In my last post I noted the MSM is a year behind bloggers on Fast and Furious. On the Brett Kimberlin, Neal Rauhauser et/al story it looks like they will have to play catch-up as well. Only instead of being behind the young beautiful and talented Katie Pavlich they are lagging behind the less beautiful but completely unrelenting Robert Stacy McCain
Brett Kimberlin became a “client” of Neal Rauhauser in 2011. Rauhauser has described his specialty as “solving problems in the social media work space for political campaigns and causes,” and Kimberlin had distinct “problems in the social media work space,” namely how to stop bloggers from writing about Kimberlin’s criminal past.
One should not that this “problem in the social media work space” didn’t and apparently still doesn’t apply to the MSM but unfortunately for Brett, Neal et/al Stacy McCain seems to be doing the work of 20 journalists all by his lonesome. He excerpts a 2000 word document from Rauhauser (that he scrubbed from the net) that to a techie would be worth reading for the excellent technical insights concerning online identities alone but for the purposes of this story these two bits jump out at me all emphasis mine:
The whole idea is to encapsulate an online persona in a safe environment. The VM is the container for the personality, but what if your laptop is stolen, or if you’re arrested and questioned? We run http://truecrypt.comsoftware to make encrypted file containers. Our first test involved creating a 4 gig space, binding it to drive W:, and installing Windows in a VM there. The persona in the VM is now perfectly safe if the machine is lost or stolen, so long as a strong password is used. . . .
This cannot be stressed strongly enough: we have only protected against the following threats. Disclosure due to loss/theft/seizure of host computer
Hmmmm maybe it’s the Sicilian in me but am I to understand Mr. Rauhauser is giving advice to people creating false identities on how to stymie law enforcement?
Lets put this all into context:
1. You have Conservative writers and bloggers who have been Swatted because they have written about Brett Kimberlin et/al.
2. You have a Journalist who has been forced to relocate his family for their own safety for exercising his first amendment rights concerning this story.
3. You have one of the principals of this story giving advice in writing on how to keep ones activities and identities concealed from law enforcement, and then after writing these 2,000 words scrubbing them from the net.
“that someone had discovered “one of my plant names that I use on the web to confuse the Right.”
Exactly the type of thing that Mr. Rauhauser was giving advice on.
Any one of these items individually would be we call a STORY. A newsworthy story. and as I said in this week’s under the fedora column at the Conservatory, the Minority Report and Conservatively Speaking
There are now, thousands to tens of thousands of people who had no idea who Brett Kimberlin & Neal Rauhauser et/al were 60 days ago. They do today due to the now nomadic Robert Stacy McCain.
It’s said that one needs to hit rock bottom before recovery can begin, the MSM still has a way to go. The question remains if they will decide to cover this story before they are forced to by events beyond their control?
If they do then once again we will have the spectacle of their remaining viewership looking on in amazement as people go to jail for something they never heard of…
… and wondering why?
Update: Stacy Links on his fast and furious story and I’ll repeat the question I asked in the previous post, it was made concerning Fast and Furious but could apply here:
Are we seeing today, what Watergate would have been if the president had been a Democrat beloved by the MSM?
and since to our knowledge there is no White House connection to the Kimberlin & Co story (yet)
Are we seeing today how the Watergate burglars etc would have been treated if they were on the same political side as the MSM?
I think the answer to both is yes, but the fact both questions can be credibly asked is a disgrace in itself.