Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Anonymous' Barrett Brown Raided By FBI During Online Chat

Posted by Soulskill on from the caught-on-tape dept.

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.)

17 of 208 comments (clear)

  1. Just self defense by cpu6502 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    1. Re:Just self defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Just self defense by silas_moeckel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    3. Re:Just self defense by silas_moeckel · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    4. Re:Just self defense by kelemvor4 · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

      If you live within 100 miles of a U.S. Border, no warrant is needed. That's 66% of all Americans. http://www.aclu.org/national-security_technology-and-liberty/are-you-living-constitution-free-zone

    5. Re:Just self defense by macraig · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What you described is a police state in miniature. That we're engaged in scaling it up now doesn't seem to be open to much debate, only how far along we are. Such a lovely time to be an American.

    6. Re:Just self defense by dna_(c)(tm)(r) · · Score: 2, Insightful

      [...] They're trained to treat every raid as if they were going up against hardened, experienced, and well-armed enemies.[...]

      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.

      For the Europeans amongst us: That's what you get in return for the freedom to bear arms.

      For the US citizens amongst us: See your hard earned tax dollars at work.

  2. Not news by girlintraining · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "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.

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:Not news by Applekid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      More Twoson than Cupertino
    2. Re:Not news by Microlith · · Score: 1, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Not news by Hatta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    4. Re:Not news by Mitreya · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:Not news by shiftless · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    6. Re:Not news by hairyfeet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oh horseshit, have you been watching CSI or something? Short of sticking explosive to the things ANY software based tool is gonna take a SERIOUSLY long time to even do a single pass and simply pulling the plug would kill that shit quick.

      Now one could argue that MAYBE, just maybe, he had something like truecrypt on the drive but if that was the case simply popping the power switch with his foot would be enough to unmount the drive so kicking in the door wouldn't help shit anyway and a better strategy would be to simply grab this guy on the way to his car where he don't know shit is going on or bug his PC when he isn't at home.

      Nope the whole point of shit like this is INTIMIDATION, its to make YOU scared to speak up against them. Look at this nice little Jewish girl that gets to be hassled and intimidated every time she flies anywhere by being put on the watchlist, her crime? Speaking about your constitutional rights.

      I'm sorry but LEOs aren't the good guys anymore, they are pitbulls used by the state to keep the peasants scared of speaking up or talking back.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  3. Barrett Brown only claimed to be Anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Barrett Brown only claimed to be Anonymous by Sydin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  4. Wrong people for the job by dbIII · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sending in a paramilitary force to arrest some guy for a crime that is of the same degree of violence as stealing a stapler from a workplace really just shows a lack of professionalism and a willingness to waste resources on overkill. I wonder what the real soldiers think of these idiots playing soldiers in such minor situations. What good is a SWAT team if they are diluted so much that their members are unlikely to meet situations where they are actually required? A hundred curb stomp situations is a pointless amount of experience for a group that you want to rely on when there is a real threat of something requiring a paramilitary response.