It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Project Vigilant Is a Fraud

page: 1
6

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Project Vigilant Is a Fraud


cryptome.org

Based on this material retrieved from Google cache, Project Vigilant is a fraud. The recent stories about Chet Uber recruiting volunteer Internet spies at Defcon, bragging about having 600 volunteers and advising Adrian Lamo to inform on Bradley Manning have been based on public relations hyperbole.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 12:06 PM
link   
WOW!

From an article on Forbes about Project Vigilant:


A semi-secret government contractor that calls itself Project Vigilant surfaced at the Defcon security conference Sunday with a series of revelations: that it monitors the traffic of 12 regional Internet service providers, hands much of that information to federal agencies, and encouraged one of its "volunteers," researcher Adrian Lamo, to inform the federal government about the alleged source of a controversial video of civilian deaths in Iraq leaked to whistle-blower site Wikileaks in April.


Source: blogs.forbes.com...

The implications of this cryptome.org article are VERY far reaching.. How much more obvious can it be that Lamo is lying!

The holes, they are a showin'

cryptome.org
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 3-8-2010 by misinformational]



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 12:08 PM
link   
Well, as I lay in bed last night listening to Alex Jones take on this very subject, two words jumped out.

Uber Lamo.

Really?

Uber Lamo?

Alex pronounced it Lamo, long a.

Uber Lamo.



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by hotbakedtater
 


THIS IS HUGE NEWS!!

Should the assertions that Project Vigilant is a fraud actually prove true - Then this PROVES that Lamo is concocting a story. This from Wired.com:


An Army intelligence analyst who is charged with leaking classified documents to the secret-spilling site WikiLeaks also allegedly sent classified documents to the hacker who turned him in to the feds, according to a friend and associate of the hacker who helped connect him with federal agents.

Note: Adrian Lamo has now denied this. See the update at the bottom of this post.

Chet Uber, director of Project Vigilant, the volunteer, non-profit arm of a corporate security firm, was one of the first people former hacker Adrian Lamo called after Army private Bradley Manning contacted him and disclosed that he had leaked classified documents and videos to WikiLeaks.


Source: www.wired.com...

So if Project Vigilant and Lamo is lying, then it stands to reason that this may well be PROOF that Manning is a patsy.

wow, wow, wow



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 01:26 PM
link   
ass I said in other threads, its very possible that they have no idea who the source is, but they wanted to focus on the whistle blower instead of the content

another strategy to change the talking point of the people and the media

and it worked



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Faiol
ass I said in other threads, its very possible that they have no idea who the source is, but they wanted to focus on the whistle blower instead of the content


I don't buy that. Why would whomever is orchestrating the investigation (i.e. Army) not just say the source was anonymous and then involve a well-known and previously convicted hacker, all only because they didn't know who the source of the lead to Manning was (or even the source to the leak at all)?

It doesn't add up to me.

I firmly believe this was an attempt to fabricate this story on some level that was not well devised.


We can marginalise a conspiracy’s ability to act by decreasing total conspiratorial power until it is no longer able to understand, and hence respond effectively to, its environment. We can split the conspiracy, reduce or eliminating important communication between a few high weight links or many low weight links. Traditional attacks on conspiratorial power groupings, such as assassination, have cut high weight links by killing, kidnapping, blackmailing or otherwise marginalizing or isolating some of the conspirators they were connected to.


Source: Julian Assange: Essays on Conspiracies

Perhaps this is a "traditional attack [through exposing Project Vigilant and Lamo) on conspirational power by [...] the marganalizing or isolating some of the conspirators [Lamo and Vigilant] they were connected to"?

Edit: typos and clarification

[edit on 3-8-2010 by misinformational]



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 02:26 PM
link   
Lots of chatter on this in the intertubez.



I think "Project Vigilant" is largely a publicity stunt, meaning it was just invented and it's so-called "history" is an extension of someone's imagination. As we say on my team, "This ain't my first rodeo." In other words, I've been around for a while. While I recognize some of the "principals" in this "group," I've never heard of them organized into a "project" -- certainly not with over 500 stealthy members!


Source: Project Vigilant is a publicity stunt.



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 02:36 PM
link   
Maybe I'm failing to convey the hugeness of this news.

Consider the following:


Chet Uber, director of Project Vigilant, the volunteer, non-profit arm of a corporate security firm, was one of the first people former hacker Adrian Lamo called after Army private Bradley Manning contacted him and disclosed that he had leaked classified documents and videos to WikiLeaks. Read More www.wired.com...


It's been claimed by MSM that Uber (head of the PROVED fraud Vigilant) was responsible for connecting Lamo and the Feds.

Now riddle me this:

If Vigilant wasn't able to connect Lamo and the Feds (as Vigilant is a fraud), then how, oh how, did the feds get any information on Manning?

Did Lamo lie? Why would he lie about how he snitched?



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 03:01 PM
link   
I'm kinda curious about the Project Vigilant itself, and what authority it has to monitor net traffic, what types of traffic is monitored, what the # monitored means, etc....



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by ThaLoccster
 


Here's an article the Examiner ran a few days back discussing what Vigilant supposedly was and how they operated:

www.examiner.com...

From the article:


n the fight against terror, the U.S. needs all the help it can get, even if that assistance comes from unpaid volunteers. For the past 14 years, a significant volunteer group of U.S. citizens has been operating in near total secrecy to monitor and report illegal or potentially harmful activity on the Web.

Flying “under the radar” and carefully discouraging any press coverage that focused on the group, Project Vigilant has quietly operated in the eddies and whirlpools of Internet research, feeding tips and warnings to federal, state and military agencies. The group claims over 500 current members, although their names and identities are still mostly secret. Their members comprise some of the most knowledgeable experts in the field of information security today and include current employees of the U.S. government, law enforcement and the military.



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 03:09 PM
link   
uber lamo....

interesting....


somebody somewhere has to be laughing at all this fiction.



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 08:59 PM
link   
people need to investigate this .... it may be important to this whole case



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Faiol
people need to investigate this .... it may be important to this whole case


Nope, the content exposed is more important than anything else.



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by RainCloud

Originally posted by Faiol
people need to investigate this .... it may be important to this whole case


Nope, the content exposed is more important than anything else.


That all depends RainCloud, are you confident that all the implications of this have been duly exposed? If not, then content remains, yes?. I've never been much for speculation. Mostly because it doesn't typically seem warranted or even necessary - Wikileaks is an exception and speculation (better call it postulation) appear not only warranted but perhaps even necessary.

However in general, I agree with your premise.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 01:37 PM
link   
Julian Assange's response to Project Vigilant on DemocracyNow.org:


JULIAN ASSANGE: Well, it’s an interesting trend that we’re seeing. You know, when the Pentagon Papers came out, really, most of the impact, at least as far as I can see, wasn’t from the content of the material; rather, it’s—the back reaction against the Pentagon Papers exposed something else. It exposed the inner workings and thoughts of the Nixon administration. And we are starting to see something like that happening in this case, that the—if you like, the crackdown and the attempt at covering up is revealing some of the inner workings of the security sector and the Obama administration, the United States. And Project Vigilant is an example of that.

So, one of the—the informer in this case, a sort of researcher for Wired magazine by the name of Adrian Lamo, who’s alleged to have shopped or ratted out Mr. Manning to the FBI, apparently was involved with this military contractor that had a program to engage in mass spying. The head of that—on US soil. The head of that organization says that they seen 250 million IP addresses daily with software that’s installed in some 600 locations around the United States. So this seems to be a, if you like, a privatized version of the National Security Agency, perhaps giving the government a bit more freedom.

Now, we do—we don’t—we have some public record in relation to Project Viligant. The rest of the statements are coming from this man who’s the CEO. His interest in speaking about this publicly needs to be understood. He seems to be wanting to drum up more people in various ISPs and other organizations to install this spy software on—either for ideological reasons or for promise of payment. And it’s a disturbing trend to see that indirection into a private company for spying. And he says that—he speaks quite carefully and says that the spying that’s occurring on internet use in the United States through his organization is as a result of a little sort of line in the small print that they get when they sign up, that is not seen, and that small print has been used to collect and spy on these people without breaking the law.


Source: www.democracynow.org... Entire Interview with Assange is a must watch/read. (transcripts from DemocracyNow interview with Assange in full below video)

[edit on 4-8-2010 by misinformational]



new topics

top topics



 
6

log in

join