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

  • Marginalia

  • Accumulations

Publishing Incognito | «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.