Talk:Walter O'Brien

CBS' claims

Per discussion on the talk page above, I see issues on this page that relate largely to CBS fabricating a few things to draw attention to its show, or making contemporary adjustments. One good example is the so-called "homeland security claim", made by Elyse Gabel, the actor. It's as if he's making the claim about a different person, which he is. The claim is about the character he plays. If that is the case, then why wouldn't we place the Homeland Claim on the Scorpion show page? I anticipate if the show goes on, we'll end up with a separate page on Walter O'Brien that relates to the show, that belongs here: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Category:Fictional_characters_based_on_real_people DavidWestT (talk) 15:14, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Probably the most logical solution. There's a danger of the WOB article degenerating into a fanzine page with all sorts of links of varying relevance getting added. That Irishman of the year thing was a classic of the unreliability of claims. As Green Cardamom, pointed out, the initial award was far less impressive (was a certificate awarded to Irish people active in various fields but was open to public nominations) but by the time it got to the Kilkenny People, it had been inflated to the mayor of LA nominating O'Brien. The other claims in that article about usage of the Scenario Generator program and the locations/companies were extremely iffy. The problem with some of these claims is that when Wikipedia editors or people with some experience and/or expertise examine them, many quickly fall apart as puffery and PR. The technological claims are the worst in this respect because most journalists don't have the technological expertise or background to know if the claims being made are true or accurate. There will be more PR fluffing for the new series of Scorpion (September) so there will be an uptick in coverage in less questioning media. Jmccormac (talk) 15:43, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The Homeland Security mention is from the reporter. It’s because the team’s handler in the show works for DHS. But the opening clearly states the FBI is the agency that arrested 13yo WOB, meaning Cabe worked for them at the time and transferred later. 198.168.108.122 (talk) 22:53, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Once we have notability for Walter O'Brien (fictional character) I'll create that page and carve out all of the claims about the character. Reviews on the show itself mark a significant departure. And that's expected with Hollywood script writing.DavidWestT (talk) 14:17, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Removed the KCLR mention as it is O'Brien claiming something rather than a Reliable Source. (The Irish Fair Foundation is an example of why this kind of unquestioned and unverified type of claim is a problem with this type of Wikipedia article. The article needs reliable sources for claims and there's a lot of fluff and puffery that really has no place in an encyclopedia article. Jmccormac (talk) 00:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

NDA from 1980s

O'Brien often claims he can't talk about many things due to NDA (Non-Disclosure Agreement). However it would be very unusual to have a perpetual term NDA, they almost always have term limits - for trade secrets 5 years is typical. A perpetual NDA would likely not hold up in court should one party choose to terminate it. There is lots of information on the web about NDA term limits. In particular O'Brien's supposed 1980s NASA hack, which is one of his pillars of fame, it would be in his interest to reveal information about that hack, and it would not matter one bit to NASA how or if he broke into a 1980s-era computer. But O'Brien keeps maintaining he is under a NDA from the 1980s. This is a weak story and it casts a long shadow on all his other NDA claims.

Also he will often say in one one source he can't talk about it due to NDA, and in another source reveal specific details of the thing he said can't talk about. He is inconsistent in his story. -- GreenC 15:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

There is also the problem of a minor, as O'Brien was at the time of the supposed hack, signing an NDA. Would such an NDA, if it existed and one party was a minor, be legally enforceable? And under what jurisdiction? The incorrect technical details of this supposed hack are really problematic when it comes to accepting the veracity of the hacking story. NDAs do seem to be a convenient way of avoiding having to provide details or answer any tricky questions. There's another aspect of the NDA: who was the other party? NSA? NASA? Professor Charles Xavier? The Cuckoo's Egg book has a good account of how difficult it was for Cliff Stoll to get any US government agency, let alone NSA, interested in the fact that various servers were being compromised. (These guys really did execute the hacks and there is a media, digital and print footprint.) However this hacking activity and the legal actions that resulted did make the media and one of the hackers, Markus Hess was convicted. Another hacker involved, Karl Koch (hacker), was found dead. The NDA is a classic TV trope. Whole TV series are based on the premise (Alias Smith and Jones etc). O'Brien's claimed NDA from the 1980s seems to have lasted longer than the Enigma secret. The NDA with parties unknown does seem to be a great way of getting out of answering tricky questions or providing genuine technical details. Of course, one could always ask NASA's press office for a comment. Jmccormac (talk) 16:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Has NASA (or anyone) commented or said "no comment"?DavidWestT (talk) 17:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps they are bound by NDA? The failure to follow up even the simplest of journalistic leads is a major problem with entertainment journalism especially when having to consider them as reliable sources. Jmccormac (talk) 18:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

All he has to do is show a copy of the NDA. That's not illegal. There are so many people who makes false claims like this - claim to be ex-CIA, former Special Forces, etc.. you can make a career out of it, many have. -- GreenC 18:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Would asking NASA for a comment constitute Original Research? Jmccormac (talk) 18:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

It's OK for talk page research on reliability of sources. However I don't think you'll get much of a response, and even if they say "no information", O'Brien can always claims the NDA was signed with a different unnamed government agency which, of course, he can't talk about because of NDA. -- GreenC 18:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

The NDA can't possibly exist, because O'Brian didn't hack anything, because Ireland didn't have internet yet. Ireland didn't get internet until 1991.--MandolinMagi (talk) 21:38, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

He dialed in over a voice line using a 400 baud modem to CompuServe in the UK. -- GreenC 22:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

The technological accuracy of that claim is problematic as the 400 Baud modem was a piece of hardware for a completely different home computer to the one O'Brien claimed to have used. The whole article has a history of problems with claims being made without supporting evidence and various sections having been rewritten as facts were pointed out on this talk page. The UK Compuserve thing only popped up after the extremely high cost of phone calls to the US and the quality of modem-based transatlantic connection quality were pointed out. Compuserve was a subscription based service. At various times, the claims about the arrest had the FBI, Homeland Security (which didn't exist at the time of the claimed hack) and then NSA doing the arrest. The problem was that none of them had powers of arrest in Ireland. Then it became the Gardai (Irish police) carrying out the arrest with the help of Interpol. Ireland did have the Internet back then but it was largely only available via third level educational institutions such as universities. It was only just beginning to become commercially available during 1991 but, much like phone calls to the UK, access was very expensive. As for the NDA, like so many of the claims, there is no supporting evidence.Jmccormac (talk) 01:22, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

According to what source?--MandolinMagi (talk) 09:41, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

The sources keep changing as noted by Jmccormac, when holes in O'Brien's story appear new stories appear. He's like a magician continually changing form. -- GreenC 15:46, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

The only source for most of the claims is O'Brien. That is the major flaw with the article. The childhood IQ of 197, the claimed NASA hack and NDA, the claimed company that did not exist according to the Irish Companies Records Office, the Boston Bombers video analysis software development (a highly specialised field) are all claims made by O'Brien. The only claim that did check out was the one about being a member of a schools Mathematics Olympiad team. In Wikipedia terms, there are no reliable sources for O'Brien's other claims. The narrative in various interviews changed after material was posted here and on various news sites. One obvious shift was from the Department of Homeland Security to the FBI arresting him to the NSA arresting him to NSA arresting him via Interpol and the Gardai (Irish Police). The modem claim is equally problematic due to 400 Baud modems being only available for a specific US brand of home computer and it would not work with other home computers. In interviews, the claimed file size of the Autocad (CAD software) shuttle drawing is also odd. As a rule of thumb, the way to estimate download speeds on a relatively clean phoneline was to divide the baudrate by 10 to estimate how many bytes per second could be downloaded. The download speed, without compression, would be about 40 bytes a second. The claimed 2MB file would have been 2,097,152 bytes. That's approximately 52,429 seconds (2MB/40) needed for the download. In minutes, approximately 874. In hours, approximately 15 hours. The telephone connection issue is also a problem with Compuserve being active in the UK and a subscription-only service. Rural phone line quality at the time was not good. The Irish national phone company, at the time, was upgrading small local analogue exchanges to digital exchanges. Cliff Stoll, author of the Cuckoo's Egg, detailed how difficult it was to get US law enforcement agencies to take computer breaches seriously. The only source for the NDA claim is O'Brien. Other claims seem to draw heavily from the fictional and non-fictional hacker canon. The Reddit AMA session didn't quite go as planned and people who apparently knew O'Brien questioned the narrative and claims. The article is a highly problematic one for Wikipedia in that there are almost no reliable sources for the majority of O'Brien's claims (many of the cited newspaper sources were simply entertainment journalists recycling O'Brien's claims without question or understanding). O'Brien's singular claim to notability is being the producer of a TV show.Jmccormac (talk) 19:32, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Some proposed changes

Information to be added or removed: It is given point-wise below. I have done a thorough research and have tried to be as structured as possible. Also, I am being transparent here and have disclosed my paid editing above.

Explanation of the issue: Neutralizing the page according to WP:NPOV.

1. Please change the lead paragraph

From	to	Explanation
Walter O'Brien (born 24 February 1975) is an Irish businessman and information technologist. He was also the executive producer and loose inspiration of the television series Scorpion. He is known for various self-reported claims including a childhood IQ of 197 which have been scrutinized.	Walter O'Brien (born 24 February 1975) is an Irish businessman and information technologist. He is the founder and CEO of Scorpion Computer Services, a California-based information technology company. He is also known as the executive producer and inspiration of the American television series Scorpion. He is one of the recipient of unite4:humanity's 2017 Humanitarian Lifetime Achievement award. According to media reports, O'Brien had a childhood IQ of 197 which is not validated.	Please add more information to the lead from the body of the article, as per WP:MOSLEAD, which states that the lead should identify the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight.

2. Please add a sub-heading/sub-section in the 'Career' section about the company he owns

Scorpion Computer Services

O'Brien founded Scorpion Computer Services in 1988. He brought the business with him after graduating from college and moving to the United States in the late 1990s. Scorpion Computer Services was started as an IT consulting service that expanded into security and risk management services; and later into artificial intelligence. In 2014, O'Brien re-organized his company as a think tank for high IQ individuals. The company provides services to government, military and Fortune 1000 companies. According to Jane's report, the U.S. Army used Scorpion Computer Services' artificial intelligence tool, ScenGen, on its unmanned aerial systems.

O'Brien also created ConciergeUp.com, an extensive service platform of Scorpion Computer Services to help businesses and individuals financially. He also started a company called Scorpion Studios, which consults TV and major motion picture studios on technical realism.

3. Please change the 'Accuracy of biography' section to 'Evaluation of claims'

From	to	Explanation
In 2014, CNET, Techdirt, and Fast Company evaluated CBS' claims about O'Brien's accomplishments, widely reported in the media, following questions to Fast Company. The Irish Times said that "it is impossible to substantiate some claims." In a follow-up interview with Susan Karlin of Fast Company, O'Brien answered some of Karlin's questions but said that he was bound by non-disclosure agreements. Karlin wrote that some community edited business directories showed O'Brien's company was much smaller than the 2,600 employees and $1.3 billion in revenues stated in Karlin's original article. For example, in 2014 an anonymous editor on Credibility.com recorded Scorpion Computer Services as having 1 employee with annual revenue of $66,000. Karlin points out that community edited business directories data may be unreliable, and O'Brien stated that most of the company consists of independent contractors who work remotely. In a News.com.au interview of Elyes Gabel, the actor who plays the fictional O'Brien in the TV show, the reporter Andrew Fenton says: "But even Elyes Gabel, who plays O'Brien in the show, admits he has some concerns over the veracity of the story. He says that to find the character he had to push those doubts to one side and just accept O'Brien's story as gospel." "That meant everything that he was saying I believe rather than kind of questioning," he says. "That becomes a very dangerous, treacherous area if you don't really fully commit or believe in what somebody is saying. So once I got rid of that, the balance became: 'How do I make this guy? How do I create vulnerability in a character?" Fenton goes on to say: In reality many of O'Brien's claims don't stack up. He says he didn't keep the paperwork showing he scored 197 on an IQ test in primary school — but even if it were true, scores are scaled with age, meaning a high score as a child doesn't reflect his intelligence as an adult. He hasn't taken an official Mensa-approved test since. There's also no evidence of the NASA hack and O'Brien can't provide further details claiming he signed a non-disclosure agreement. And of course Homeland Security was formed as a result of the attack on the Twin Towers and didn't exist when he was 13.	In 2014, media stories by Fast Company, CNET and Techdirt were evaluated by IT, hacker, and computer enthusiast communities for claims on O’Brien’s accomplishments. In the original article, the journalist of the Fast Company story, Susan Karlin, wrote that some community edited business directories showed O'Brien's company was much smaller than the actual 2,600 employees and $1.3 billion in revenues. She did a follow-up interview with O'Brien to clarify the claims, in which he answered some of her questions but, for others, he said that he was bound by non-disclosure agreements. Karlin further explained that community edited business directories data may be unreliable, and O'Brien stated that most of the companies consists of independent contractors who work remotely. For instance, an anonymous editor on an unregulated website, Credibility.com recorded Scorpion Computer Services as having 1 employee with annual revenue of $66,000. Other news stories including The Irish Times story mentioned "it is impossible to substantiate some claims"; while a News.com.au interview of Elyes Gabel by reporter Andrew Fenton evaluates O'Brien's childhood IQ score, noting that he hasn't taken an official Mensa-approved test since; and probes the deal with NASA after he hacked their systems.	The section is not written as per the encyclopedic format and was skewed. I have retained all the points of this section, just written it differently to comply with WP:MoS and WP:NPOV. I am also proposing removal of pin-pointing content to make the section more neutral.

I am hoping this will be fairly reviewed and considered independently. Thank you. --173.161.185.57 (talk) 23:04, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

References

It looks like reputation management with problematic aspects such as CBS/Techdirt/Fortune etc investigating O'Brien's claims being changed to a much softer format. The computer security community were quite vociferous about O'Brien's lack of accomplishments and his claims. Fortune/Karlin had to run a second article addressing some of the questions raised by the first article. CBS also mentioned the dispute. Techdirt investigated O'Brien's claims and found them to be highly problematic. The issue with the IQ claim (again, being reputation managed by the rewrite) is that the only source for the claim is O'Brien. The media didn't make the claim. O'Brien made it. The same applies to O'Brien's hack on NASA. The only source for that claim is O'Brien. The FBI and the US Secret Service do not have jurisdiction in Ireland. The Department of Homeland Security did not exist when O'Brien, according to himself, hacked NASA. The 2600 employees is a rather interesting number. The 2600 Hertz tone was used in the US for phreaking and is the name of a famous hacker newsletter. The $1.3 billion investment fund claim never made it into Wikipedia though the $66K revenue mentioned by the business directories was somewhat less than that. Even the technological claims (the computer type varies and the modem Baud rates are problematic) about the NASA hack don't really stack up either. The Irish telephone network was, at the time, being converted from analog to digital and the line quality and connectivity in many rural Irish areas was poor. The cost of phone calls to the US, at the time, was extremely expensive (around 2 Pounds/Punts a minute and would generally have been routed via a satellite connection. Satellite connections for dialup modems, at the time, encountered serious echo problems and the data rate even for a 2400 Baud connection would easily collapse to single digit Baud rates if they didn't drop the connection. The Irish national telecommunications company, Telecom Eireann, only had 2400 Baud connections available on its packet switched network and charged by the byte/packet and minute. There are no reliable sources on O'Brien's hack. It is simply O'Brien's claim being repeated by the entertainment media. That alone makes the claim extremely problematic. Apart from the TV show, O'Brien's companies are not otherwise notable. The rewrites are attempts to soften or remove negative aspects and push some of the sources that query O'Brien's claims out of the main body of the article leaving only mentions in the references. The only source for the claim of O'Brien's childhood IQ of 197 is O'Brien. There are no independent sources. The only source for the claim of O'Brien's NASA hack is simply O'Brien. There are no independent sources. O'Brien's claim about NSA acting via Interpol investigating his hack of NASA, as told to the Silicon Republic website, only appeared after it was pointed out here on Wikipedia that FBI did not deal with hacks. O'Brien's claims about his childhood IQ and his NASA hack are self-reported and without any supporting sources. Apart from the fundamental problems with the article, this reputation management rewrite adds a new layer of superficial ones. Jmccormac (talk) 01:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

It concerns me the paid editor is an IP account instead of an established username. According to WP:PE: "global policy requires that (if applicable) you must provide links on your user-page to all active accounts on external websites through which you advertise, solicit or obtain paid editing". Since this is an IP account, there is no stable user-page to track the editor's activity and reputation. This is further complicated by the known professional relationship between Walter O'Brien and Jordon French the CEO of Wiki-PR (discussed in section above). Anyway, some of the proposed edits are improvements, some are debatable and some are obfuscation. -- GreenC 04:02, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Langford & Carmichael

This section is for discussing the recent removed of this content as example here Special:Diff/1068909766/1068919267. -- GreenC 01:27, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

• Hippo43. I'm here every day for 14 years. This has been in my watchlist for probably 10 years. Day in and out. The content you are removing has been in place uncontested for many years. I mention this because simply deleting it on this January day is not going to make it stick, you need to get consensus. The sources are primary and secondary, both are acceptable on Wikipedia. It does not require a secondary source to include a basic fact like where a person works. The secondary source concerns the company to help readers better gauge what kind of company it is. Even if you disagree, I'd ask you keep it in place until there is consensus to remove it, it has been there a long time and your proposal for deletion is new. -- GreenC 01:39, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Alright changing my mind on this. Only because it's Walter O'Brien and you can't trust anything he says, or those around him say. It has been shown time and again things don't add up with his claims. His name is at the L&C website, but the company is difficult to source. I found one source that says it's a shopping and errand service now. Who knows. -- GreenC 01:59, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I think it's pretty simple. I got caught up in the detail and missed the key point. It doesn't matter what kind of company it is. WO'B working there is not referenced to a reliable source, and it shouldn't be in the article.

Also, I have been here for over 16 years, so I must be right. // Hippo43 (talk) 02:26, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Primary sources usually have nothing to do with reliability, except in this case because it's WOB. You can't edit war your way to making something stick. Nothing to do with being right. ("I mention this because simply deleting it on this January day is not going to make it stick, you need to get consensus"). -- GreenC 02:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

The company does have a footprint which indicates that it is accredited for the system of awards of US government contracts. Zoominfo shows it as having two employees. There seems to be the basis for a timeline with WO'B working for a financial services company (commentary from former workmates on various articles), Langford and Carmichael and then the Scorpion Studios company. The financial services company details are anecdotal rather than RS. The article itself is a highly problematic one due to many of the sources being merely entertainment journalists recycling O'Brien's claims. Even that Janes defence mention looks more like a recycled press release than a verified news story. There was a lot of editing that downplayed the claims about O'Brien's involvement with the detection of the Boston bombers. The video clip from a local TV affiliate channel linked in the article makes the claim that was later removed from the article in what appeared to be reputation management. L&C is, according to the an open site that covers USG contracts is veteran owned but WO'B is not a veteran or listed as the primary contact. Some of the facts from the article's talk page had a habit of ending up in subsequent interviews. The NSA/Interpol one being an example. Jmccormac (talk) 02:57, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

GreenC Primary sources have a lot to do with reliability. From WP:RSPRIMARY "Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. Although they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred."

It might be useful to include something like "several of O'Brien's lies appear on the website of Langford & Carmichael, which appears to be a small business." // Hippo43 (talk) 03:29, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Recent edit

Special:Diff/1232690298/1232809977 - I had to revert this because it's unsourced but the poster makes some good points that are worth exploring. -- GreenC 21:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)