How the Spooks Would Attack YOU and ME Too.

[hava1]

For some reason this entire story is blacked out in Israel. I posted a ilnk to Glen Greenwald's and some other general links, and strangely I had many "hits" into the post, all originating from facebook. I was wondering, though, whether part of the troll management, is the ability to fake "hits" into wordpress or other websites, in a manner that makes one think they have many unique hits, at some point, or for commercial purposes (to sell advertising based on traffic).

anyone ?

[hava1]

I mean, I think the troll managment guys were trying to send me a messge...

[justdrew]

this could go in a number of threads, and may even come to warrant one of it's own. Judging from the few examples that have come to light in the last few weeks, it seems likely a large percentage of 'it contracts' let by the government 'security community' are nothing but cons coning con men...

This looks like it could grow into "PROMIS 2.0" ...

in fact, all that needs to happen now is for this Montgomery clown to announce that his warz were for realz and that the gubamint is trying to steal it and silence him. wait for it... wait for it...

actually, this probably does warrant a thread of it's own, but I'll let someone else do that if they like. This THING he sold appears to have been a major source of "preferred information" used extensively by the "say-anything/scare-everybody" so-called security mafia under bush (and still largely in place today).

There's no fucking way they didn't KNOW this software was bullshit, but they NEEDED someone to lie to them, in the right ways. I bet there's a channel from Cheney's people directly to Montgomery, which they used to feed him what they wanted to hear next.

It's a classic con... and the SUCKER is America.

February 19, 2011
Hiding Details of Dubious Deal, U.S. Invokes National Security
By ERIC LICHTBLAU and JAMES RISEN

WASHINGTON — For eight years, government officials turned to Dennis Montgomery, a California computer programmer, for eye-popping technology that he said could catch terrorists. Now, federal officials want nothing to do with him and are going to extraordinary lengths to ensure that his dealings with Washington stay secret.

The Justice Department, which in the last few months has gotten protective orders from two federal judges keeping details of the technology out of court, says it is guarding state secrets that would threaten national security if disclosed. But others involved in the case say that what the government is trying to avoid is public embarrassment over evidence that Mr. Montgomery bamboozled federal officials.

A onetime biomedical technician with a penchant for gambling, Mr. Montgomery is at the center of a tale that features terrorism scares, secret White House briefings, backing from prominent Republicans, backdoor deal-making and fantastic-sounding computer technology.

Interviews with more than two dozen current and former officials and business associates and a review of documents show that Mr. Montgomery and his associates received more than $20 million in government contracts by claiming that software he had developed could help stop Al Qaeda’s next attack on the United States. But the technology appears to have been a hoax, and a series of government agencies, including the Central Intelligence Agency and the Air Force, repeatedly missed the warning signs, the records and interviews show.

Mr. Montgomery’s former lawyer, Michael Flynn — who now describes Mr. Montgomery as a “con man” — says he believes that the administration has been shutting off scrutiny of Mr. Montgomery’s business for fear of revealing that the government has been duped.

“The Justice Department is trying to cover this up,” Mr. Flynn said. “If this unravels, all of the evidence, all of the phony terror alerts and all the embarrassment comes up publicly, too. The government knew this technology was bogus, but these guys got paid millions for it.”

Justice Department officials declined to discuss the government’s dealings with Mr. Montgomery, 57, who is in bankruptcy and living outside Palm Springs, Calif. Mr. Montgomery is about to go on trial in Las Vegas on unrelated charges of trying to pass $1.8 million in bad checks at casinos, but he has not been charged with wrongdoing in the federal contracts, nor has the government tried to get back any of the money it paid. He and his current lawyer declined to comment.

The software he patented — which he claimed, among other things, could find terrorist plots hidden in broadcasts of the Arab network Al Jazeera; identify terrorists from Predator drone videos; and detect noise from hostile submarines — prompted an international false alarm that led President George W. Bush to order airliners to turn around over the Atlantic Ocean in 2003.

The software led to dead ends in connection with a 2006 terrorism plot in Britain. And they were used by counterterrorism officials to respond to a bogus Somali terrorism plot on the day of President Obama’s inauguration, according to previously undisclosed documents.

‘It Wasn’t Real’

“Dennis would always say, ‘My technology is real, and it’s worth a fortune,’ ” recounted Steve Crisman, a filmmaker who oversaw business operations for Mr. Montgomery and a partner until a few years ago. “In the end, I’m convinced it wasn’t real.”

Government officials, with billions of dollars in new counterterrorism financing after Sept. 11, eagerly embraced the promise of new tools against militants.

C.I.A. officials, though, came to believe that Mr. Montgomery’s technology was fake in 2003, but their conclusions apparently were not relayed to the military’s Special Operations Command, which had contracted with his firm. In 2006, F.B.I. investigators were told by co-workers of Mr. Montgomery that he had repeatedly doctored test results at presentations for government officials. But Mr. Montgomery still landed more business.

In 2009, the Air Force approved a $3 million deal for his technology, even though a contracting officer acknowledged that other agencies were skeptical about the software, according to e-mails obtained by The New York Times.

Hints of fraud by Mr. Montgomery, previously raised by Bloomberg Markets and Playboy, provide a cautionary tale about the pitfalls of government contracting. A Pentagon study in January found that it had paid $285 billion in three years to more than 120 contractors accused of fraud or wrongdoing.

“We’ve seen so many folks with a really great idea, who truly believe their technology is a breakthrough, but it turns out not to be,” said Gen. Victor E. Renuart Jr. of the Air Force, who retired last year as the commander of the military’s Northern Command. Mr. Montgomery described himself a few years ago in a sworn court statement as a patriotic scientist who gave the government his software “to stop terrorist attacks and save American lives.” His alliance with the government, at least, would prove a boon to a small company, eTreppidTechnologies, that he helped found in 1998.

He and his partner — a Nevada investor, Warren Trepp, who had been a top trader for the junk-bond king Michael Milken — hoped to colorize movies by using a technology Mr. Montgomery claimed he had invented that identified patterns and isolated images. Hollywood had little interest, but in 2002, the company found other customers.

With the help of Representative Jim Gibbons, a Republican who would become Nevada’s governor and was a longtime friend of Mr. Trepp’s, the company won the attention of intelligence officials in Washington. It did so with a remarkable claim: Mr. Montgomery had found coded messages hidden in broadcasts by Al Jazeera, and his technology could decipher them to identify specific threats.

The software so excited C.I.A. officials that, for a few months at least, it was considered “the most important, most sensitive” intelligence tool the agency had, according to a former agency official, who like several others would speak only on the condition of anonymity because the technology was classified. ETreppid was soon awarded almost $10 million in contracts with the military’s Special Operations Command and the Air Force, which were interested in software that Mr. Montgomery promised could identify human and other targets from videos on Predator drones.

In December 2003, Mr. Montgomery reported alarming news: hidden in the crawl bars broadcast by Al Jazeera, someone had planted information about specific American-bound flights from Britain, France and Mexico that were hijacking targets.

C.I.A. officials rushed the information to Mr. Bush, who ordered those flights to be turned around or grounded before they could enter American airspace.

“The intelligence people were telling us this was real and credible, and we had to do something to act on it,” recalled Asa Hutchinson, who oversaw federal aviation safety at the time. Senior administration officials even talked about shooting down planes identified as targets because they feared that supposed hijackers would use the planes to attack the United States, according to a former senior intelligence official who was at a meeting where the idea was discussed. The official later called the idea of firing on the planes “crazy.”

French officials, upset that their planes were being grounded, commissioned a secret study concluding that the technology was a fabrication. Presented with the findings soon after the 2003 episode, Bush administration officials began to suspect that “we got played,” a former counterterrorism official said.

The C.I.A. never did an assessment to determine how a ruse had turned into a full-blown international incident, officials said, nor was anyone held accountable. In fact, agency officials who oversaw the technology directorate — including Donald Kerr, who helped persuade George J. Tenet, then the director of central intelligence, that the software was credible — were promoted, former officials said. “Nobody was blamed,” a former C.I.A. official said. “They acted like it never happened.”

After a bitter falling out between Mr. Montgomery and Mr. Trepp in 2006 led to a series of lawsuits, the F.B.I. and the Air Force sent investigators to eTreppid to look into accusations that Mr. Montgomery had stolen digital data from the company’s systems. In interviews, several employees claimed that Mr. Montgomery had manipulated tests in demonstrations with military officials to make it appear that his video recognition software had worked, according to government memorandums. The investigation collapsed, though, when a judge ruled that the F.B.I. had conducted an improper search of his home.

Software and Secrets

The litigation worried intelligence officials. The Bush administration declared that some classified details about the use of Mr. Montgomery’s software were a “state secret” that could cause grave harm if disclosed in court. In 2008, the government spent three days “scrubbing” the home computers of Mr. Montgomery’s lawyer of all references to the technology. And this past fall, federal judges in Montana and Nevada who are overseeing several of the lawsuits issued protective orders shielding certain classified material.

The secrecy was so great that at a deposition Mr. Montgomery gave in November, two government officials showed up to monitor the questioning but refused to give their full names or the agencies they worked for.

Years of legal wrangling did not deter Mr. Montgomery from passing supposed intelligence to the government, according to intelligence officials, including an assertion in 2006 that his software was able to identify some of the men suspected of trying to plant liquid bombs on planes in Britain — a claim immediately disputed by United States intelligence officials. And he soon found a new backer: Edra Blixseth, a onetime billionaire who with her former husband had run the Yellowstone Club in Montana.

Hoping to win more government money, Ms. Blixseth turned to some influential friends, like Jack Kemp, the former New York congressman and Republican vice-presidential nominee, and Conrad Burns, then a Republican senator from Montana. They became minority stakeholders in the venture, called Blxware.

New Pitches

In an interview, Mr. Burns recalled how impressed he was by a video presentation that Mr. Montgomery gave to a cable company. “He talked a hell of a game,” the former senator said.

Mr. Kemp, meanwhile, used his friendship with Vice President Dick Cheney to set up a meeting in 2006 at which Mr. Kemp, Mr. Montgomery and Ms. Blixseth met with a top Cheney adviser, Samantha Ravich, to talk about expanding the government’s use of the Blxware software, officials said. She was noncommittal.

Mr. Flynn, who was still Mr. Montgomery’s lawyer, sent an angry letter to Mr. Cheney in May 2007. He accused the White House of abandoning a tool shown to “save lives.” (After a falling out with Mr. Montgomery, Mr. Flynn represents another party in one of the lawsuits.)

But Mr. Montgomery’s company still had an ally at the Air Force, which in late 2008 began negotiating a $3 million contract with Blxware.

In e-mails to Mr. Montgomery and other company officials, an Air Force contracting officer, Joseph Liberatore, described himself as one of the “believers,” despite skepticism from the C.I.A. and problems with the no-bid contract.

If other agencies examined the deal, he said in a December 2008 e-mail, “we are all toast.”

“Honestly I do not care about being fired,” Mr. Liberatore wrote, but he said he did care about “moving the effort forward — we are too close.” (The Air Force declined to make Mr. Liberatore available for comment.)

The day after Mr. Obama’s inauguration, Mr. Liberatore wrote that government officials were thanking Mr. Montgomery’s company for its support. The Air Force appears to have used his technology to try to identify the Somalis it believed were plotting to disrupt the inauguration, but within days, intelligence officials publicly stated that the threat had never existed. In May 2009, the Air Force canceled the company’s contract because it had failed to meet its expectations.

Mr. Montgomery is not saying much these days. At his deposition in November, when he was asked if his software was a “complete fraud,” he answered, “I’m going to assert my right under the Fifth Amendment.”

its worth pointing out that much of this plays itself out in public and private enterprises everyday. A generation of clueless know-nothing management pay outrageous prices for consultants and contractors and receive "goat shit" in return everyday. but they're spending money and give good meeting, so the bullshit get's papered over, the enterprise limps along (often only due to the constantly under-threat, underpaid, and unappreciated skeleton crew of "inside talent" having to re-do everything. but "the board" etc never hear anything about that.) These clueless managers and executives think the light of the world shines out of their ass, and anything they need appears on command, just a matter of throwing money at the right contractor.

[Joe Hillshoist]

Anyway, there's nothing stopping me from (sigh) deleting my own post and re-posting it without the quotes. I have yet to decide if I'm too proud to do that, because it is a waste of my precious time on a site where I am among the content providers and where we are treated as though the favor is being done for us.

So why do I bother with that site? Truth is, I shouldn't bother with any message boards, not even this wonderful one, but I engage in them because I am lazy about writing books or getting a dissertation done like I should (or starting a survivalist colony or getting back into political movements or something else semi-useful). I have instead conditioned myself to the instant gratification of pornography immediate publication, readers and responses within minutes or hours, very often interesting dialogues, the ability to build dossiers as news comes in (like on this very thread) and (not to be underestimated) combat with idiots, as well as sometimes combat with worthy adversaries. So I don't bother with "that site," I bother with readers on that site. A couple of hundred of them seem to like my stuff, and there are still a dozen whose stuff I like (and sometimes repost here if it's good, like with Hannah Bell). What other reason would there be? Anyway, don't make me question it too much, because that would lead me to question what I'm doing here, albeit RI is a smarter, smaller, friendlier, more intense place without irrational censorship, sexier management, etc.

.

Jack believe me, the "dossiers" you build here are fantastic, this site was always great, but the contribution you (and many others) have made over the last couple of years to providing reams of info, and contextualising it (to a point, not so far that its blatant propaganda, just far enough thats its useful info (and propaganda, but only cos everything is)) is invaluable.

In a fractal world small inputs can have large output effects sometimes, often even.


Seriously this website is unreal. There is so much info here. Its an asset to humanity and its really cos of the effort of people (and others) like you who put so much in. Thanks very much.

[NeonLX]

I'd like to second what Joe H said. This site really is the best, undoubtedly as a result of all the high-density gray matter of the posters here. I am constantly in awe of the tremendous research and writing talent.

Wish I had more to contribute...

[wintler2]

I'd like to second what Joe H said. This site really is the best, undoubtedly as a result of all the high-density gray matter of the posters here. I am constantly in awe of the tremendous research and writing talent.

Wish I had more to contribute...

Same here, but i figure we're all learning and can all contribute by having a go. If something sounds wrong, or too right, and i have time and the inclination, then i follow my intuition with some rigor, do a little digging/checking and add any useful grains the pile, doing my best but knowing they may turn out to be unhelpful. All swarms have individuals that are better at the task of the day/carting pollen, but the supportive swarm leverages individuals it has faith in to magnify their impact, e.g. civil disobedience & unrest, Anonymous. On a good day, we all provide mutual camoflage, distribution of ideas, fact checking, and morale boosting, making the space that attracts genius.

Think too how willingly we (in this case meaning a large part of the dissident classes and groups) have gone along with the convenience of e-mail campaigns, or "voting" in the nonsense surveys on what issues should be pursued at MoveOn.org or Change.org and even .gov, or in "signing" electronic petitions, or gak! participating in the bogus Internet polls of the media.

Too true, ouch!

The only cure is that people learn to discriminate, although judging by debates here that's hard (we're all being duped every day by something according to some RI member or other).

There is always going to be some noise in the signal, what is interesting about alot of the 'noise' we get here is that it is attached to usernames that get used up and discarded as credibility wanes, ie. it is reducible by dialogue and "show me" requests.

[Plutonia]

I mean, I think the troll managment guys were trying to send me a messge...

My guess is that because Anonymous is giving tech support to "revolutionaries" in your "neighborhood", the spooks are looking at any place Anon shows up. But yes, they use "washed" IP's to simulate different users - could be one guy watching your site lol. You could have some fun with that.

.........


justdrew, that article is great for context re HBGary, who were def riding the grift line. You can imagine that the privatization of the "security state" has sparked a feeding frenzy amongst the sharks competing for those gov and corps contracts. Plus they pretty much have to commit to shared delusion just to play. The outright conmen by that measure, could be considered more sane than their marks.

[Plutonia]

Anonymous scares me.

They're still my heroes.

Scary, scary heroes.

Interesting Maddy. I'd be interested in knowing what frightens you about them.

And if they frighten you more than, say, Team Themis?

[Maddy]

Because I would hate to be on their bad side. Wouldn't anyone? I think that's common sense.

They're still my heroes and I truly admire them.

And I despise Team Themis, where I admire Anonymous. I suppose its all in the intent.

[Plutonia]

Because I would hate to be on their bad side. Wouldn't anyone? I think that's common sense.

They're still my heroes and I truly admire them.

And I despise Team Themis, where I admire Anonymous. I suppose its all in the intent.

Hmm.. do you think you are likely to get on their bad side somehow? Seems unlikely to me unless you have an Archon-sized ego and/or run an abusive cult, company or government.

Have you ever hung out where they hang out? IRC, Reddit, Why We Protest, Anonews? They are the funniest wise-crackers ever. Also fascinating to watch the hive mind churning. Highly recommend courageously lurking in Anon territory.

http://search.mibbit.com/channels/AnonOps

[hava1]

thanks much, that explains it.

I mean, I think the troll managment guys were trying to send me a messge...

My guess is that because Anonymous is giving tech support to "revolutionaries" in your "neighborhood", the spooks are looking at any place Anon shows up. But yes, they use "washed" IP's to simulate different users - could be one guy watching your site lol. You could have some fun with that.

.........

l:

[Maddy]

lol Yes, Plutonia, I have. And I don't have any huge ego that supposes anyone would be after me. I just know when I could be beaten (or should I admit to being intimidated easily? I have witnesses to that effect!). They are hilarious, in many regards, but like I said, I'd hate to have them on my bad side!

[Maddy]

ps: Also, that's why its called "lurking". >.>

[Plutonia]

lol Yes, Plutonia, I have. And I don't have any huge ego that supposes anyone would be after me. I just know when I could be beaten (or should I admit to being intimidated easily? I have witnesses to that effect!). They are hilarious, in many regards, but like I said, I'd hate to have them on my bad side!

Well, there you are then.

[AhabsOtherLeg]

Sarah Palin's getting in on this whole sock-puppetting business, according to Wonkette, albeit in a more limited and traditional manner.

There are loads of screencaps, so best just to post a link:
http://wonkette.com/438825/is-sarah-pal ... k-fan-page

Could this be news management, maybe, to make the other stuff seem more benign and comical - the old "incompetent, not evil" meme - or just to push it out of the media altogether? They'll want some cover for their other activities, and Sarah always seems to be obliging.