Ecce Veja, Dantas’ Inferno and Nassif’s Disbelief: Preliminary Notes on Dona Janaína and the Hackeraggio Ragazzi

The image “https://i2.wp.com/i113.photobucket.com/albums/n216/cbrayton/Stuff/hackeraggio.png” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.
Mainardi’s Milan Document: Some sort of raggazzi seem to have been engaging in hackeraggio and expecting ricompensa for doing so. Reading.

The anta my friend’s a preposterous beast
The Tupi all think he’s a glorious feast
Likewise the
viola is not a guitar
But if you learn how to twang one you can go pretty far

–Zebu Cavaco & His Cur-Deus Homos, “The Gringo Violeiro’s Wobbly Waltz”

Diogo Mainardi’s column in the latest edition of Veja is a perfect case study in the manipulation of news to suit the purposes of [parties to] business disputes.

“Iemanjá, lemanjá
lemanjá é dona Janaína que vem
Iemanjá, Iemanjá
lemanjá é muita tristeza que vem
–Vinicius and Baden Powell, Os Afro-Sambas

Lula é meu álibi: The latest chapter in a series by Brazilian business journalist Luis Nassif on peculiar goings-on at Veja magazine, published by the Editora Abril. Whose products, we should disclose, we do not consume.

Life is too short, and the dollar too weak at the moment, to pay for the privilege of being jerked around and lied to.

This is something one can do to oneself, free of charge.

I have been dusting off my (rusty and never more than barely adequate) Italian to read some of the putative reports in question here, supposedly from the Italian investigation into ratfink business tactics carried on by Telecom Italia under its former management.

It is colorful, to say the least. Black-hat hacking seems to loom large, and Nassif gets into some of that in this chapter, titled “Lula is my alibi: Political cover for [gabbling ratfink-driven business disputes].”

The subtitle quips on the title of Veja columnist Diogo Mainardi’s last book, a collection of columns called something like “[President] Lula is my [tapirus terrestris].” The anta is the local name for the tapir, which is quite an interesting animal.

On TV Globo’s late-night Letterman clone, Mainardi explained that he did not mean, with that title, to suggest that the president of Brazil is as proverbially stupid as the anta, but rather that Mainardi, Elmer Fudd-like, considered Lula his beast of prey.

That he “had Lula in his gunsights,” like some [also proverbially tasty, in parts of the country; great for luau-like anta roasts] miniature South American pachyderm.

Metaphors of political violence loom large in Veja‘s hysterical vision of the world. See also

Por várias razões, a coluna de Diogo Mainardi, na última edição de Veja, é exemplar para uma análise de caso, sobre a manipulação das notícias para propósitos de disputas empresariais.

For a number of reasons, Diogo Mainardi’s column in the latest edition of Veja is a perfect case of the manipulation of news to suit the interests of [parties to] business disputes.

Consiste em juntar um conjunto de informações detalhadas (número de contas, de cheques, valores) e compor uma salada, muitas vezes sem lógica, confiando na falta de discernimento dos leitores. Compensa-se a falta de lógica com excesso de detalhes. Depois, se confia que a complexidade do tema impedirá que as afirmações sejam conferidas.

It consists of heaping up details (account numbers, check numbers, sums of money) and making a salad out of them, often without any logic, trusting to the reader’s lack of discernment. The lack of logic is compensated for by the superabundance of details. Subsequently, the complexity of the issue is relied on to discourage anyone from checking the statements made.

As my old daddy used to say: “Son, if you cannot dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.”

A coluna falava do inquérito que corre na Itália sobre operações fraudulentas da Telecom Itália. Mainardi alegou ter informações reservadas do inquérito. Não as divulgou. Limitou-se a acenar com ameaças a jornalistas que ousassem criticá-lo. Blefou para chantagear.

The column had to do with the investigation in Italy into fraudulent activities by Telecom Itália. Mainardi claimms to have privileged information from the investigation. But did not publish this information. He limited himself to threatening journalist who dare to criticize him. Bluffing in order to blackmail.

Next thing we will read will be that Nassif had an affair with his gardener’s wife, or a duck, or something.

Not that I know anything about Nassif’s love life, mind you. Personally, he does not strike you as the Don Juan type, though they say he plays a mean cavaco.

I am just saying: If the pattern holds, the next thing to happen will be an attempt to give the poor guy the Senator Eagleton Memorial John “He’s Insane!” McCain third degree of gabbling ratfink and “character assassination.”

My wife, who recently caught up with Nassif’s series on her own, had never heard the phrase “character assassination” before, but says she is finding the loan word useful to explain a lot of things about daily life as reflected in the carnival mirror of certain sectors of the Brazilian press.

The Mrs. is far from being as thoroughly fascinated with these sorts of things as I am. If the buzz on the disbelief expressed by Nassif has reached her, I expect this is a sign of deep penetration of the meme.

O centro de suas acusações eram US$ 100 mil recebidos pelo advogado Marcelo Elias – que derrotou Daniel Dantas em um caso rumoroso na corte inglesa. Segundo Mainardi, esses US$ 100 mil teriam sido pagos a Elias, para que distribuísse entre autoridades e jornalistas brasileiros.

The focus of his accusations is the US$100,000 received by attorney Marcelo Elias — who defeated Daniel Dantas in a noisy lawsuit in a British court. According to Mainardi, this US$100,000 was handed over to Elias for distribution among Brazilian authorities and journalists.

O primeiro furo foi a tentativa de atribuir o dossiê a fontes italianas. Conforme você conferiu no capítulo anterior, o bookmark deixava claro que era uma fonte brasileira.

The first “scoop” [in the column] is the attempt to attribute the source to Italian sources. As you read in the previous chapter, [the bookmark left in the PDF file] made it clear that the source was Brazilian.

Well, maybe not absolutely clear, but it certainly does make you wonder.

O segundo engôdo foi o álibi para a publicação da coluna. A única justificativa para publicar uma notícia é quando há um fato novo. Mainardi apresentou o dossiê como algo inédito, recém-chegado da Itália. Era notícia requentada. No dia 11 de outubro de 2006, na coluna “Notícias da Itália” Mainardi já havia se referido a esses fatos (clique aqui).

The second decoy [red herring, false trail] was the pretext for publishing the column. The only reason to publish a news item is when there is new information. Mainardi presents the dossier as something new and hot, fresh from Italy. But it was nothing but [warmed-over old hat]. On October 11, 2006, in a column titled “News from Italy,” Mainardi had already referred to these facts [link].

Nassif publishes screenshots of all the columns cited.

I am just too lazy to reproduce them at the moment.

Nessa coluna, um dos parágrafos chamava atenção:

In that column, there was a paragraph worth nothing:

“A Business Security Agency era administrada por Marco Bernardini, consultor da Pirelli e da Telecom Italia. Ele entregou todos os seus documentos bancários à magistratura italiana. Há uma série de pagamentos em favor do advogado Marcelo Ellias: 50.000 dólares em 13 de julho de 2005, 200.000 em 5 de janeiro de 2006, 50.000 em 2 de fevereiro de 2006. De acordo com Angelo Jannone, outro funcionário da Telecom Italia, Marcelo Ellias era o canal usado pela empresa para pagar Luiz Roberto Demarco, aliado da Telecom Italia na batalha contra Daniel Dantas, e parceiro dos petistas que controlavam os fundos de pensão estatais”.

“The Business Security Agency, [wrote Mainardi] was managed by Marco Bernardini, a consultant for Pirelli and Telecom Italia. He handed over all of his banking records to the Italian court. There were a series of payments to Marcelo Ellias [sic]: $50,000 on July 13, 2005, $200,000 on January 5, 2006, $50,000 on February 2, 2006. According to Angelo Jannone, another Telecom Italia employee, Marcelo Ellias [sic] was the channel used to pay Luiz Roberto Demarco, a TI ally in the battle against Daniel Dantas and a partner of the PT party members who controlled the pension funds of state-run companies.”

As far as I can tell, one-l Elias is the correct spelling. As a Colin often referred to as a Collin, a Collins, or even a Calvin, I am extremely sensitive to this issue.

Os tais US$ 100 mil já tinham sido mencionados ali.

The $100,000 in question had already been mentioned there.

No final da coluna, a mesma esperteza de sempre: incluir Lula de alguma maneira, no estilo “prego sobre vinil”, para criar o álibi político:

At the end of the column, the usual low cunning: Bring President da Silva into it in some way, in the classic “taking a nail to the vinyl” mode, in order to create a political alibi:

“Taking a nail to the vinyl” is jargon for crude editorial interference.

As in taking, say, Sticky Fingers by the Rolling Stones and using a threepenny nail to manually scratch a Spike Jones kazoo solo over Mick Taylor’s spaced-out guitar work on “Can’t You Hear Me Knockin'” …

A revista Panorama reconstruiu também um caso denunciado por VEJA: aqueles 3,2 milhões de reais em dinheiro vivo retirados da Telecom Italia em nome de Naji Nahas. Um dos encarregados pelo pagamento conta agora que o dinheiro foi entregue a deputados da base do governo, do PL, membros da Comissão de Ciência e Tecnologia.

Panorama magazine (Italy) has also reconstructed a case denounced by VEJA: those R$3.2 million in cash withdrawn from Telecom Italia in the name of Naji Nahas. One of those responsible for this payment now says the money was turned over to federal lawmakers in the government bloc, members of the science and technology committee [in the lower house of the Brazilian Congress.]

Lula se orgulha de seu prestígio internacional. Orgulha-se a ponto de roubar aplausos dirigidos ao secretário-geral da ONU. O caso da Telecom Italia permite dizer que o lulismo realmente ganhou o mundo. Em sua forma mais autêntica: o dinheiro sujo.

“[President da Silva] is proud of his international prestige, [writes Mainardi]. Proud to the point of stealing applause from the secretary-general of the UN. The Telecom Italia case allows it to be said that Lulism really has “gained the whole world,” in its most authentic form: dirty money.”

This does not translate very easily, sorry. And Mainardi is not exactly Euclides da Cunha, either, as a prose artist. So remember: this is draft-quality translation. You get what you pay for. But you get the general drift, I hope.

The reference to “stealing applause” is to a video of a speech by the Tupi president at the UN, used in a 2006 campaign video.

The producers of the ad are accused of editing applause for Kofi Annan in such a way that it looks like applause for President Squid. I compared the ad with footage of the speech, sucked off of YouTube, and did find a second or two of applause footage that seemed to have been cut in from elsewhere.

In the process, on the other hand, I also listened to the entire speech. Which was not something you could really do on Brazilian TV, which did not cover it all. It was not a bad speech. This President Squid guy is no fool. The Brazilian could do worse for themselves.

Há um vendaval de dinheiro jorrando por várias fontes, da Telecom Itália antes do acordo com Dantas; da Telecom Itália depois do acordo com Dantas; das empresas de telefonia quando controladas por Dantas; das agencias SMPB e DNA, de Marcos Valério, muito dinheiro jorrando de Nagi Nahas. Dinheiro entrando para parlamentares, para políticos petistas e de outros partidos. E para jornalistas.

There is a whirlwind of money, [Nassif continues] flying around from a number of sources: from TI before it made a deal with Dantas; from TI after it made a deal with Dantas; from telecoms when they were controlled by Dantas; from the SMPB and DNA ad agencies run by [Belo Horizonte Baldy, the man at the center of a huge political slush fund scandal that affects just about every political party in Brazil]; and a lot of money flowing from Nagi Nahas.

As far as I know, and I may not know, the man spells his name Naji. Maybe Nassif prefers the Egyptian spelling of Arabic names. Not Najib Mahfouz, but Naguib Mahfouz.

(There is a joke about an Egyptian who goes to McDonald’s and, wishing to appear smart and avoid the typical Egyptian substitution of j as in jingle with g as in gustatory, orders a “hamburdjer.”)

No acordo celebrado com Tronchetti Provera, por exemplo, Dantas recebeu 50 milhões de euros; Nahas, outros 25 milhões. O dinheiro foi pago a Najas de 2002 a 2006 – 7,2 milhões de euros em 2002, 11,3 milhões em 2003, 6,2 milhões em 2005 e 750 mil em 2006 (página 14 do documento). Provera e Dantas tornam-se aliados justamente em 2005, quando é retomado o pagamento a Nahas (depois de interrompido em 2004). Ou seja, toda atuação de Nahas, a partir de então, é feita obedecendo ao pacto Dantas-Provera.

In the deal struck with Tronchetti Provera, for example, Dantas got €50 million; Nahas, another €25 million. The money was paid to Najas [sic] between 2002 and 2006: €7.2 million in 2002, €11.3 million in 2003, €6.2 million in 2006, and €750,000 in 2006 (p. 14 of the document.) Provera and Dantas formed an alliance in 2005, when the payments to Nahas resumed (after being discontinued in 2004). That is to say, all of Nahas’ actions from that point forward followed the terms of the Dantas-Provera pact.

A matéria de Veja, de 14 de novembro de 2007, limita-se a dizer que a maior parte do dinheiro foi pago a Nahas entre 2002 e 2003 (clique aqui), modo esperto de ocultar que uma boa fatia foi entregue em 2005, no auge da disputa, e quando já tinha sido celebrado o pacto Provera-Dantas.

The Veja article published on November 14, 2007 limits itself to saying that most of the money was paid to Nahas between 2002 and 2003 [link] — a clever way of hiding the fact that a good portion of it was handed over in 2005, at the height of the dispute, after the Dantas-Provera deal had already been done.

Em suma, há inúmeros dutos por onde vaza o dinheiro, inúmeros financiadores. Por que a insistência de Mainardi nos US$ 100 mil dólares de Elias e restringir as informações sobre Dantas a meras críticas pontuais, muito mais parecendo manobras de despiste, já que nenhuma trazia informações concretas?

In short, there are many, many pipes for money to flow down, and many, many sources of money. Why does Mainardi insist on the $100,000 paid to Elias and restrict information on Dantas to occasional criticisms that look more like attempts to throw us off the trail than anything, given that they contain no concrete information?

Ora, era sabido que Marcelo Elias era advogado contratado da Telecom Itália. Com ele trabalhavam mais dois advogados, um deles na Inglaterra. Como coordenador das ações, cabia a ele receber o pagamento e remunerar o trabalho da equipe.

Look here, it was well known that Elias was an attorney hired by TI. He worked with two other lawyers in England. As the coordinator of the lawsuits, it was his responsibility to bill the work and pay his team.

Qualquer pessoa com um mínimo de discernimento saberia que, para ações desse tamanho, honorários de US$ 100 mil eram ridículos. Provavelmente Elias ganhou muito mais do que isso apenas como honorários, sem contar o que repassou para os demais advogados, por pagamento de serviço.

Anyone with the slightest discernment would know that in a case of this size, $100,000 in fees were a [piffling] amount. Elias probably earned a lot more than this in fees alone, not counting what he paid for the services of other lawyers.

True: You have these law factories billing at up to $500 an hour, in quarter-hour increments, which means that if a lawyer from another party calls you and talks for 20 seconds to suggest you meet for lunch, you bill the client $125.

Nice work if you can get it.

Além disso, como especialista em legislação internacional, Elias poderia tranqüilamente receber seu dinheiro em uma offshore, sem ser identificado. Mas preferiu receber em uma empresa registrada, com tudo declarado em seu nome, imposto pago, e registro dos pagamentos feitos para terceiros. Esse tipo de conta – onde o advogado recebe os pagamentos – é chamada de “client account”.

Furthermore, as a specialist in international law, Elias could easily receive his payment in an offshore account, without being identified. But he preferred to received it through a registered corporation, in his name, with taxes paid and the payments to third parties accounted for. This type of account for receiving payments is called a “client account.”

Em seu podcast, Mainardi deu o número da conta e o valor recebido como se fosse fruto de uma investigação sigilosa que tinha identificado um crime. E não passava de um registro normal de pagamento de serviços advocatícios, registrado na contabilidade da Telecom Italia.

In his podcast, Mainardi gave the account number and the amount received as though it were the fruit of a secret investigation that had identified a crime, when it was nothing more than a normal payment for legal services that appears on the books of the client, TI.

Tome-se o caso de Roberto Mangabeira Unger, que cumpria para Daniel Dantas o mesmo papel que Elias para os adversários de Dantas.

Take the case of Roberto [“The Minister of the Future”] Mangabeira Unger, who played the same role for Dantas that Elias played for his adversaries.

Teoricamente, seu trabalho era similar ao de Elias. Cabia a ele coordenar uma equipe de advogados para tratar de um conjunto de ações e pagar os honorários.

In theory, the work Unger did was similar to that performed by Elias. His job was to coordinate a team of lawyers to manage a set of lawsuits and pay their fees.

Os pagamentos foram efetuados em nome dele e de The International Strategies Group, em uma “client account”. Em 2005 foram US$ 900 mil dólares. Nos anos anteriores, mais US$ 1 milhão. Se juntar tudo, a conta aumenta substancialmente. Parte desse dinheiro era para remunerar advogados da equipe – tal e qual Elias, tudo legalizado, só que em valores muito maiores.

Those payments were made in his name and in the name of The International Strategies Group in a “client account.” In 2005, they amounted to $900,000. In prior years, more than US$1 million. Adding it all up, the account balance grew substantially. Some of this money went to paying the fees of lawyers on the team — just as Elias did, perfectly legally, except in larger quantities.

Mas havia muito mais. Na relação de pagamentos da Brasil Telecom (sob o comando de Dantas) a advogados, contam pagamentos de R$ 8,5 milhões a Carlos Alberto Almeida Castro, o notório Kakai, advogado de Brasília, com vinculações políticas óbvias. Desse total, R$ 5 milhões foram para uma causa da qual ele não tinha sequer procuração. O advogado Roberto Teixeira recebeu quase R$ 1 milhão; R$ 1 milhão para Oliveira Lima, atual advogado de José Dirceu.

But there was much more to it. In the report of Brazil Telecom’s spending on legal services under Dantas, there are payments of R$8.5 million to Carlos Alberto Almeida Castro, the notorious Kakai, a Brasília lawyer with ostentatious political connections.

That is to say, he works closely with and for the PT, party of President Squid.

Of this total, R$5 million were spent on a case in which he did not even have a client to represent. Attorney Roberto Teixeira got nearly R$1 million; R$1 million went to Oliveira Lima, who currently represents José Dirceu.

Tudo isso sem contar quantias elevadas colocadas em assessorias de imprensa.

Not to mention copious expenditures on public relations.

Só a FSB, assessoria de imprensa, tinha quatro contratos, um de R$ 30 mil mensais; outro de R$ 400 mil por ano, no total quase R$ 1 milhão, sem nenhuma evidência de serviço prestado. Muitas e muitas assessorias receberam somas milionárias muito mais do que os honorários normais de mercado. Para onde ía esse dinheiro?

The FSB public relations firm alone had four accounts, one of them worth R$30,000 a month, another worth R$400,000 a year, for a total of nearly R$1 million, with no evidence of services rendered. Many, many PR firms got millions more than the market rate in fees. Where was all this money going to?

Esses dados constam de processos na Justiça, em que a Brasil Telecom pede ressarcimento dos valores pagos. Na ação sobre gastos com assessorias de imprensa, lê-se:

This information is available in two court cases in which Brasil Telecom seeks to be reimbursed for these payments. In the lawsuit concerning spending on public relations, we read:

And a graphic follows, depicting the text of the complaint, which states that, in layman terms, Dantas, as chief executive, was spending this money on his own personal behalf rather than on behalf of BrT and not telling anybody about it. Somthing like that. Will translate later.

Eurípedes e Mainardi poderiam alegar desconhecimento sobre esses universo de relações com advogados e jornalistas? Poderiam, em tese.

Can Veja editor [Eurípedes Alcântara] and Mainardi plead ignorance of this universe of relationships among journalists and lawyers? They could, in theory.

Acontece que, depois da primeira coluna de Mainardi, em 2006, o advogado Elias encaminhou carta protocolada a Eurípedes dando-lhe ciência de todos os honorários pagos pela Brasil Telecom (sob a gestão Dantas) a esses advogados. A desproporção de valores era enorme, em relação aos tais US$ 100 mil que teriam sido utilizados para corromper políticos e jornalistas.

But as it happens, after Mainardi’s first column, in 2006, the attorney Elis sent a registered letter to Alcântara advising him of all the fees paid by Brasil Telecom (under Dantas’ leadership) to these lawyers. The amounts were enormous, far disproportionate to the US$100,000 supposedly used to corrupt politicians and journalists.

According to data points I have seen on the local market, US$100,000 will buy you two cops for one year, if you happen to be in the Bolivian marching powder industry.

De 9 de outubro de 2006, a carta de Elias trazia todos esses dados, com profusão de detalhes. Mostrava os honorários pagos a Oliveira Lima, Kakai, Nélio Machado, Wilson Mirza, Torjal, Teixeira, Ferreira Serrano & Renault (clique aqui).

Dated October 9, 2006, Elias’ letter set forth all this information, with a wealth of details. It showed the fees paid to Oliveira Lima, Kakai, Nélio Machado, Wilson Mirza, Torjal, Teixeira, [and] Ferreira Serrano & Renault [link].

Se a guerra de Mainardi era contra Lula, por que razão não divulgou esses nomes? Porque, na outra ponta, apareceria Daniel Dantas.

If Mainardi is really at war with Lula, why not publish those names? Because if he did, the name of Daniel Dantas would also come up at some point.

Não era possível mais o álibi da ignorância ou a síndrome do “boimate” – de supor que US$ 100 mil são suficientes para comprar a República.

It was no longer possible to plead ignorance or the “cowmato” syndrome — in supposing that US$ 100,000 was enough to buy the Brazilian government.

Veja infamously repeated an April Fools’s joke published by a scientific journal — a certain Professor McDonalds genetically engineers a hybrid cow-tomato so that he no longer has to combine them separately at the point of hamburger sandwich assembly — as though it were actually a true factoid.

Hence “cowmato syndrome” — though I am not certain that was what it was called in English. Close enough for jazz — or Abril fools.

O compromisso do jornalista é com os fatos. Os fatos foram colocados em suas mãos, em carta protocolada. O diretor de redação e seu colunista esconderam a carta embaixo do tapete e continuaram repetindo as mesmas afirmações (desmentidas). E Eurípedes garantindo a Roberto Civita que todas as afirmações eram fundamentadas. Era muita coisa para que Roberto Civita pudesse alegar desconhecimento.

Journalists are committed to the facts. The facts were placed in their hands in a registered letter. The editor in chief and his columnist swept the letter under the rug and continued to repeat the same statements, which had been refuted. And Alcântara swearing to his big boss, Roberto Civita, that all the statements were well founded. So that Roberto Civita could plead ignorance of the matter.

Plausible deniability is alive and well and living alongside the (foul-smelling) Rio Pinheiros.

E ambos usando dados falsos para intimidar jornalistas. A crença era de que, com o pacto de silêncio da mídia em torno do tema, com nenhum veículo se animando a denunciar esse esquema, todos os que fossem atacados ficariam intimidados pela falta de espaço para se defender.

Both of them used false information to intimidate journalists. Their belief was that, given the conspiracy of silence in the news media on the topic, with not a single publication daring to denounce this scheme, everyone they attacked would be intimidated by the lack of opportunity provided to defend themselves.

Não se deram conta do fenômeno da Internet.

They did not count on the Internet.

O bad boy e o g00db0y

Bad boy and g00db0y

No domingo, quando publiquei o Capítulo sobre esse suspeito dossiê italiano, cujo link estava na coluna de Mainardi, alguns leitores fizeram o download, analisaram o documento e ajudaram a reforçar as suspeitas de fraude. A primeira análise foi do leitor João Alcântara, que se apresentou como juiz de direito aposentado:

On Sunday, when I published my chapter on this suspicious “Italian dossier,” linked from Mainardi’s column on the Web, some readers downloaded it, analyzed the document, and reinforced the suspicion of fraud. The first analysis comes from reader João Alcântara, who identifies himself as a retired judge.

1) O documento não tem começo nem final. O documento tem duas numerações. Uma, aparentemente a numeração oficial do inquérito. Outra, uma numeração específica do documento. Por exemplo, a primeira página tem o número 1 (que é do dossiê entregue a Mainardi) e o número 136 (que provavelmente é do inquérito da polícia italiana). Significa que foram escondidas as 135 primeiras páginas do inquérito original. O que continham?

1. The document has no beginning or end. It has two numbering schemes, one apparently an official page number, the other a numbering scheme specific to this [incomplete] document. For example, the first page bears both the number 1 (the first page of the dossier handed over to Mainardi) and the number 136 (probably the page number from the Italian police file.) This means that the first 135 pages of the original investigation were omitted. What was in them?

By God, he’s right!

The original page number is centered at the foot of the page, and the other is placed in the lower righthand corner, in a different (sans-serif) font, probably inserted by the scanning and PDF conversion software.

This seems like a fair question.

2) A diferença da numeração no inicio do arquivo é de 135 paginas. Já no final é de 140, indicando que foram suprimidas 5 paginas, sem motivo algum. Entre a penúltima e a última página estão faltando a 317 e 318.

The initial difference between the two numbering schemes is 135 pages, but by the end, it has increased to 140 pages, which suggest 5 pages were suppressed for no apparent reason. Between the second to last and last page, pages 317 and 318 are missing.

The last page is 319, 179 in the alternative page-numbering. Do the math. The last sentence on p. 319 runs on to another page.

3) Depois, a numeração do documento vai até a página 75 (que corresponde à página 210 do documento original). A partir daí, acaba a numeração original. É um claro sinal de que alguma coisa, que não interessava, foi suprimida do documento original.

3. Also the page-numbering goes up to page 75 (corresponding to page 210 in the original.) From then on, the original page-numbering is absent. This is a clear sign that something not considered relevant was suppressed from the original document.

4) É só conferir a página 97 do documento. Começa a falar de Motta Veiga (o principal contato de Dantas com a mídia) e, de repente, acaba.

4. Just take a look at p. 97 of the document. It starts talking about Motta Veiga (Dantas’ principal contact with the media) and then suddenly stops.

Há indícios fortes de que Mainardi divulgou intencionalmente uma fraude.

There are strong indications that Mainardi intentionally published a fraud.

Mais tarde, um trabalho investigativo feito pelos próprios leitores do Blog reforçou as suspeitas sobre as fontes de Mainardi.

Later, an investigative job done by blog readers reinforced suspicions about Mainardi’s sources.

Acompanhe os nossos sherlocks:

Here is what our Sherlocks had to say:

Really, they are more like the Baker St. Irregulars, but let us not quibble over literary trivia.

1. O leitor Aton Fon abriu as propriedades do PDF com o relatório sobre a Telecom Italia, e descobriu a data em que o documento foi preparado: criado em 21 de janeiro e modificado pela última vez no dia 22 de janeiro.

Reader Aton Fon looked at the document properties of the PDF containing the report on TI and discovered the date the document was prepared: Created on January 21, 2008 and modified for the last time on January 22.

The image “https://i1.wp.com/i113.photobucket.com/albums/n216/cbrayton/Stuff/proppdf.png” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.

I also noticed that the thing was produced using PFU ScanSnap Manager software (by Fujitsu) and uses a U.S. letter format for the document. Brazilians seem to tend to use ISO 516 paper sizes, like the Europeans:

The image “https://i0.wp.com/upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8a/A_size_illustration.svg/180px-A_size_illustration.svg.png” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.

Is that a clue, too?

PDF 1.5 is a version of the format that dates back to 2003, I think. They are up to PDF 1.7 now, right?

So basically, they (“They!”) probably got a hard copy of this document and scanned it in order to be able to post it on the Web in the PDF format. You would think that if it arrived by fax it would have the usual fax transmission junk at the top of the page.

2. O leitor Salles pegou a dica e foi até o blog de Janaína Leite – que já admitiu ter como fonte Rodrigo Andrade, do Opportunity. Lá, ele levantou um post que falava sobre os problemas da Telecom Itália. Endossava todas as hipóteses do Opportunity, mas não mencionava a fonte de suas informações.

2. Reader Salles took the clue to the Web log of Janaína Leite, who has admitted having Rodrigo Andrade of Opportunity as a source. He found a post there discussing the problems at Telecom Italia. It endorsed the entire Opportunity theory of the case, but did not cite any sources of the information it presented.

O nome do post era estranho: gOOdbOys, assim mesmo, com zero em lugar do O. E foi publicado no dia 21 de janeiro, mesmo dia em que o PDF foi criado.

The title of the post was strange: “g00db0ys,” with a zero instead of the letter o. It was published on January 21, the same day the PDF was created.

This is, of course, standard h4x0r ling0. A bunch of black-hat hackers, including a krew known as the g00db0ys, are discussed in the Italian, which I have yet to struggle through..

3. Aí, consultou o texto da jornalista para entender o que vinha a ser esse g00db0ys.

3. He read the journalist’s text to try to understand who these g00db0ys were.

4. Curioso, foi até o relatório sobre a Telecom Itália, indicado por Mainardi na sua última coluna. E o que achou?

4. Curious, he looked at the report on TI recommended by Mainardi in his last column. And what did he find?

A expressão era a mesma do relatório sigiloso sobre a Telecom Itália, inclusive com os zeros em lugar do “0”. Janaína tinha se baseado no mesmo relatório de Mainardi.

The expression was the same in the secret report on TI, with the same spelling. Janaína had based her post on the same report as Mainardi.

Maybe. Yes, probably.

g00db0ys do not google up readily as one of those hacker gangs that go around cracking and pissing on other people’s Web sites just for the notoriety of it. There is little to found about them. Let me try and read what this report says the g00dfe11az were supposedly up to.

A rede ajudou a desmascarar a pantomima em torno do relatório que Mainardi garantia ter recebido da Itália.

The network helped to unmask the farce that was this report Mainardi said he got from Italy.

Maybe. The problem is we need a translation of the Italian to figure out what the hell is in the “report,” anyway. If anything.

It would also be nice to know what the context of the thing is. As the “retired judge” noted, there is no beginning or end to it. It reads like capsule summaries of depositions taken in the case, basically.

It has smudged rubber stamps on each page — “TRIBUNALE … CIV[ILE?] … MILANO … — and someone’s initials of the kind used to certify that one has read something. Running header: “Tribunale di Milano — Ufficio GIP.”

It contains numerous references to hackeraggio. References to anti-Kroll hackeraggio. Security firms called PIT CONSULTING and DOMINA. Something something.

Well, I guess there is no other way. One is going to have to try to read some of this dang thing.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s