is to add a correction note at top or bottom and perhaps fix whatever actually makes it incorrect. That the premise is wrong - that nothing that Cubic does is coordinated with anything that its subsidiary does, even though firms tend to coordinate with others for "synergy," as Cubic said it would get from Abraxas in its very own tax filings - is not only not proven by Cubic at all, but also likely to be true based on what people like me who spend all day thinking about Cubic have found or gathered up about this actual story that the story-people out there at the NYT don't need to find because the NYT offers prestige, which is even better than relevant information about globe-spanning issues with an already demonstrable and potentially much larger than thus proven impact on the the privacy and state-citizen power relationship of tens of millions of people and perhaps more.
That the article was not simply changed to say something like "Cubic claims it doesn't coordinate with this subsidiary as it does with a couple of the secret ones that popped up just because some wacky kids stole all HBGary's e-mails," or at least the lest informative version thereof that is fit for newspaper writing, is because of one thing. Cubic wasn't asking if they could please correct the article because they are disputing with no proof that it is entirely wrong. They WANTED that thing down.
5:58 EST 8/16
And why did the co-author of the piece, a tech editor at Sydney Morning Herald, send out a single Tweet yesterday in response to questions about what happened or where's the correction, saying he'd thought the correction was already out. But it never went online around then. It came out in the print edition of the Sydney Morning Herald the next day, and that's it. Was he told an explanation would be put up online, as is common and appropriate when an entire widely-read story relevant to an issue that is being (ideally) discussed among the public and raised by at least one of the nation's parliament members (whose standard motion to ask government about Trapwire dealings, and which was shot down, prompting protests from him (if not from any press that I am aware of yet, which don't seem to have thought this interesting even in the rare case that they've even mentioned Trapwire already)? If he was told this, who decided against such an appropriate move as admitting their "mistake" so that most of people who read it could see it without having to call an Australian, which no one likes to do? This is among the most extraordinary things, in totality, that I have seen in ten years of writing and reading things and in two years of involvement in an already bizarre sector/issue that has left me raided by the FBI, my friends (and not-so-good-friends) arrested or given awesome new jobs as rats, and me getting a drunken late-night phone call from HBGary CEO Greg Hoglund that is hilarious, in which he taunts me about how we'll never figure out the exact function of Romas/COIN (and which the now FBI has, since I obviously recorded it on one of the four laptops they took from me along with notes, etc.) It deserves further investigation by somebody who's actually getting paid for it and who has an actual regular outlet. A journalist, for instance. That would be nice.
Here are the links that went to an article about Cubic and its subsidiaries and how they plan to be a part of your transportation experience. Sorry they don't lead to anything, even explanations, but the firm just really didn't want a lot of irritating focus on this minor matter:
And here are the links you need now.
"anticipated synergies include the ability to expand services
offerings" #Cubic filing on #Abraxas
HBGary easily forced my editors to add "correction":
… ... that was false:
@TelecomixBSRE just pointed out this 2010 Cubic/Abraxas merger
agreement, looking now
… (nothing much there other than financial/legal shit, unless missed
The folks who can watch you and see where else you've been also help
CENTCOM make fake online people.
Persona_Management … #Trapwire
Last year, Cubic hid subsidiary Ntrepid so well that 2 Guardian
reporters who looked couldn't find it. (both are actually exceptional
reporters, just overlooked tax docs later found by one of PM
volunteers who's very good researcher)
Tweet by writer/editor who co-wrote syndicated story:
@MylesPeterson @barrettbrownlol @not_me @asher_wolf Thought it went
out today sorry. Should be tmrw then. Held to confirm some facts.
5h Barrett Brown @BarrettBrownLOL
@ashermoses Obviously your instinct to retract is noble, but want to
ensure you know that Cubic obscured truth last year. (referring to
Ntrepid thing above)
Abraxas, other Cubic subsidiary Ntrepid made with Abraxas staff and
tech that won CENTCOM bid for persona management: details, known docs
on persona management and that contract:
Our page on Cubic/Abraxas/Ntrepid, not yet updated for Trapwire
revelations and not nearly as mean as it will get when I have the
Please, please ask me if you have any questions at all, and I'll
either answer it or ask the person who most likely can. Thank you.