Jump to content

Talk:HBGary

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Allegedly...

[edit]

No one says that Barr definitely did what he said he did in his e-mails. Rather, editors seem to have only ever described the contents of the e-mails, which seems entirely fair. Let's cut back on the the word allege. Its overuse constitutes bad writing. KLP (talk) 01:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the sources are emails found anonymously uploaded to a torrent website... that reporters have been discussing. and when the reporters write about these emails, they usually use the word allege, because how do you know these emails are authentic? think about it from this perspective: someone comes up to you on the street, and says they have 50,000 internal they got from an organization. they wont tell you where they got it, or what their name is, or who gave it to them. they just say "here. trust me. all of these 50,000 are authentic." wouldn't you be a little skeptical? in reality, anyone could have uploaded these leaks to the torrent sites. if you say 'person Q did XYZ', and they really didn't do XYZ, then that is a problem. you also leave yourself open to hoaxes and scams, like the one Dan Rather fell for, or countless other examples. Of course, now, with more details coming out (i.e. the story on how the hack was done with SQL injection etc, the stories about the other companies distancing themselves from HBGary, etc), perhaps it is less of an issue. but when originally writing this article, it seemed important. i still think it is important, because how do you know ever single last email in there is authentic? normally journalists would take one fact from one email, corroborate that fact with several other people, maybe 5 people being interviewd 'on background'/off record, and another person who knew someone who wrote one of the emails. here we don't have any of that, we just have a data dump. Decora (talk) 17:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
also id like to point out that according to the anonymous dumped emails, HBGary, Berico, and Palantir were planning to plant fake stories

"According to one document prepared by Team Themis, the campaign included an entrapment project. The proposal called for first creating a “false document, perhaps highlighting periodical financial information,” to give to a progressive group opposing the Chamber, and then to subsequently expose the document as a fake to undermine the credibility of the Chamber’s opponents. In addition, the group proposed creating a “fake insider persona” to “generate communications” with Change to Win."

Source: http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2011/02/10/will-the-chamber-continue-wits-hbgary-work-now-that-theyve-been-hacked/ Empty Wheel, at Fire Dog Lake.
i.e. we are writing about a group that allegedly plans on releasing fake documents as part of their normal standard operating procedure. What is wikipedia to them? just another 'media channel' which can be hooked in with fakes... . . . even if the anonymous dumps are real, it just seems like a good 'habit', to stay in the cautious mindset, and be skeptical of sources. imho.
i'd also like to point out that using the word 'allegedly' (along with being very cautious in writing about people) is important to avoid accusations of defamation or libel. in some countries (Australia) that probably wouldnt even protect you. here is EFF bloggers guide. http://w2.eff.org/bloggers/lg/
Perhaps more importantly, we have WP:WTA, which deprecates using allegedly rather than just stating directly who claimed what about who did what. Ocaasi (talk) 23:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article clearly explains the involvement of Anonymous thereby casting enough doubt on the validity of the e-mails. The word allegedly only serves as a redundancy. KLP (talk) 14:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. "Those emails might not show the bullshit Barr pulled because they froms anonymous and therefore invalid and not believable and...", give it a rest. The emails are real. 124.169.198.197 (talk) 08:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC) Harlequin[reply]

we must rely on what the reliable sources have to say, not your opinion of the source referenced within the reliable sources.Coffeepusher (talk) 15:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You mean we haven't already settled this issue? KLP (talk) 18:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
didn't notice the timestamp when the IP responded. sorry about that.Coffeepusher (talk) 18:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who's Gary?

[edit]

One thing I've wondered throughout reading all the coverage on this is how the company got its name. Should it be parsed as "HBG ary"? Or "HB Gary"? And if so, who's Gary? Or is there another meaning to the company's name? Or is it just a string of characters without any specific meaning, chosen to look impressive/intriguing? -- Karada (talk) 14:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The press seems to consistently use HBGary, so let's stick with that. KLP (talk) 15:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, that wasn't my question -- it's definitely written "HBGary" everywhere. My question was: what does the name mean, if anything? Does it, for example, refer to something, or someone, called Gary? Or does it have some other meaning? Or is it a meaningless name like "Kodak"? -- Karada (talk) 15:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The answer is here http://hbgary.anonleaks.ch/aaron_hbgary_com/11436.html. In short, HBGary are three founders - Hogland, Bracken, and Gary. Bracken is still with the company but it is not known what happened to Gary.93.177.224.38 (talk) 16:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

criminalbrief.com

[edit]

I noticed that this source has been added to the article, but am not sure that http://criminalbrief.com/ is a reliable source. As far as I can tell it doesn't have any information on the site to indicate that there is editorial oversight of the publication and it looks more like a blog. There wasn't really anything information added when the reference was added so I would suggest we remove it, unless I have missed something about the site to indicate it is more reliable than it looks. SmartSE (talk) 09:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criminal Brief is a network of published professional crime writers, many award winning, two with substantial backgrounds in computer technology, one with computer fraud experience. The article you point to was intensively investigated, one of the most highly researched on the web, I'm told. I believe the article alluded to contains sixty-some references, including PDF files related to the case (far more than the HBGary article here, though some are background, of course.) CB takes non-fiction very seriously. --Leigh 01:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leigh Lundin (talk • contribs)
I respect Criminal Brief's mission and interest in 'facts' as a base for realistic fiction writing. But that article shows no sign of referencing, no mention of sources, and no links to PDF files. Where on the page were you looking... the article linked above has nothing but the main text and comments below. Ocaasi (talk) 02:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry... Leigh, you might want to mention that "I'm told" was in reference to the fact that you wrote the article. Please read WP:RS and WP:COI to understand both our sourcing and conflict of interest policies. Although I don't doubt your personal credibility, we generally don't take an author or expert's word for it. It would probably be helpful if instead of having us rely on that testimony--true as it may be--you just provide the underlying research or references for whatever claim was in question. Again, Criminal Brief may be a great resource for writers, but I don't think that it meets the general secondary source criteria as a publication with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. That's not an insult, just an indication that difference sources are held to different standards or appropriate for different contexts. This would be a great question to bring up at the sourcing noticeboard: WP:RSN. Please do mention your relation to the article... Ocaasi (talk) 02:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New sources

[edit]

You might find this and this of use. They discuss how HBGary astroturf using sockpuppets. SmartSE (talk) 15:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on HBGary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:59, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:HBGary&oldid=1202626145"