• April 2015
    M T W T F S S
    « Mar    
     12345
    6789101112
    13141516171819
    20212223242526
    27282930  
  • Pages

  • Marginalia

  • Accumulations

Implicante | Who Is? Traceroute?

Screenshot from 2015-04-26 12:13:58
Source: Diário do Centro do Mundo

Who created the defamatory Web site Folha Política and why are they concealing their authorship?

Continue reading

Do I Spy? Checking Chequer

Click to zoom

Click to zoom

Source: Various, «Wikileaks»

The Brazilian alt.press continues digging into the background of the newborn prince of digital activistism Rogério Chequer of the anti-PT Vem Pra Rua street protest movement —  a one-man media blitz — Jornal Nacional, Roda Viva — who continues to offer a hazy back story.

The digging suffers from a certain lack of precision as to the documents on which it is based, however, as well as a slight tendency to guilt by association. An example: Tijolaço, dated March 24 of this year, asks

What was the editor of “Vem pra Rua” doing on a Stratfor list leaked by Wikileaks in 2012?

Continue reading

Curious Triangulations | A Sambodian Revolving Door

Implicante.

I am using CMap Tools, a draft of which appears above, as a way to manage the cast of characters and the relationships involved in the scheme involving the São Paulo state press secretaries and their use of relations with contractors and subcontractors to move money from the public to the private sphere.

Screenshot from 2015-04-24 18:31:11

Or so many observers are alleging. I am studying the documents from the Diário Oficial — worst transparency failure ever! — to see what I can see.

It is interesting to discover that Appendix, the focus of all this fuss, describes itself as a producer of bespoke software and programming.

In any event, consider this network analysis a draft, and send suggestions.

The case of the blogger who received R$ 70,000 per month from the Alckmin government to speak ill of the Workers Party — is a mere thread that leads to a more intricate story. Let’s go through it, step by step.

Continue reading

Publishing Incognito | «Tech Email:IMPLICANTE.ORG@domainsbyproxy.com»

Screenshot from 2015-04-23 13:52:44

Source:  Folha de S. Paulo

Topics: Implicante, privacy, GoDaddy

Two days after the publication of an article by Ricardo Mendonça and Lucas Ferraz of the Folha, which reported that the government of São Paulo contracted a company in which the site received R$ 70,000 monthly to produce articles against the Workers’ Party and its member, the Folha published responses from the state government and the PR firm that mediates the relation between the government and the site.

Two days after the publication of an article by Ricardo Mendonça and Lucas Ferraz of the Folha, which reported that the government of São Paulo contracted a company in which the site received R$ 70,000 monthly to produce articles against the Workers’ Party and its member, the Folha published responses from the state government and the PR firm that mediates the relation between the government and the site.

One letter was signed by a certain “technical assistant of the state Subsecretary of Communications” and the by a VP of the PR agency that serves as an intermediary with the company behind “Implicante” and the million-dollar payments.

Among the three PR companies connected to the campaign, Lua Propaganda claims to service clients such as the state government de São Paulo, the city of São Paulo, AES Eletropaulo, B/Sinco, Brazcarnes, Revista L’Officiel, Ecoera, Lifan Motors, Kiss FM, Polenghi.  “And many others have left their mark on the lunar soil.”

Both letters use the same argument as Implicante to justify the 21 payments of R$ 70,000 that the author of the site was awarded, totalling R$ 1.47 million: a company called Appendix supposedly offered “the lowest price.”

Miro Borges comments:

The letter from this “technical assistant of the state Subsecretary of Communications,” a secretariat occupied by former Veja journalist Marcio Aith, is a joke, and the response to the Folha article is devastating. After “repeated requests,” the state government sent the Folha nearly nine dozen boxes full of documents with no relation to the topic of the story. Why is it so difficult for the Alckmin government to furnish the request for  information?

Bullshit Detection

The Implicante — ” The Gadfly ” — was conceived and created in early 2011 and never received public money or sponsorshi

Screenshot from 2015-04-23 13:52:44

Source:  Folha de S. Paulo

Topics: Implicante, privacy, GoDaddy

Two days after the publication of an article by Ricardo Mendonça and Lucas Ferraz of the Folha, which reported that the government of São Paulo contracted a company in which the site received R$ 70,000 monthly to produce articles against the Workers’ Party and its member, the Folha published responses from the state government and the PR firm that mediates the relation between the government and the site.

Two days after the publication of an article by Ricardo Mendonça and Lucas Ferraz of the Folha, which reported that the government of São Paulo contracted a company in which the site received R$ 70,000 monthly to produce articles against the Workers’ Party and its member, the Folha published responses from the state government and the PR firm that mediates the relation between the government and the site.

One letter was signed by a certain “technical assistant of the state Subsecretary of Communications” and the by a VP of the PR agency that serves as an intermediary with the company behind “Implicante” and the million-dollar payments.

Among the three PR companies connected to the campaign, Lua Propaganda claims to service clients such as the state government de São Paulo, the city of São Paulo, AES Eletropaulo, B/Sinco, Brazcarnes, Revista L’Officiel, Ecoera, Lifan Motors, Kiss FM, Polenghi.  “And many others have left their mark on the lunar soil.”

Both letters use the same argument as Implicante to justify the 21 payments of R$ 70,000 that the author of the site was awarded, totalling R$ 1.47 million: a company called Appendix supposedly offered “the lowest price.”

Miro Borges comments:

The letter from this “technical assistant of the state Subsecretary of Communications,” a secretariat occupied by former Veja journalist Marcio Aith, is a joke, and the response to the Folha article is devastating. After “repeated requests,” the state government sent the Folha nearly nine dozen boxes full of documents with no relation to the topic of the story. Why is it so difficult for the Alckmin government to furnish the request for  information?

Bullshit Detection

The Implicante — ” The Gadfly ” — was conceived and created in early 2011 and never received public money or sponsorship from any party or government. Our personal posts publish the byline to their authors and the content of the site has never been party to contracts with the companies cited in the DCM article, or any other.

And now for something completely ridiculous.

Implicante is hosted in the United States as a matter of cost. We use a .org domain with a privacy option, and not a .br domain, pto say recisely in order to avoid the undue exposure that .br domains, unfortunately, demand.

Is this not precisely that the authors of Implicante wanted to conceal their authorship?

It is worth recalling that a WHOIS search on a Brazilian domain led a reader of a progressive blogger to the front door of the father of one of our administrators several years ago.

That was then. This is now. It no longer does.

Journalist Lucas Ferraz, author of the Folha story, ought to know that this is not a tactic to “conceal the author” by the site, in that along with identify us by name, social security number, and national registry, the journalist was easily able to obtain the cell phones of some of our collaborators.

A simple WHOIS performed today will no longer provide information about the responsible party. I call bullshit.

One letter was signed by a certain “technical assistant of the state Subsecretary of Communications” and the by a VP of the PR agency that serves as an intermediary with the company behind “Implicante” and the million-dollar payments.

Both letters use the same argument as Implicante to justify the 21 payments of R$ 70,000 that the author of the site was awarded, totalling R$ 1.47 million: a company called Appendix supposedly offered “the lowest price.”

Miro Borges comments:

The letter from this “technical assistant of the state Subsecretary of Communications,” a secretariat occupied by former Veja journalist Marcio Aith, is a joke, and the response to the Folha article is devastating. After “repeated requests,” the state government sent the Folha nearly nine dozen boxes full of documents with no relation to the topic of the story. Why is it so difficult for the Alckmin government to furnish the request for  information?

Bullshit Detection

The Implicante — ” The Gadfly ” — was conceived and created in early 2011 and never received public money or sponsorship from any party or government. Our personal posts publish the byline to their authors and the content of the site has never been party to contracts with the companies cited in the DCM article, or any other.

vugotsign

And now for something completely ridiculous.

Implicante is hosted in the United States as a matter of cost. We use a .org domain with a privacy option, and not a .br domain, precisely in order to avoid the undue exposure that .br domains, unfortunately, demand.

Is this not precisely to say that the authors of Implicante wanted to conceal their authorship?

It is worth recalling that a WHOIS search on a Brazilian domain led a reader of a progressive blogger to the front door of the father of one of our administrators several years ago.

That was then. This is now. It no longer does.

Journalist Lucas Ferraz, author of the Folha story, ought to know that this is not a tactic to “conceal the author” by the site, in that along with identify us by name, social security number, and national registry, the journalist was easily able to obtain the cell phones of some of our collaborators.

Yes, but a simple WHOIS performed today will no longer provide information about the responsible party.

A number of libertarian sites such as Cato also use privacy protection, but openly divulge their corporate identities.

catoorg

I call bullshit.

Our personal posts publish the byline to their authors and the content of the site has never been party to contracts with the companies cited in the DCM article, or any other.

And now for something completely ridiculous.

Implicante is hosted in the United States as a matter of cost. We use a .org domain with a privacy option, and not a .br domain, pto say recisely in order to avoid the undue exposure that .br domains, unfortunately, demand.

Is this not precisely that the authors of Implicante wanted to conceal their authorship?

It is worth recalling that a WHOIS search on a Brazilian domain led a reader of a progressive blogger to the front door of the father of one of our administrators several years ago.

That was then. This is now. It no longer does.

Journalist Lucas Ferraz, author of the Folha story, ought to know that this is not a tactic to “conceal the author” by the site, in that along with identify us by name, social security number, and national registry, the journalist was easily able to obtain the cell phones of some of our collaborators.

A simple WHOIS performed today will no longer provide information about the responsible party. I call bullshit.

One letter was signed by a certain “technical assistant of the state Subsecretary of Communications” and the by a VP of the PR agency that serves as an intermediary with the company behind “Implicante” and the million-dollar payments.

Both letters use the same argument as Implicante to justify the 21 payments of R$ 70,000 that the author of the site was awarded, totalling R$ 1.47 million: a company called Appendix supposedly offered “the lowest price.”

Miro Borges comments:

The letter from this “technical assistant of the state Subsecretary of Communications,” a secretariat occupied by former Veja journalist Marcio Aith, is a joke, and the response to the Folha article is devastating. After “repeated requests,” the state government sent the Folha nearly nine dozen boxes full of documents with no relation to the topic of the story. Why is it so difficult for the Alckmin government to furnish the request for  information?

Bullshit Detection

The Implicante — ” The Gadfly ” — was conceived and created in early 2011 and never received public money or sponsorship from any party or government. Our personal posts publish the byline to their authors and the content of the site has never been party to contracts with the companies cited in the DCM article, or any other.

p from any party or government.

Screenshot from 2015-04-23 13:52:44

Source:  Folha de S. Paulo

Topics: Implicante, privacy, GoDaddy

Two days after the publication of an article by Ricardo Mendonça and Lucas Ferraz of the Folha, which reported that the government of São Paulo contracted a company in which the site received R$ 70,000 monthly to produce articles against the Workers’ Party and its member, the Folha published responses from the state government and the PR firm that mediates the relation between the government and the site.

Two days after the publication of an article by Ricardo Mendonça and Lucas Ferraz of the Folha, which reported that the government of São Paulo contracted a company in which the site received R$ 70,000 monthly to produce articles against the Workers’ Party and its member, the Folha published responses from the state government and the PR firm that mediates the relation between the government and the site.

One letter was signed by a certain “technical assistant of the state Subsecretary of Communications” and the by a VP of the PR agency that serves as an intermediary with the company behind “Implicante” and the million-dollar payments.

Among the three PR companies connected to the campaign, Lua Propaganda claims to service clients such as the state government de São Paulo, the city of São Paulo, AES Eletropaulo, B/Sinco, Brazcarnes, Revista L’Officiel, Ecoera, Lifan Motors, Kiss FM, Polenghi.  “And many others have left their mark on the lunar soil.”

Both letters use the same argument as Implicante to justify the 21 payments of R$ 70,000 that the author of the site was awarded, totalling R$ 1.47 million: a company called Appendix supposedly offered “the lowest price.”

Miro Borges comments:

The letter from this “technical assistant of the state Subsecretary of Communications,” a secretariat occupied by former Veja journalist Marcio Aith, is a joke, and the response to the Folha article is devastating. After “repeated requests,” the state government sent the Folha nearly nine dozen boxes full of documents with no relation to the topic of the story. Why is it so difficult for the Alckmin government to furnish the request for  information?

Bullshit Detection

The Implicante — ” The Gadfly ” — was conceived and created in early 2011 and never received public money or sponsorshi

Screenshot from 2015-04-23 13:52:44

Source:  Folha de S. Paulo

Topics: Implicante, privacy, GoDaddy

Two days after the publication of an article by Ricardo Mendonça and Lucas Ferraz of the Folha, which reported that the government of São Paulo contracted a company in which the site received R$ 70,000 monthly to produce articles against the Workers’ Party and its member, the Folha published responses from the state government and the PR firm that mediates the relation between the government and the site.

Two days after the publication of an article by Ricardo Mendonça and Lucas Ferraz of the Folha, which reported that the government of São Paulo contracted a company in which the site received R$ 70,000 monthly to produce articles against the Workers’ Party and its member, the Folha published responses from the state government and the PR firm that mediates the relation between the government and the site.

One letter was signed by a certain “technical assistant of the state Subsecretary of Communications” and the by a VP of the PR agency that serves as an intermediary with the company behind “Implicante” and the million-dollar payments.

Among the three PR companies connected to the campaign, Lua Propaganda claims to service clients such as the state government de São Paulo, the city of São Paulo, AES Eletropaulo, B/Sinco, Brazcarnes, Revista L’Officiel, Ecoera, Lifan Motors, Kiss FM, Polenghi.  “And many others have left their mark on the lunar soil.”

Both letters use the same argument as Implicante to justify the 21 payments of R$ 70,000 that the author of the site was awarded, totalling R$ 1.47 million: a company called Appendix supposedly offered “the lowest price.”

Miro Borges comments:

The letter from this “technical assistant of the state Subsecretary of Communications,” a secretariat occupied by former Veja journalist Marcio Aith, is a joke, and the response to the Folha article is devastating. After “repeated requests,” the state government sent the Folha nearly nine dozen boxes full of documents with no relation to the topic of the story. Why is it so difficult for the Alckmin government to furnish the request for  information?

Bullshit Detection

The Implicante — ” The Gadfly ” — was conceived and created in early 2011 and never received public money or sponsorship from any party or government. Our personal posts publish the byline to their authors and the content of the site has never been party to contracts with the companies cited in the DCM article, or any other.

And now for something completely ridiculous.

Implicante is hosted in the United States as a matter of cost. We use a .org domain with a privacy option, and not a .br domain, pto say recisely in order to avoid the undue exposure that .br domains, unfortunately, demand.

Is this not precisely that the authors of Implicante wanted to conceal their authorship?

It is worth recalling that a WHOIS search on a Brazilian domain led a reader of a progressive blogger to the front door of the father of one of our administrators several years ago.

That was then. This is now. It no longer does.

Journalist Lucas Ferraz, author of the Folha story, ought to know that this is not a tactic to “conceal the author” by the site, in that along with identify us by name, social security number, and national registry, the journalist was easily able to obtain the cell phones of some of our collaborators.

A simple WHOIS performed today will no longer provide information about the responsible party. I call bullshit.

One letter was signed by a certain “technical assistant of the state Subsecretary of Communications” and the by a VP of the PR agency that serves as an intermediary with the company behind “Implicante” and the million-dollar payments.

Both letters use the same argument as Implicante to justify the 21 payments of R$ 70,000 that the author of the site was awarded, totalling R$ 1.47 million: a company called Appendix supposedly offered “the lowest price.”

Miro Borges comments:

The letter from this “technical assistant of the state Subsecretary of Communications,” a secretariat occupied by former Veja journalist Marcio Aith, is a joke, and the response to the Folha article is devastating. After “repeated requests,” the state government sent the Folha nearly nine dozen boxes full of documents with no relation to the topic of the story. Why is it so difficult for the Alckmin government to furnish the request for  information?

Bullshit Detection

The Implicante — ” The Gadfly ” — was conceived and created in early 2011 and never received public money or sponsorship from any party or government. Our personal posts publish the byline to their authors and the content of the site has never been party to contracts with the companies cited in the DCM article, or any other.

vugotsign

And now for something completely ridiculous.

Implicante is hosted in the United States as a matter of cost. We use a .org domain with a privacy option, and not a .br domain, precisely in order to avoid the undue exposure that .br domains, unfortunately, demand.

Is this not precisely to say that the authors of Implicante wanted to conceal their authorship?

It is worth recalling that a WHOIS search on a Brazilian domain led a reader of a progressive blogger to the front door of the father of one of our administrators several years ago.

That was then. This is now. It no longer does.

Journalist Lucas Ferraz, author of the Folha story, ought to know that this is not a tactic to “conceal the author” by the site, in that along with identify us by name, social security number, and national registry, the journalist was easily able to obtain the cell phones of some of our collaborators.

Yes, but a simple WHOIS performed today will no longer provide information about the responsible party.

A number of libertarian sites such as Cato also use privacy protection, but openly divulge their corporate identities.

catoorg

I call bullshit.

Our personal posts publish the byline to their authors and the content of the site has never been party to contracts with the companies cited in the DCM article, or any other.

And now for something completely ridiculous.

Implicante is hosted in the United States as a matter of cost. We use a .org domain with a privacy option, and not a .br domain, pto say recisely in order to avoid the undue exposure that .br domains, unfortunately, demand.

Is this not precisely that the authors of Implicante wanted to conceal their authorship?

It is worth recalling that a WHOIS search on a Brazilian domain led a reader of a progressive blogger to the front door of the father of one of our administrators several years ago.

That was then. This is now. It no longer does.

Journalist Lucas Ferraz, author of the Folha story, ought to know that this is not a tactic to “conceal the author” by the site, in that along with identify us by name, social security number, and national registry, the journalist was easily able to obtain the cell phones of some of our collaborators.

A simple WHOIS performed today will no longer provide information about the responsible party. I call bullshit.

One letter was signed by a certain “technical assistant of the state Subsecretary of Communications” and the by a VP of the PR agency that serves as an intermediary with the company behind “Implicante” and the million-dollar payments.

Both letters use the same argument as Implicante to justify the 21 payments of R$ 70,000 that the author of the site was awarded, totalling R$ 1.47 million: a company called Appendix supposedly offered “the lowest price.”

Miro Borges comments:

The letter from this “technical assistant of the state Subsecretary of Communications,” a secretariat occupied by former Veja journalist Marcio Aith, is a joke, and the response to the Folha article is devastating. After “repeated requests,” the state government sent the Folha nearly nine dozen boxes full of documents with no relation to the topic of the story. Why is it so difficult for the Alckmin government to furnish the request for  information?

Bullshit Detection

The Implicante — ” The Gadfly ” — was conceived and created in early 2011 and never received public money or sponsorship from any party or government. Our personal posts publish the byline to their authors and the content of the site has never been party to contracts with the companies cited in the DCM article, or any other.

p from any party or government. vugotsign

And now for something completely ridiculous.

Implicante is hosted in the United States as a matter of cost. We use a .org domain with a privacy option, and not a .br domain, precisely in order to avoid the undue exposure that .br domains, unfortunately, demand.

Is this not precisely to say that the authors of Implicante wanted to conceal their authorship?

It is worth recalling that a WHOIS search on a Brazilian domain led a reader of a progressive blogger to the front door of the father of one of our administrators several years ago.

That was then. This is now. It no longer does.

Journalist Lucas Ferraz, author of the Folha story, ought to know that this is not a tactic to “conceal the author” by the site, in that along with identify us by name, social security number, and national registry, the journalist was easily able to obtain the cell phones of some of our collaborators.

Yes, but a simple WHOIS performed today will no longer provide information about the responsible party.

A number of libertarian sites such as Cato also use privacy protection, but openly divulge their corporate identities.

catoorg

I call bullshit.

Screenshot from 2015-04-23 13:52:44

Source:  Folha de S. Paulo

Topics: Implicante, privacy, GoDaddy

Two days after the publication of an article by Ricardo Mendonça and Lucas Ferraz of the Folha, which reported that the government of São Paulo contracted a company in which the site received R$ 70,000 monthly to produce articles against the Workers’ Party and its member, the Folha published responses from the state government and the PR firm that mediates the relation between the government and the site.

Two days after the publication of an article by Ricardo Mendonça and Lucas Ferraz of the Folha, which reported that the government of São Paulo contracted a company in which the site received R$ 70,000 monthly to produce articles against the Workers’ Party and its member, the Folha published responses from the state government and the PR firm that mediates the relation between the government and the site.

One letter was signed by a certain “technical assistant of the state Subsecretary of Communications” and the by a VP of the PR agency that serves as an intermediary with the company behind “Implicante” and the million-dollar payments.

Among the three PR companies connected to the campaign, Lua Propaganda claims to service clients such as the state government de São Paulo, the city of São Paulo, AES Eletropaulo, B/Sinco, Brazcarnes, Revista L’Officiel, Ecoera, Lifan Motors, Kiss FM, Polenghi.  “And many others have left their mark on the lunar soil.”

Both letters use the same argument as Implicante to justify the 21 payments of R$ 70,000 that the author of the site was awarded, totalling R$ 1.47 million: a company called Appendix supposedly offered “the lowest price.”

Miro Borges comments:

The letter from this “technical assistant of the state Subsecretary of Communications,” a secretariat occupied by former Veja journalist Marcio Aith, is a joke, and the response to the Folha article is devastating. After “repeated requests,” the state government sent the Folha nearly nine dozen boxes full of documents with no relation to the topic of the story. Why is it so difficult for the Alckmin government to furnish the request for  information?

Bullshit Detection

The Implicante — ” The Gadfly ” — was conceived and created in early 2011 and never received public money or sponsorshi

Screenshot from 2015-04-23 13:52:44

Source:  Folha de S. Paulo

Topics: Implicante, privacy, GoDaddy

Two days after the publication of an article by Ricardo Mendonça and Lucas Ferraz of the Folha, which reported that the government of São Paulo contracted a company in which the site received R$ 70,000 monthly to produce articles against the Workers’ Party and its member, the Folha published responses from the state government and the PR firm that mediates the relation between the government and the site.

Two days after the publication of an article by Ricardo Mendonça and Lucas Ferraz of the Folha, which reported that the government of São Paulo contracted a company in which the site received R$ 70,000 monthly to produce articles against the Workers’ Party and its member, the Folha published responses from the state government and the PR firm that mediates the relation between the government and the site.

One letter was signed by a certain “technical assistant of the state Subsecretary of Communications” and the by a VP of the PR agency that serves as an intermediary with the company behind “Implicante” and the million-dollar payments.

Among the three PR companies connected to the campaign, Lua Propaganda claims to service clients such as the state government de São Paulo, the city of São Paulo, AES Eletropaulo, B/Sinco, Brazcarnes, Revista L’Officiel, Ecoera, Lifan Motors, Kiss FM, Polenghi.  “And many others have left their mark on the lunar soil.”

Both letters use the same argument as Implicante to justify the 21 payments of R$ 70,000 that the author of the site was awarded, totalling R$ 1.47 million: a company called Appendix supposedly offered “the lowest price.”

Miro Borges comments:

The letter from this “technical assistant of the state Subsecretary of Communications,” a secretariat occupied by former Veja journalist Marcio Aith, is a joke, and the response to the Folha article is devastating. After “repeated requests,” the state government sent the Folha nearly nine dozen boxes full of documents with no relation to the topic of the story. Why is it so difficult for the Alckmin government to furnish the request for  information?

Bullshit Detection

The Implicante — ” The Gadfly ” — was conceived and created in early 2011 and never received public money or sponsorship from any party or government. Our personal posts publish the byline to their authors and the content of the site has never been party to contracts with the companies cited in the DCM article, or any other.

And now for something completely ridiculous.

Implicante is hosted in the United States as a matter of cost. We use a .org domain with a privacy option, and not a .br domain, pto say recisely in order to avoid the undue exposure that .br domains, unfortunately, demand.

Is this not precisely that the authors of Implicante wanted to conceal their authorship?

It is worth recalling that a WHOIS search on a Brazilian domain led a reader of a progressive blogger to the front door of the father of one of our administrators several years ago.

That was then. This is now. It no longer does.

Journalist Lucas Ferraz, author of the Folha story, ought to know that this is not a tactic to “conceal the author” by the site, in that along with identify us by name, social security number, and national registry, the journalist was easily able to obtain the cell phones of some of our collaborators.

A simple WHOIS performed today will no longer provide information about the responsible party. I call bullshit.

One letter was signed by a certain “technical assistant of the state Subsecretary of Communications” and the by a VP of the PR agency that serves as an intermediary with the company behind “Implicante” and the million-dollar payments.

Both letters use the same argument as Implicante to justify the 21 payments of R$ 70,000 that the author of the site was awarded, totalling R$ 1.47 million: a company called Appendix supposedly offered “the lowest price.”

Miro Borges comments:

The letter from this “technical assistant of the state Subsecretary of Communications,” a secretariat occupied by former Veja journalist Marcio Aith, is a joke, and the response to the Folha article is devastating. After “repeated requests,” the state government sent the Folha nearly nine dozen boxes full of documents with no relation to the topic of the story. Why is it so difficult for the Alckmin government to furnish the request for  information?

Bullshit Detection

The Implicante — ” The Gadfly ” — was conceived and created in early 2011 and never received public money or sponsorship from any party or government. Our personal posts publish the byline to their authors and the content of the site has never been party to contracts with the companies cited in the DCM article, or any other.

vugotsign

And now for something completely ridiculous.

Implicante is hosted in the United States as a matter of cost. We use a .org domain with a privacy option, and not a .br domain, precisely in order to avoid the undue exposure that .br domains, unfortunately, demand.

Is this not precisely to say that the authors of Implicante wanted to conceal their authorship?

It is worth recalling that a WHOIS search on a Brazilian domain led a reader of a progressive blogger to the front door of the father of one of our administrators several years ago.

That was then. This is now. It no longer does.

Journalist Lucas Ferraz, author of the Folha story, ought to know that this is not a tactic to “conceal the author” by the site, in that along with identify us by name, social security number, and national registry, the journalist was easily able to obtain the cell phones of some of our collaborators.

Yes, but a simple WHOIS performed today will no longer provide information about the responsible party.

A number of libertarian sites such as Cato also use privacy protection, but openly divulge their corporate identities.

catoorg

I call bullshit.

Our personal posts publish the byline to their authors and the content of the site has never been party to contracts with the companies cited in the DCM article, or any other.

And now for something completely ridiculous.

Implicante is hosted in the United States as a matter of cost. We use a .org domain with a privacy option, and not a .br domain, pto say recisely in order to avoid the undue exposure that .br domains, unfortunately, demand.

Is this not precisely that the authors of Implicante wanted to conceal their authorship?

It is worth recalling that a WHOIS search on a Brazilian domain led a reader of a progressive blogger to the front door of the father of one of our administrators several years ago.

That was then. This is now. It no longer does.

Journalist Lucas Ferraz, author of the Folha story, ought to know that this is not a tactic to “conceal the author” by the site, in that along with identify us by name, social security number, and national registry, the journalist was easily able to obtain the cell phones of some of our collaborators.

A simple WHOIS performed today will no longer provide information about the responsible party. I call bullshit.

One letter was signed by a certain “technical assistant of the state Subsecretary of Communications” and the by a VP of the PR agency that serves as an intermediary with the company behind “Implicante” and the million-dollar payments.

Both letters use the same argument as Implicante to justify the 21 payments of R$ 70,000 that the author of the site was awarded, totalling R$ 1.47 million: a company called Appendix supposedly offered “the lowest price.”

Miro Borges comments:

The letter from this “technical assistant of the state Subsecretary of Communications,” a secretariat occupied by former Veja journalist Marcio Aith, is a joke, and the response to the Folha article is devastating. After “repeated requests,” the state government sent the Folha nearly nine dozen boxes full of documents with no relation to the topic of the story. Why is it so difficult for the Alckmin government to furnish the request for  information?

Bullshit Detection

The Implicante — ” The Gadfly ” — was conceived and created in early 2011 and never received public money or sponsorship from any party or government. Our personal posts publish the byline to their authors and the content of the site has never been party to contracts with the companies cited in the DCM article, or any other.

p from any party or government.

Screenshot from 2015-04-23 13:52:44

Source:  Folha de S. Paulo

Topics: Implicante, privacy, GoDaddy

Two days after the publication of an article by Ricardo Mendonça and Lucas Ferraz of the Folha, which reported that the government of São Paulo contracted a company in which the site received R$ 70,000 monthly to produce articles against the Workers’ Party and its member, the Folha published responses from the state government and the PR firm that mediates the relation between the government and the site.

Two days after the publication of an article by Ricardo Mendonça and Lucas Ferraz of the Folha, which reported that the government of São Paulo contracted a company in which the site received R$ 70,000 monthly to produce articles against the Workers’ Party and its member, the Folha published responses from the state government and the PR firm that mediates the relation between the government and the site.

One letter was signed by a certain “technical assistant of the state Subsecretary of Communications” and the by a VP of the PR agency that serves as an intermediary with the company behind “Implicante” and the million-dollar payments.

Among the three PR companies connected to the campaign, Lua Propaganda claims to service clients such as the state government de São Paulo, the city of São Paulo, AES Eletropaulo, B/Sinco, Brazcarnes, Revista L’Officiel, Ecoera, Lifan Motors, Kiss FM, Polenghi.  “And many others have left their mark on the lunar soil.”

Both letters use the same argument as Implicante to justify the 21 payments of R$ 70,000 that the author of the site was awarded, totalling R$ 1.47 million: a company called Appendix supposedly offered “the lowest price.”

Miro Borges comments:

The letter from this “technical assistant of the state Subsecretary of Communications,” a secretariat occupied by former Veja journalist Marcio Aith, is a joke, and the response to the Folha article is devastating. After “repeated requests,” the state government sent the Folha nearly nine dozen boxes full of documents with no relation to the topic of the story. Why is it so difficult for the Alckmin government to furnish the request for  information?

Bullshit Detection

The Implicante — ” The Gadfly ” — was conceived and created in early 2011 and never received public money or sponsorshi

Screenshot from 2015-04-23 13:52:44

Source:  Folha de S. Paulo

Topics: Implicante, privacy, GoDaddy

Two days after the publication of an article by Ricardo Mendonça and Lucas Ferraz of the Folha, which reported that the government of São Paulo contracted a company in which the site received R$ 70,000 monthly to produce articles against the Workers’ Party and its member, the Folha published responses from the state government and the PR firm that mediates the relation between the government and the site.

Two days after the publication of an article by Ricardo Mendonça and Lucas Ferraz of the Folha, which reported that the government of São Paulo contracted a company in which the site received R$ 70,000 monthly to produce articles against the Workers’ Party and its member, the Folha published responses from the state government and the PR firm that mediates the relation between the government and the site.

One letter was signed by a certain “technical assistant of the state Subsecretary of Communications” and the by a VP of the PR agency that serves as an intermediary with the company behind “Implicante” and the million-dollar payments.

Among the three PR companies connected to the campaign, Lua Propaganda claims to service clients such as the state government de São Paulo, the city of São Paulo, AES Eletropaulo, B/Sinco, Brazcarnes, Revista L’Officiel, Ecoera, Lifan Motors, Kiss FM, Polenghi.  “And many others have left their mark on the lunar soil.”

Both letters use the same argument as Implicante to justify the 21 payments of R$ 70,000 that the author of the site was awarded, totalling R$ 1.47 million: a company called Appendix supposedly offered “the lowest price.”

Miro Borges comments:

The letter from this “technical assistant of the state Subsecretary of Communications,” a secretariat occupied by former Veja journalist Marcio Aith, is a joke, and the response to the Folha article is devastating. After “repeated requests,” the state government sent the Folha nearly nine dozen boxes full of documents with no relation to the topic of the story. Why is it so difficult for the Alckmin government to furnish the request for  information?

Bullshit Detection

The Implicante — ” The Gadfly ” — was conceived and created in early 2011 and never received public money or sponsorship from any party or government. Our personal posts publish the byline to their authors and the content of the site has never been party to contracts with the companies cited in the DCM article, or any other.

And now for something completely ridiculous.

Implicante is hosted in the United States as a matter of cost. We use a .org domain with a privacy option, and not a .br domain, pto say recisely in order to avoid the undue exposure that .br domains, unfortunately, demand.

Is this not precisely that the authors of Implicante wanted to conceal their authorship?

It is worth recalling that a WHOIS search on a Brazilian domain led a reader of a progressive blogger to the front door of the father of one of our administrators several years ago.

That was then. This is now. It no longer does.

Journalist Lucas Ferraz, author of the Folha story, ought to know that this is not a tactic to “conceal the author” by the site, in that along with identify us by name, social security number, and national registry, the journalist was easily able to obtain the cell phones of some of our collaborators.

A simple WHOIS performed today will no longer provide information about the responsible party. I call bullshit.

One letter was signed by a certain “technical assistant of the state Subsecretary of Communications” and the by a VP of the PR agency that serves as an intermediary with the company behind “Implicante” and the million-dollar payments.

Both letters use the same argument as Implicante to justify the 21 payments of R$ 70,000 that the author of the site was awarded, totalling R$ 1.47 million: a company called Appendix supposedly offered “the lowest price.”

Miro Borges comments:

The letter from this “technical assistant of the state Subsecretary of Communications,” a secretariat occupied by former Veja journalist Marcio Aith, is a joke, and the response to the Folha article is devastating. After “repeated requests,” the state government sent the Folha nearly nine dozen boxes full of documents with no relation to the topic of the story. Why is it so difficult for the Alckmin government to furnish the request for  information?

Bullshit Detection

The Implicante — ” The Gadfly ” — was conceived and created in early 2011 and never received public money or sponsorship from any party or government. Our personal posts publish the byline to their authors and the content of the site has never been party to contracts with the companies cited in the DCM article, or any other.

vugotsign

And now for something completely ridiculous.

Implicante is hosted in the United States as a matter of cost. We use a .org domain with a privacy option, and not a .br domain, precisely in order to avoid the undue exposure that .br domains, unfortunately, demand.

Is this not precisely to say that the authors of Implicante wanted to conceal their authorship?

It is worth recalling that a WHOIS search on a Brazilian domain led a reader of a progressive blogger to the front door of the father of one of our administrators several years ago.

That was then. This is now. It no longer does.

Journalist Lucas Ferraz, author of the Folha story, ought to know that this is not a tactic to “conceal the author” by the site, in that along with identify us by name, social security number, and national registry, the journalist was easily able to obtain the cell phones of some of our collaborators.

Yes, but a simple WHOIS performed today will no longer provide information about the responsible party.

A number of libertarian sites such as Cato also use privacy protection, but openly divulge their corporate identities.

catoorg

I call bullshit.

Our personal posts publish the byline to their authors and the content of the site has never been party to contracts with the companies cited in the DCM article, or any other.

And now for something completely ridiculous.

Implicante is hosted in the United States as a matter of cost. We use a .org domain with a privacy option, and not a .br domain, pto say recisely in order to avoid the undue exposure that .br domains, unfortunately, demand.

Is this not precisely that the authors of Implicante wanted to conceal their authorship?

It is worth recalling that a WHOIS search on a Brazilian domain led a reader of a progressive blogger to the front door of the father of one of our administrators several years ago.

That was then. This is now. It no longer does.

Journalist Lucas Ferraz, author of the Folha story, ought to know that this is not a tactic to “conceal the author” by the site, in that along with identify us by name, social security number, and national registry, the journalist was easily able to obtain the cell phones of some of our collaborators.

A simple WHOIS performed today will no longer provide information about the responsible party. I call bullshit.

One letter was signed by a certain “technical assistant of the state Subsecretary of Communications” and the by a VP of the PR agency that serves as an intermediary with the company behind “Implicante” and the million-dollar payments.

Both letters use the same argument as Implicante to justify the 21 payments of R$ 70,000 that the author of the site was awarded, totalling R$ 1.47 million: a company called Appendix supposedly offered “the lowest price.”

Miro Borges comments:

The letter from this “technical assistant of the state Subsecretary of Communications,” a secretariat occupied by former Veja journalist Marcio Aith, is a joke, and the response to the Folha article is devastating. After “repeated requests,” the state government sent the Folha nearly nine dozen boxes full of documents with no relation to the topic of the story. Why is it so difficult for the Alckmin government to furnish the request for  information?

Bullshit Detection

The Implicante — ” The Gadfly ” — was conceived and created in early 2011 and never received public money or sponsorship from any party or government. Our personal posts publish the byline to their authors and the content of the site has never been party to contracts with the companies cited in the DCM article, or any other.

p from any party or government. vugotsign

And now for something completely ridiculous.

Implicante is hosted in the United States as a matter of cost. We use a .org domain with a privacy option, and not a .br domain, precisely in order to avoid the undue exposure that .br domains, unfortunately, demand.

Is this not precisely to say that the authors of Implicante wanted to conceal their authorship?

It is worth recalling that a WHOIS search on a Brazilian domain led a reader of a progressive blogger to the front door of the father of one of our administrators several years ago.

That was then. This is now. It no longer does.

Journalist Lucas Ferraz, author of the Folha story, ought to know that this is not a tactic to “conceal the author” by the site, in that along with identify us by name, social security number, and national registry, the journalist was easily able to obtain the cell phones of some of our collaborators.

Yes, but a simple WHOIS performed today will no longer provide information about the responsible party.

A number of libertarian sites such as Cato also use privacy protection, but openly divulge their corporate identities.

catoorg

I call bullshit.

vugotsign

And now for something completely ridiculous.

Implicante is hosted in the United States as a matter of cost. We use a .org domain with a privacy option, and not a .br domain, precisely in order to avoid the undue exposure that .br domains, unfortunately, demand.

Is this not precisely to say that the authors of Implicante wanted to conceal their authorship?

It is worth recalling that a WHOIS search on a Brazilian domain led a reader of a progressive blogger to the front door of the father of one of our administrators several years ago.

That was then. This is now. It no longer does.

Journalist Lucas Ferraz, author of the Folha story, ought to know that this is not a tactic to “conceal the author” by the site, in that along with identify us by name, social security number, and national registry, the journalist was easily able to obtain the cell phones of some of our collaborators.

Yes, but a simple WHOIS performed today will no longer provide information about the responsible party.

A number of libertarian sites such as Cato also use privacy protection, but openly divulge their corporate identities.

catoorg

I call bullshit.

Screenshot from 2015-04-23 13:52:44

Source:  Folha de S. Paulo

Topics: Implicante, privacy, GoDaddy

Two days after the publication of an article by Ricardo Mendonça and Lucas Ferraz of the Folha, which reported that the government of São Paulo contracted a company in which the site received R$ 70,000 monthly to produce articles against the Workers’ Party and its member, the Folha published responses from the state government and the PR firm that mediates the relation between the government and the site.

Two days after the publication of an article by Ricardo Mendonça and Lucas Ferraz of the Folha, which reported that the government of São Paulo contracted a company in which the site received R$ 70,000 monthly to produce articles against the Workers’ Party and its member, the Folha published responses from the state government and the PR firm that mediates the relation between the government and the site.

One letter was signed by a certain “technical assistant of the state Subsecretary of Communications” and the by a VP of the PR agency that serves as an intermediary with the company behind “Implicante” and the million-dollar payments.

Among the three PR companies connected to the campaign, Lua Propaganda claims to service clients such as the state government de São Paulo, the city of São Paulo, AES Eletropaulo, B/Sinco, Brazcarnes, Revista L’Officiel, Ecoera, Lifan Motors, Kiss FM, Polenghi.  “And many others have left their mark on the lunar soil.”

Both letters use the same argument as Implicante to justify the 21 payments of R$ 70,000 that the author of the site was awarded, totalling R$ 1.47 million: a company called Appendix supposedly offered “the lowest price.”

Miro Borges comments:

The letter from this “technical assistant of the state Subsecretary of Communications,” a secretariat occupied by former Veja journalist Marcio Aith, is a joke, and the response to the Folha article is devastating. After “repeated requests,” the state government sent the Folha nearly nine dozen boxes full of documents with no relation to the topic of the story. Why is it so difficult for the Alckmin government to furnish the request for  information?

Bullshit Detection

The Implicante — ” The Gadfly ” — was conceived and created in early 2011 and never received public money or sponsorshi

Screenshot from 2015-04-23 13:52:44

Source:  Folha de S. Paulo

Topics: Implicante, privacy, GoDaddy

Two days after the publication of an article by Ricardo Mendonça and Lucas Ferraz of the Folha, which reported that the government of São Paulo contracted a company in which the site received R$ 70,000 monthly to produce articles against the Workers’ Party and its member, the Folha published responses from the state government and the PR firm that mediates the relation between the government and the site.

Two days after the publication of an article by Ricardo Mendonça and Lucas Ferraz of the Folha, which reported that the government of São Paulo contracted a company in which the site received R$ 70,000 monthly to produce articles against the Workers’ Party and its member, the Folha published responses from the state government and the PR firm that mediates the relation between the government and the site.

One letter was signed by a certain “technical assistant of the state Subsecretary of Communications” and the by a VP of the PR agency that serves as an intermediary with the company behind “Implicante” and the million-dollar payments.

Among the three PR companies connected to the campaign, Lua Propaganda claims to service clients such as the state government de São Paulo, the city of São Paulo, AES Eletropaulo, B/Sinco, Brazcarnes, Revista L’Officiel, Ecoera, Lifan Motors, Kiss FM, Polenghi.  “And many others have left their mark on the lunar soil.”

Both letters use the same argument as Implicante to justify the 21 payments of R$ 70,000 that the author of the site was awarded, totalling R$ 1.47 million: a company called Appendix supposedly offered “the lowest price.”

Miro Borges comments:

The letter from this “technical assistant of the state Subsecretary of Communications,” a secretariat occupied by former Veja journalist Marcio Aith, is a joke, and the response to the Folha article is devastating. After “repeated requests,” the state government sent the Folha nearly nine dozen boxes full of documents with no relation to the topic of the story. Why is it so difficult for the Alckmin government to furnish the request for  information?

Bullshit Detection

The Implicante — ” The Gadfly ” — was conceived and created in early 2011 and never received public money or sponsorship from any party or government. Our personal posts publish the byline to their authors and the content of the site has never been party to contracts with the companies cited in the DCM article, or any other.

And now for something completely ridiculous.

Implicante is hosted in the United States as a matter of cost. We use a .org domain with a privacy option, and not a .br domain, pto say recisely in order to avoid the undue exposure that .br domains, unfortunately, demand.

Is this not precisely that the authors of Implicante wanted to conceal their authorship?

It is worth recalling that a WHOIS search on a Brazilian domain led a reader of a progressive blogger to the front door of the father of one of our administrators several years ago.

That was then. This is now. It no longer does.

Journalist Lucas Ferraz, author of the Folha story, ought to know that this is not a tactic to “conceal the author” by the site, in that along with identify us by name, social security number, and national registry, the journalist was easily able to obtain the cell phones of some of our collaborators.

A simple WHOIS performed today will no longer provide information about the responsible party. I call bullshit.

One letter was signed by a certain “technical assistant of the state Subsecretary of Communications” and the by a VP of the PR agency that serves as an intermediary with the company behind “Implicante” and the million-dollar payments.

Both letters use the same argument as Implicante to justify the 21 payments of R$ 70,000 that the author of the site was awarded, totalling R$ 1.47 million: a company called Appendix supposedly offered “the lowest price.”

Miro Borges comments:

The letter from this “technical assistant of the state Subsecretary of Communications,” a secretariat occupied by former Veja journalist Marcio Aith, is a joke, and the response to the Folha article is devastating. After “repeated requests,” the state government sent the Folha nearly nine dozen boxes full of documents with no relation to the topic of the story. Why is it so difficult for the Alckmin government to furnish the request for  information?

Bullshit Detection

The Implicante — ” The Gadfly ” — was conceived and created in early 2011 and never received public money or sponsorship from any party or government. Our personal posts publish the byline to their authors and the content of the site has never been party to contracts with the companies cited in the DCM article, or any other.

vugotsign

And now for something completely ridiculous.

Implicante is hosted in the United States as a matter of cost. We use a .org domain with a privacy option, and not a .br domain, precisely in order to avoid the undue exposure that .br domains, unfortunately, demand.

Is this not precisely to say that the authors of Implicante wanted to conceal their authorship?

It is worth recalling that a WHOIS search on a Brazilian domain led a reader of a progressive blogger to the front door of the father of one of our administrators several years ago.

That was then. This is now. It no longer does.

Journalist Lucas Ferraz, author of the Folha story, ought to know that this is not a tactic to “conceal the author” by the site, in that along with identify us by name, social security number, and national registry, the journalist was easily able to obtain the cell phones of some of our collaborators.

Yes, but a simple WHOIS performed today will no longer provide information about the responsible party.

A number of libertarian sites such as Cato also use privacy protection, but openly divulge their corporate identities.

catoorg

I call bullshit.

Our personal posts publish the byline to their authors and the content of the site has never been party to contracts with the companies cited in the DCM article, or any other.

And now for something completely ridiculous.

Implicante is hosted in the United States as a matter of cost. We use a .org domain with a privacy option, and not a .br domain, pto say recisely in order to avoid the undue exposure that .br domains, unfortunately, demand.

Is this not precisely that the authors of Implicante wanted to conceal their authorship?

It is worth recalling that a WHOIS search on a Brazilian domain led a reader of a progressive blogger to the front door of the father of one of our administrators several years ago.

That was then. This is now. It no longer does.

Journalist Lucas Ferraz, author of the Folha story, ought to know that this is not a tactic to “conceal the author” by the site, in that along with identify us by name, social security number, and national registry, the journalist was easily able to obtain the cell phones of some of our collaborators.

A simple WHOIS performed today will no longer provide information about the responsible party. I call bullshit.

One letter was signed by a certain “technical assistant of the state Subsecretary of Communications” and the by a VP of the PR agency that serves as an intermediary with the company behind “Implicante” and the million-dollar payments.

Both letters use the same argument as Implicante to justify the 21 payments of R$ 70,000 that the author of the site was awarded, totalling R$ 1.47 million: a company called Appendix supposedly offered “the lowest price.”

Miro Borges comments:

The letter from this “technical assistant of the state Subsecretary of Communications,” a secretariat occupied by former Veja journalist Marcio Aith, is a joke, and the response to the Folha article is devastating. After “repeated requests,” the state government sent the Folha nearly nine dozen boxes full of documents with no relation to the topic of the story. Why is it so difficult for the Alckmin government to furnish the request for  information?

Bullshit Detection

The Implicante — ” The Gadfly ” — was conceived and created in early 2011 and never received public money or sponsorship from any party or government. Our personal posts publish the byline to their authors and the content of the site has never been party to contracts with the companies cited in the DCM article, or any other.

p from any party or government.

Screenshot from 2015-04-23 13:52:44

Source:  Folha de S. Paulo

Topics: Implicante, privacy, GoDaddy

Two days after the publication of an article by Ricardo Mendonça and Lucas Ferraz of the Folha, which reported that the government of São Paulo contracted a company in which the site received R$ 70,000 monthly to produce articles against the Workers’ Party and its member, the Folha published responses from the state government and the PR firm that mediates the relation between the government and the site.

Two days after the publication of an article by Ricardo Mendonça and Lucas Ferraz of the Folha, which reported that the government of São Paulo contracted a company in which the site received R$ 70,000 monthly to produce articles against the Workers’ Party and its member, the Folha published responses from the state government and the PR firm that mediates the relation between the government and the site.

One letter was signed by a certain “technical assistant of the state Subsecretary of Communications” and the by a VP of the PR agency that serves as an intermediary with the company behind “Implicante” and the million-dollar payments.

Among the three PR companies connected to the campaign, Lua Propaganda claims to service clients such as the state government de São Paulo, the city of São Paulo, AES Eletropaulo, B/Sinco, Brazcarnes, Revista L’Officiel, Ecoera, Lifan Motors, Kiss FM, Polenghi.  “And many others have left their mark on the lunar soil.”

Both letters use the same argument as Implicante to justify the 21 payments of R$ 70,000 that the author of the site was awarded, totalling R$ 1.47 million: a company called Appendix supposedly offered “the lowest price.”

Miro Borges comments:

The letter from this “technical assistant of the state Subsecretary of Communications,” a secretariat occupied by former Veja journalist Marcio Aith, is a joke, and the response to the Folha article is devastating. After “repeated requests,” the state government sent the Folha nearly nine dozen boxes full of documents with no relation to the topic of the story. Why is it so difficult for the Alckmin government to furnish the request for  information?

Bullshit Detection

The Implicante — ” The Gadfly ” — was conceived and created in early 2011 and never received public money or sponsorshi

Screenshot from 2015-04-23 13:52:44

Source:  Folha de S. Paulo

Topics: Implicante, privacy, GoDaddy

Two days after the publication of an article by Ricardo Mendonça and Lucas Ferraz of the Folha, which reported that the government of São Paulo contracted a company in which the site received R$ 70,000 monthly to produce articles against the Workers’ Party and its member, the Folha published responses from the state government and the PR firm that mediates the relation between the government and the site.

Two days after the publication of an article by Ricardo Mendonça and Lucas Ferraz of the Folha, which reported that the government of São Paulo contracted a company in which the site received R$ 70,000 monthly to produce articles against the Workers’ Party and its member, the Folha published responses from the state government and the PR firm that mediates the relation between the government and the site.

One letter was signed by a certain “technical assistant of the state Subsecretary of Communications” and the by a VP of the PR agency that serves as an intermediary with the company behind “Implicante” and the million-dollar payments.

Among the three PR companies connected to the campaign, Lua Propaganda claims to service clients such as the state government de São Paulo, the city of São Paulo, AES Eletropaulo, B/Sinco, Brazcarnes, Revista L’Officiel, Ecoera, Lifan Motors, Kiss FM, Polenghi.  “And many others have left their mark on the lunar soil.”

Both letters use the same argument as Implicante to justify the 21 payments of R$ 70,000 that the author of the site was awarded, totalling R$ 1.47 million: a company called Appendix supposedly offered “the lowest price.”

Miro Borges comments:

The letter from this “technical assistant of the state Subsecretary of Communications,” a secretariat occupied by former Veja journalist Marcio Aith, is a joke, and the response to the Folha article is devastating. After “repeated requests,” the state government sent the Folha nearly nine dozen boxes full of documents with no relation to the topic of the story. Why is it so difficult for the Alckmin government to furnish the request for  information?

Bullshit Detection

The Implicante — ” The Gadfly ” — was conceived and created in early 2011 and never received public money or sponsorship from any party or government. Our personal posts publish the byline to their authors and the content of the site has never been party to contracts with the companies cited in the DCM article, or any other.

And now for something completely ridiculous.

Implicante is hosted in the United States as a matter of cost. We use a .org domain with a privacy option, and not a .br domain, pto say recisely in order to avoid the undue exposure that .br domains, unfortunately, demand.

Is this not precisely that the authors of Implicante wanted to conceal their authorship?

It is worth recalling that a WHOIS search on a Brazilian domain led a reader of a progressive blogger to the front door of the father of one of our administrators several years ago.

That was then. This is now. It no longer does.

Journalist Lucas Ferraz, author of the Folha story, ought to know that this is not a tactic to “conceal the author” by the site, in that along with identify us by name, social security number, and national registry, the journalist was easily able to obtain the cell phones of some of our collaborators.

A simple WHOIS performed today will no longer provide information about the responsible party. I call bullshit.

One letter was signed by a certain “technical assistant of the state Subsecretary of Communications” and the by a VP of the PR agency that serves as an intermediary with the company behind “Implicante” and the million-dollar payments.

Both letters use the same argument as Implicante to justify the 21 payments of R$ 70,000 that the author of the site was awarded, totalling R$ 1.47 million: a company called Appendix supposedly offered “the lowest price.”

Miro Borges comments:

The letter from this “technical assistant of the state Subsecretary of Communications,” a secretariat occupied by former Veja journalist Marcio Aith, is a joke, and the response to the Folha article is devastating. After “repeated requests,” the state government sent the Folha nearly nine dozen boxes full of documents with no relation to the topic of the story. Why is it so difficult for the Alckmin government to furnish the request for  information?

Bullshit Detection

The Implicante — ” The Gadfly ” — was conceived and created in early 2011 and never received public money or sponsorship from any party or government. Our personal posts publish the byline to their authors and the content of the site has never been party to contracts with the companies cited in the DCM article, or any other.

vugotsign

And now for something completely ridiculous.

Implicante is hosted in the United States as a matter of cost. We use a .org domain with a privacy option, and not a .br domain, precisely in order to avoid the undue exposure that .br domains, unfortunately, demand.

Is this not precisely to say that the authors of Implicante wanted to conceal their authorship?

It is worth recalling that a WHOIS search on a Brazilian domain led a reader of a progressive blogger to the front door of the father of one of our administrators several years ago.

That was then. This is now. It no longer does.

Journalist Lucas Ferraz, author of the Folha story, ought to know that this is not a tactic to “conceal the author” by the site, in that along with identify us by name, social security number, and national registry, the journalist was easily able to obtain the cell phones of some of our collaborators.

Yes, but a simple WHOIS performed today will no longer provide information about the responsible party.

A number of libertarian sites such as Cato also use privacy protection, but openly divulge their corporate identities.

catoorg

I call bullshit.

Our personal posts publish the byline to their authors and the content of the site has never been party to contracts with the companies cited in the DCM article, or any other.

And now for something completely ridiculous.

Implicante is hosted in the United States as a matter of cost. We use a .org domain with a privacy option, and not a .br domain, pto say recisely in order to avoid the undue exposure that .br domains, unfortunately, demand.

Is this not precisely that the authors of Implicante wanted to conceal their authorship?

It is worth recalling that a WHOIS search on a Brazilian domain led a reader of a progressive blogger to the front door of the father of one of our administrators several years ago.

That was then. This is now. It no longer does.

Journalist Lucas Ferraz, author of the Folha story, ought to know that this is not a tactic to “conceal the author” by the site, in that along with identify us by name, social security number, and national registry, the journalist was easily able to obtain the cell phones of some of our collaborators.

A simple WHOIS performed today will no longer provide information about the responsible party. I call bullshit.

One letter was signed by a certain “technical assistant of the state Subsecretary of Communications” and the by a VP of the PR agency that serves as an intermediary with the company behind “Implicante” and the million-dollar payments.

Both letters use the same argument as Implicante to justify the 21 payments of R$ 70,000 that the author of the site was awarded, totalling R$ 1.47 million: a company called Appendix supposedly offered “the lowest price.”

Miro Borges comments:

The letter from this “technical assistant of the state Subsecretary of Communications,” a secretariat occupied by former Veja journalist Marcio Aith, is a joke, and the response to the Folha article is devastating. After “repeated requests,” the state government sent the Folha nearly nine dozen boxes full of documents with no relation to the topic of the story. Why is it so difficult for the Alckmin government to furnish the request for  information?

Bullshit Detection

The Implicante — ” The Gadfly ” — was conceived and created in early 2011 and never received public money or sponsorship from any party or government. Our personal posts publish the byline to their authors and the content of the site has never been party to contracts with the companies cited in the DCM article, or any other.

p from any party or government. vugotsign

And now for something completely ridiculous.

Implicante is hosted in the United States as a matter of cost. We use a .org domain with a privacy option, and not a .br domain, precisely in order to avoid the undue exposure that .br domains, unfortunately, demand.

Is this not precisely to say that the authors of Implicante wanted to conceal their authorship?

It is worth recalling that a WHOIS search on a Brazilian domain led a reader of a progressive blogger to the front door of the father of one of our administrators several years ago.

That was then. This is now. It no longer does.

Journalist Lucas Ferraz, author of the Folha story, ought to know that this is not a tactic to “conceal the author” by the site, in that along with identify us by name, social security number, and national registry, the journalist was easily able to obtain the cell phones of some of our collaborators.

Yes, but a simple WHOIS performed today will no longer provide information about the responsible party.

A number of libertarian sites such as Cato also use privacy protection, but openly divulge their corporate identities.

catoorg

I call bullshit.

Screenshot from 2015-04-23 13:52:44

Source:  Folha de S. Paulo

Topics: Implicante, privacy, GoDaddy

Two days after the publication of an article by Ricardo Mendonça and Lucas Ferraz of the Folha, which reported that the government of São Paulo contracted a company in which the site received R$ 70,000 monthly to produce articles against the Workers’ Party and its member, the Folha published responses from the state government and the PR firm that mediates the relation between the government and the site.

Two days after the publication of an article by Ricardo Mendonça and Lucas Ferraz of the Folha, which reported that the government of São Paulo contracted a company in which the site received R$ 70,000 monthly to produce articles against the Workers’ Party and its member, the Folha published responses from the state government and the PR firm that mediates the relation between the government and the site.

One letter was signed by a certain “technical assistant of the state Subsecretary of Communications” and the by a VP of the PR agency that serves as an intermediary with the company behind “Implicante” and the million-dollar payments.

Among the three PR companies connected to the campaign, Lua Propaganda claims to service clients such as the state government de São Paulo, the city of São Paulo, AES Eletropaulo, B/Sinco, Brazcarnes, Revista L’Officiel, Ecoera, Lifan Motors, Kiss FM, Polenghi.  “And many others have left their mark on the lunar soil.”

Both letters use the same argument as Implicante to justify the 21 payments of R$ 70,000 that the author of the site was awarded, totalling R$ 1.47 million: a company called Appendix supposedly offered “the lowest price.”

Miro Borges comments:

The letter from this “technical assistant of the state Subsecretary of Communications,” a secretariat occupied by former Veja journalist Marcio Aith, is a joke, and the response to the Folha article is devastating. After “repeated requests,” the state government sent the Folha nearly nine dozen boxes full of documents with no relation to the topic of the story. Why is it so difficult for the Alckmin government to furnish the request for  information?

Bullshit Detection

The Implicante — ” The Gadfly ” — was conceived and created in early 2011 and never received public money or sponsorshi

Screenshot from 2015-04-23 13:52:44

Source:  Folha de S. Paulo

Topics: Implicante, privacy, GoDaddy

Two days after the publication of an article by Ricardo Mendonça and Lucas Ferraz of the Folha, which reported that the government of São Paulo contracted a company in which the site received R$ 70,000 monthly to produce articles against the Workers’ Party and its member, the Folha published responses from the state government and the PR firm that mediates the relation between the government and the site.

Two days after the publication of an article by Ricardo Mendonça and Lucas Ferraz of the Folha, which reported that the government of São Paulo contracted a company in which the site received R$ 70,000 monthly to produce articles against the Workers’ Party and its member, the Folha published responses from the state government and the PR firm that mediates the relation between the government and the site.

One letter was signed by a certain “technical assistant of the state Subsecretary of Communications” and the by a VP of the PR agency that serves as an intermediary with the company behind “Implicante” and the million-dollar payments.

Among the three PR companies connected to the campaign, Lua Propaganda claims to service clients such as the state government de São Paulo, the city of São Paulo, AES Eletropaulo, B/Sinco, Brazcarnes, Revista L’Officiel, Ecoera, Lifan Motors, Kiss FM, Polenghi.  “And many others have left their mark on the lunar soil.”

Both letters use the same argument as Implicante to justify the 21 payments of R$ 70,000 that the author of the site was awarded, totalling R$ 1.47 million: a company called Appendix supposedly offered “the lowest price.”

Miro Borges comments:

The letter from this “technical assistant of the state Subsecretary of Communications,” a secretariat occupied by former Veja journalist Marcio Aith, is a joke, and the response to the Folha article is devastating. After “repeated requests,” the state government sent the Folha nearly nine dozen boxes full of documents with no relation to the topic of the story. Why is it so difficult for the Alckmin government to furnish the request for  information?

Bullshit Detection

The Implicante — ” The Gadfly ” — was conceived and created in early 2011 and never received public money or sponsorship from any party or government. Our personal posts publish the byline to their authors and the content of the site has never been party to contracts with the companies cited in the DCM article, or any other.

And now for something completely ridiculous.

Implicante is hosted in the United States as a matter of cost. We use a .org domain with a privacy option, and not a .br domain, pto say recisely in order to avoid the undue exposure that .br domains, unfortunately, demand.

Is this not precisely that the authors of Implicante wanted to conceal their authorship?

It is worth recalling that a WHOIS search on a Brazilian domain led a reader of a progressive blogger to the front door of the father of one of our administrators several years ago.

That was then. This is now. It no longer does.

Journalist Lucas Ferraz, author of the Folha story, ought to know that this is not a tactic to “conceal the author” by the site, in that along with identify us by name, social security number, and national registry, the journalist was easily able to obtain the cell phones of some of our collaborators.

A simple WHOIS performed today will no longer provide information about the responsible party. I call bullshit.

One letter was signed by a certain “technical assistant of the state Subsecretary of Communications” and the by a VP of the PR agency that serves as an intermediary with the company behind “Implicante” and the million-dollar payments.

Both letters use the same argument as Implicante to justify the 21 payments of R$ 70,000 that the author of the site was awarded, totalling R$ 1.47 million: a company called Appendix supposedly offered “the lowest price.”

Miro Borges comments:

The letter from this “technical assistant of the state Subsecretary of Communications,” a secretariat occupied by former Veja journalist Marcio Aith, is a joke, and the response to the Folha article is devastating. After “repeated requests,” the state government sent the Folha nearly nine dozen boxes full of documents with no relation to the topic of the story. Why is it so difficult for the Alckmin government to furnish the request for  information?

Bullshit Detection

The Implicante — ” The Gadfly ” — was conceived and created in early 2011 and never received public money or sponsorship from any party or government. Our personal posts publish the byline to their authors and the content of the site has never been party to contracts with the companies cited in the DCM article, or any other.

vugotsign

And now for something completely ridiculous.

Implicante is hosted in the United States as a matter of cost. We use a .org domain with a privacy option, and not a .br domain, precisely in order to avoid the undue exposure that .br domains, unfortunately, demand.

Is this not precisely to say that the authors of Implicante wanted to conceal their authorship?

It is worth recalling that a WHOIS search on a Brazilian domain led a reader of a progressive blogger to the front door of the father of one of our administrators several years ago.

That was then. This is now. It no longer does.

Journalist Lucas Ferraz, author of the Folha story, ought to know that this is not a tactic to “conceal the author” by the site, in that along with identify us by name, social security number, and national registry, the journalist was easily able to obtain the cell phones of some of our collaborators.

Yes, but a simple WHOIS performed today will no longer provide information about the responsible party.

A number of libertarian sites such as Cato also use privacy protection, but openly divulge their corporate identities.

catoorg

I call bullshit.

Our personal posts publish the byline to their authors and the content of the site has never been party to contracts with the companies cited in the DCM article, or any other.

And now for something completely ridiculous.

Implicante is hosted in the United States as a matter of cost. We use a .org domain with a privacy option, and not a .br domain, pto say recisely in order to avoid the undue exposure that .br domains, unfortunately, demand.

Is this not precisely that the authors of Implicante wanted to conceal their authorship?

It is worth recalling that a WHOIS search on a Brazilian domain led a reader of a progressive blogger to the front door of the father of one of our administrators several years ago.

That was then. This is now. It no longer does.

Journalist Lucas Ferraz, author of the Folha story, ought to know that this is not a tactic to “conceal the author” by the site, in that along with identify us by name, social security number, and national registry, the journalist was easily able to obtain the cell phones of some of our collaborators.

A simple WHOIS performed today will no longer provide information about the responsible party. I call bullshit.

One letter was signed by a certain “technical assistant of the state Subsecretary of Communications” and the by a VP of the PR agency that serves as an intermediary with the company behind “Implicante” and the million-dollar payments.

Both letters use the same argument as Implicante to justify the 21 payments of R$ 70,000 that the author of the site was awarded, totalling R$ 1.47 million: a company called Appendix supposedly offered “the lowest price.”

Miro Borges comments:

The letter from this “technical assistant of the state Subsecretary of Communications,” a secretariat occupied by former Veja journalist Marcio Aith, is a joke, and the response to the Folha article is devastating. After “repeated requests,” the state government sent the Folha nearly nine dozen boxes full of documents with no relation to the topic of the story. Why is it so difficult for the Alckmin government to furnish the request for  information?

Bullshit Detection

The Implicante — ” The Gadfly ” — was conceived and created in early 2011 and never received public money or sponsorship from any party or government. Our personal posts publish the byline to their authors and the content of the site has never been party to contracts with the companies cited in the DCM article, or any other.

p from any party or government.

Screenshot from 2015-04-23 13:52:44

Source:  Folha de S. Paulo

Topics: Implicante, privacy, GoDaddy

Two days after the publication of an article by Ricardo Mendonça and Lucas Ferraz of the Folha, which reported that the government of São Paulo contracted a company in which the site received R$ 70,000 monthly to produce articles against the Workers’ Party and its member, the Folha published responses from the state government and the PR firm that mediates the relation between the government and the site.

Two days after the publication of an article by Ricardo Mendonça and Lucas Ferraz of the Folha, which reported that the government of São Paulo contracted a company in which the site received R$ 70,000 monthly to produce articles against the Workers’ Party and its member, the Folha published responses from the state government and the PR firm that mediates the relation between the government and the site.

One letter was signed by a certain “technical assistant of the state Subsecretary of Communications” and the by a VP of the PR agency that serves as an intermediary with the company behind “Implicante” and the million-dollar payments.

Among the three PR companies connected to the campaign, Lua Propaganda claims to service clients such as the state government de São Paulo, the city of São Paulo, AES Eletropaulo, B/Sinco, Brazcarnes, Revista L’Officiel, Ecoera, Lifan Motors, Kiss FM, Polenghi.  “And many others have left their mark on the lunar soil.”

Both letters use the same argument as Implicante to justify the 21 payments of R$ 70,000 that the author of the site was awarded, totalling R$ 1.47 million: a company called Appendix supposedly offered “the lowest price.”

Miro Borges comments:

The letter from this “technical assistant of the state Subsecretary of Communications,” a secretariat occupied by former Veja journalist Marcio Aith, is a joke, and the response to the Folha article is devastating. After “repeated requests,” the state government sent the Folha nearly nine dozen boxes full of documents with no relation to the topic of the story. Why is it so difficult for the Alckmin government to furnish the request for  information?

Bullshit Detection

The Implicante — ” The Gadfly ” — was conceived and created in early 2011 and never received public money or sponsorshi

Screenshot from 2015-04-23 13:52:44

Source:  Folha de S. Paulo

Topics: Implicante, privacy, GoDaddy

Two days after the publication of an article by Ricardo Mendonça and Lucas Ferraz of the Folha, which reported that the government of São Paulo contracted a company in which the site received R$ 70,000 monthly to produce articles against the Workers’ Party and its member, the Folha published responses from the state government and the PR firm that mediates the relation between the government and the site.

Two days after the publication of an article by Ricardo Mendonça and Lucas Ferraz of the Folha, which reported that the government of São Paulo contracted a company in which the site received R$ 70,000 monthly to produce articles against the Workers’ Party and its member, the Folha published responses from the state government and the PR firm that mediates the relation between the government and the site.

One letter was signed by a certain “technical assistant of the state Subsecretary of Communications” and the by a VP of the PR agency that serves as an intermediary with the company behind “Implicante” and the million-dollar payments.

Among the three PR companies connected to the campaign, Lua Propaganda claims to service clients such as the state government de São Paulo, the city of São Paulo, AES Eletropaulo, B/Sinco, Brazcarnes, Revista L’Officiel, Ecoera, Lifan Motors, Kiss FM, Polenghi.  “And many others have left their mark on the lunar soil.”

Both letters use the same argument as Implicante to justify the 21 payments of R$ 70,000 that the author of the site was awarded, totalling R$ 1.47 million: a company called Appendix supposedly offered “the lowest price.”

Miro Borges comments:

The letter from this “technical assistant of the state Subsecretary of Communications,” a secretariat occupied by former Veja journalist Marcio Aith, is a joke, and the response to the Folha article is devastating. After “repeated requests,” the state government sent the Folha nearly nine dozen boxes full of documents with no relation to the topic of the story. Why is it so difficult for the Alckmin government to furnish the request for  information?

Bullshit Detection

The Implicante — ” The Gadfly ” — was conceived and created in early 2011 and never received public money or sponsorship from any party or government. Our personal posts publish the byline to their authors and the content of the site has never been party to contracts with the companies cited in the DCM article, or any other.

And now for something completely ridiculous.

Implicante is hosted in the United States as a matter of cost. We use a .org domain with a privacy option, and not a .br domain, pto say recisely in order to avoid the undue exposure that .br domains, unfortunately, demand.

Is this not precisely that the authors of Implicante wanted to conceal their authorship?

It is worth recalling that a WHOIS search on a Brazilian domain led a reader of a progressive blogger to the front door of the father of one of our administrators several years ago.

That was then. This is now. It no longer does.

Journalist Lucas Ferraz, author of the Folha story, ought to know that this is not a tactic to “conceal the author” by the site, in that along with identify us by name, social security number, and national registry, the journalist was easily able to obtain the cell phones of some of our collaborators.

A simple WHOIS performed today will no longer provide information about the responsible party. I call bullshit.

One letter was signed by a certain “technical assistant of the state Subsecretary of Communications” and the by a VP of the PR agency that serves as an intermediary with the company behind “Implicante” and the million-dollar payments.

Both letters use the same argument as Implicante to justify the 21 payments of R$ 70,000 that the author of the site was awarded, totalling R$ 1.47 million: a company called Appendix supposedly offered “the lowest price.”

Miro Borges comments:

The letter from this “technical assistant of the state Subsecretary of Communications,” a secretariat occupied by former Veja journalist Marcio Aith, is a joke, and the response to the Folha article is devastating. After “repeated requests,” the state government sent the Folha nearly nine dozen boxes full of documents with no relation to the topic of the story. Why is it so difficult for the Alckmin government to furnish the request for  information?

Bullshit Detection

The Implicante — ” The Gadfly ” — was conceived and created in early 2011 and never received public money or sponsorship from any party or government. Our personal posts publish the byline to their authors and the content of the site has never been party to contracts with the companies cited in the DCM article, or any other.

vugotsign

And now for something completely ridiculous.

Implicante is hosted in the United States as a matter of cost. We use a .org domain with a privacy option, and not a .br domain, precisely in order to avoid the undue exposure that .br domains, unfortunately, demand.

Is this not precisely to say that the authors of Implicante wanted to conceal their authorship?

It is worth recalling that a WHOIS search on a Brazilian domain led a reader of a progressive blogger to the front door of the father of one of our administrators several years ago.

That was then. This is now. It no longer does.

Journalist Lucas Ferraz, author of the Folha story, ought to know that this is not a tactic to “conceal the author” by the site, in that along with identify us by name, social security number, and national registry, the journalist was easily able to obtain the cell phones of some of our collaborators.

Yes, but a simple WHOIS performed today will no longer provide information about the responsible party.

A number of libertarian sites such as Cato also use privacy protection, but openly divulge their corporate identities.

catoorg

I call bullshit.

Our personal posts publish the byline to their authors and the content of the site has never been party to contracts with the companies cited in the DCM article, or any other.

And now for something completely ridiculous.

Implicante is hosted in the United States as a matter of cost. We use a .org domain with a privacy option, and not a .br domain, pto say recisely in order to avoid the undue exposure that .br domains, unfortunately, demand.

Is this not precisely that the authors of Implicante wanted to conceal their authorship?

It is worth recalling that a WHOIS search on a Brazilian domain led a reader of a progressive blogger to the front door of the father of one of our administrators several years ago.

That was then. This is now. It no longer does.

Journalist Lucas Ferraz, author of the Folha story, ought to know that this is not a tactic to “conceal the author” by the site, in that along with identify us by name, social security number, and national registry, the journalist was easily able to obtain the cell phones of some of our collaborators.

A simple WHOIS performed today will no longer provide information about the responsible party. I call bullshit.

One letter was signed by a certain “technical assistant of the state Subsecretary of Communications” and the by a VP of the PR agency that serves as an intermediary with the company behind “Implicante” and the million-dollar payments.

Both letters use the same argument as Implicante to justify the 21 payments of R$ 70,000 that the author of the site was awarded, totalling R$ 1.47 million: a company called Appendix supposedly offered “the lowest price.”

Miro Borges comments:

The letter from this “technical assistant of the state Subsecretary of Communications,” a secretariat occupied by former Veja journalist Marcio Aith, is a joke, and the response to the Folha article is devastating. After “repeated requests,” the state government sent the Folha nearly nine dozen boxes full of documents with no relation to the topic of the story. Why is it so difficult for the Alckmin government to furnish the request for  information?

Bullshit Detection

The Implicante — ” The Gadfly ” — was conceived and created in early 2011 and never received public money or sponsorship from any party or government. Our personal posts publish the byline to their authors and the content of the site has never been party to contracts with the companies cited in the DCM article, or any other.

p from any party or government. vugotsign

And now for something completely ridiculous.

Implicante is hosted in the United States as a matter of cost. We use a .org domain with a privacy option, and not a .br domain, precisely in order to avoid the undue exposure that .br domains, unfortunately, demand.

Is this not precisely to say that the authors of Implicante wanted to conceal their authorship?

It is worth recalling that a WHOIS search on a Brazilian domain led a reader of a progressive blogger to the front door of the father of one of our administrators several years ago.

That was then. This is now. It no longer does.

Journalist Lucas Ferraz, author of the Folha story, ought to know that this is not a tactic to “conceal the author” by the site, in that along with identify us by name, social security number, and national registry, the journalist was easily able to obtain the cell phones of some of our collaborators.

Yes, but a simple WHOIS performed today will no longer provide information about the responsible party.

A number of libertarian sites such as Cato also use privacy protection, but openly divulge their corporate identities.

catoorg

I call bullshit.

vugotsign

And now for something completely ridiculous.

Implicante is hosted in the United States as a matter of cost. We use a .org domain with a privacy option, and not a .br domain, precisely in order to avoid the undue exposure that .br domains, unfortunately, demand.

Is this not precisely to say that the authors of Implicante wanted to conceal their authorship?

It is worth recalling that a WHOIS search on a Brazilian domain led a reader of a progressive blogger to the front door of the father of one of our administrators several years ago.

That was then. This is now. It no longer does.

Journalist Lucas Ferraz, author of the Folha story, ought to know that this is not a tactic to “conceal the author” by the site, in that along with identify us by name, social security number, and national registry, the journalist was easily able to obtain the cell phones of some of our collaborators.

Yes, but a simple WHOIS performed today will no longer provide information about the responsible party.

A number of libertarian sites such as Cato also use privacy protection, but openly divulge their corporate identities.

catoorg

I call bullshit.

vugotsign

And now for something completely ridiculous.

Implicante is hosted in the United States as a matter of cost. We use a .org domain with a privacy option, and not a .br domain, precisely in order to avoid the undue exposure that .br domains, unfortunately, demand.

Is this not precisely to say that the authors of Implicante wanted to conceal their authorship?

It is worth recalling that a WHOIS search on a Brazilian domain led a reader of a progressive blogger to the front door of the father of one of our administrators several years ago.

That was then. This is now. It no longer does.

Journalist Lucas Ferraz, author of the Folha story, ought to know that this is not a tactic to “conceal the author” by the site, in that along with identify us by name, social security number, and national registry, the journalist was easily able to obtain the cell phones of some of our collaborators.

Yes, but a simple WHOIS performed today will no longer provide information about the responsible party.

A number of libertarian sites such as Cato also use privacy protection, but openly divulge their corporate identities.

catoorg

I call bullshit.

vugotsign

And now for something completely ridiculous.

Implicante is hosted in the United States as a matter of cost. We use a .org domain with a privacy option, and not a .br domain, precisely in order to avoid the undue exposure that .br domains, unfortunately, demand.

Is this not precisely to say that the authors of Implicante wanted to conceal their authorship?

It is worth recalling that a WHOIS search on a Brazilian domain led a reader of a progressive blogger to the front door of the father of one of our administrators several years ago.

That was then. This is now. It no longer does.

Journalist Lucas Ferraz, author of the Folha story, ought to know that this is not a tactic to “conceal the author” by the site, in that along with identify us by name, social security number, and national registry, the journalist was easily able to obtain the cell phones of some of our collaborators.

Yes, but a simple WHOIS performed today will no longer provide information about the responsible party.

A number of libertarian sites such as Cato also use privacy protection, but openly divulge their corporate identities.

catoorg

I call bullshit.

EDGAR | Petrobras 6-K/A on Corruption

gkapbrs

SECFilingPBRS

Football | Massacre Overshadows Family-Safe Campaign

The Brazilian Football Association runs an ad blitz in an effort to bring families back to stadiums formerly ruled by hooligans, although I am not finding an example video from that campaign in my YouTube search.

Joyous sons sit grinning on the sh

Joyous sons sit grinning on the shoulders of their fathers.

And then there was this:

This weekend, 8 died in a shooting — possibly an execution — outside one of the organized fan groups at the Corinthian.

Continue reading

Blog Wars | O Implicante Fights Back

Screenshot from 2015-04-20 15:53:10wwVermelhow.

Screenshot from 2015-04-20 15:53:10ww

Screenshot from 2015-04-20 15:53:10wwVermelhow.

Screenshot from 2015-04-20 15:53:10http://www.vermelho.org.br/noticia/262519-6

Blogger Fernando Gouveia of the Web site Implicante, which engages in anti-PT propaganda on the Internet, receives R$ 70,000 for communications services to the Alckmin government (PSDB). The government attributed the hiring to a public relations agency that works for the state.

Which PR agency?

And what is to become of the opposition blog Implicante.org and its collaborators?

The communists of the PCdoB advise us to stick a fork in it — it’s done. As to the site itself, its whois registry is thoroughly enciphered thanks to the privacy services of GoDaddy (which has begun advertising on TV here recently.)

The Web site Implicante.org, used to attack the PT, Dilma Rousseff and ex-president Lula, feeding on hatred, prejudice and disinformation, is no longer on the air. The site disappeared the day after reports that the Alckmin government hired the company for R$ 70,000 in public funds.

Gouveia is a partner at a certain Appendix Consultoria

Screenshot from 2015-04-20 15:53:10www.

Screenshot from 2015-04-20 15:53:10http://www.vermelho.org.br/noticia/262519-6

Blogger Fernando Gouveia of the Web site Implicante, which engages in anti-PT propaganda on the Internet, receives R$ 70,000 for communications services to the Alckmin government (PSDB). The government attributed the hiring to a public relations agency that works for the state.

Which PR agency?

And what is to become of the opposition blog Implicante.org and its collaborators?

The communists of the PCdoB advise us to stick a fork in it — it’s done. As to the site itself, its whois registry is thoroughly enciphered thanks to the privacy services of GoDaddy (which has begun advertising on TV here recently.)

The Web site Implicante.org, used to attack the PT, Dilma Rousseff and ex-president Lula, feeding on hatred, prejudice and disinformation, is no longer on the air. The site disappeared the day after reports that the Alckmin government hired the company for R$ 70,000 in public funds.

Gouveia is a partner at a certain Appendix Consultoria Continue reading

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 287 other followers