Phail_Saph

"Hacker" rats out Wikileak Suspect

86 posts in this topic

I'm fuming right now. I'm reading this article about how a former "hacker" rated out the guy who release the video of the

that made big news a couple months back. This video alone singlehandedly brought Wikileakssubstantial funding and has made it a source beyond the hacker and underground community into real world respectability. I place Wikileaks along side the Electronic Frontier Foundation as two of the most powerful institutions true hackers and disrupters of society have in this world.

See, this article highlights how this shit bag is in no way a hacker and just purely a criminal. There are many "hackers" who have gone the way of the dark side but once they make that choice they are no longer following the real way of hackerdom. I'm going to do more research on this character now...and attack him on twitter where he apparently likes to reside...but he probably was never a true hacker just someone who had great ability and followed his more powerful instinct which was to be a scumbag criminal.

You can never be an "ex-hacker." Someone who uses that term was never a hacker to begin with.

What do you guys think? And don't let my strong feelings deter you...I really want to know what people think.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

eh hes a jackass thats about it lol

Edited by dinscurge
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Took the kings shilling alrighty. You dont know whats gone on behind the scenes though regarding his conviction and terms of release or what deals been cut etc, quite a few phreakers and crackers broke down when they get took to the police station and all their equipment seized, and when we were teens in the bedroom we had to face the wrath of parents for bringing this all into the house. I still have the name jolyon ralph aka ComradJ from the amiga scene burned into my do-not-like list, and I know its a very shared entry...

Guys even got a page on wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Lamo

Im not even convinced the guy fingered for the leak has done it, if I was going to put myself in his shoes, Id reach for google and find the wiki page on the guy. The whole page screams not to trust him, and that he'd turn you in for the publicity and fame of it.

And remember we're not talking someones gran here, we're talking a 22yo intelligence analyst who spends his life looking at things and facts and making judgement calls on it and has grown up with google and the net...

If this really is all thats against him it could just be a frame up to get rid of someone publically and show the world they can catch leakers to deter others... Trust nobody, works in every arena of life, especially when dealing with the law and officialdom...

Another suspicious aspect. Lamo was a early donor to wikileaks themselves. Why on earth would he fubar them up later on when they started to gain respectability if he supported their ideals to start with?

Theres a lot more going on under the surface here than a simple "bad turned good dude helps out national security" for sure...

Trust nobody. Especially not lamo, the ny times, nor the gov...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What does Kevin Paulson have to do with this? They mention him in the article but I don't see how he is connected at all?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What does Kevin Paulson have to do with this? They mention him in the article but I don't see how he is connected at all?

Poulson*. He wrote an article on Wired (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/leak/) which gave more information on the situation than anyone else had. Namely, names.

I'm not coming down on either side of the situation at the moment. One thing to consider is that this intelligence kid was hellbent on publishing anything and everything. There are some rather over-the-top quotes attributed to him. Some sensitive information could be problematic in terms of security for both military and civilian folks. That does have to be taken into consideration. It's also bad for the process of exposing nefarious information. A person/organization that suddenly becomes an information geyser is not going to spend the time necessary to calculate the risk as well. It can hurt the cause itself.

There is some sort of balance: the flow of information, which we all know sometimes involves circumventing the usual channels vs. protecting information that may harm people if mismanaged. That goes for both the intelligence guy and the reporting of who he is.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really think you guys should cool down.

This leaker's indiscretion could have been used to make Adrian's life, and everyone else he talked to, very very uncomfortable. It was carelessness, and though the outcome is unfortunate, the onus was unto him to keep quiet.

Second of all, the use of the term "ex-hacker" is a media creation, and is not a term adopted by Adrian himself. He was, and always shall be, a hacker.

Adrian is a good guy. You shouldn't be so quick to demonize him, esp. if you didn't actually know who he was previous to this article's release.

Edited by Seal
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really think you guys should cool down.

Perhaps you should...your beginning to sound a little toolish..we all are having a conversation here...with a lot of diversity here...it isn't composed of US and YOU...

This leaker's indiscretion could have been used to make Adrian's life, and everyone else he talked to, very very uncomfortable. It was carelessness, and though the outcome is unfortunate, the onus was unto him to keep quiet.

Not really...unless you have some more info here...last night I read the article I linked and the Wired one before I crashed...especially the Wired one indicates that they were friends. So there was already a preexisting relationship, a friendship...this only adds to my initial disdain for him. He could of said..."Hey bud, leave me out of this"...instead he actually recording all their IM's. Did he inform his "friend" that he was essentially recording everything they were saying...that's shady.

Second of all, the use of the term "ex-hacker" is a media creation, and is not a term adopted by Adrian himself. He was, and always shall be, a hacker.

I think that that point was made...so the emphasis is appreciated...

Adrian is a good guy. You shouldn't be so quick to demonize him, esp. if you didn't actually know who he was previous to this article's release.

This is where you can really add to the conversation...you very much seem to imply that you know the guy or have some esoteric information about him that we don't...why don't you contribute that. I just got done reading the link from Mr.Fluffy's (who I'm starting to like more and more...I'm away for a couple months and a new good guy joins...last time this happened nyphonejacks joined) post and my initial impression is even more unimpressed. That wiki article is gigantic for a nobody...no doubt he uses it to advertise his "legitimate" hacking skills, it is written like an advert...which this whole event in my hacker paranoia seemed to be the real reason from the beginning- an excellent opportunity to advertise himself by rating out a guy who is trying to expose things for people...whether or not you agree with the soldier for doing it. I was a soldier and had...you lose it when you leave...Top Secret clearance at one time and never would I, personally, do what he did unless it was a violation of the constitution which I'm obligated to protect.

As to this kindergarten morally of not talking about someone without knowing him...please so toolish...we do this all the time. He is in the news and that is what enlightened citizens should be doing...discussing it and sharing their opinions. I shared an initial feeling...not my "researched" and final opinion. When I or others post something like this, we are talking on a digital street corner fishing for perspective. I shared an opinion that many would feel about someone who rated someone out...he better have a good reason...but the more I actually look into it, it seems not noble at all and harmed someone who did great help by putting Wikileaks in the big leagues.

Anyway, if you know about this guy then share it and add to the milieu...thanks.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really think you guys should cool down.

This leaker's indiscretion could have been used to make Adrian's life, and everyone else he talked to, very very uncomfortable. It was carelessness, and though the outcome is unfortunate, the onus was unto him to keep quiet.

Second of all, the use of the term "ex-hacker" is a media creation, and is not a term adopted by Adrian himself. He was, and always shall be, a hacker.

Adrian is a good guy. You shouldn't be so quick to demonize him, esp. if you didn't actually know who he was previous to this article's release.

Lets assume in the case in question that it was whistle blown for greater altruistic reasons that Adrian Lamo thought the leak was putting US soldiers at risk with the depth and breadth of his info rather than just being a PR disaster for the Gov, in that situation Id fully support him protecting the US armed forces members lives and flagging it up, but quietly and anonymously.

That way no media circus as nothing really solid to feed them, no personal gain for the whistleblower, no awkward questions about motives, just a leaker took to one side and silenced. And no dog and pony PR show of the leaker being publically hung out to dry. Safety preserved, politics ignored.

Im willing to accept the situation as possible that it all just got out of control and take your word for it he's a good type, but by discussing it maybe if any of us end up in a analogous situation we might think clearly about the way forward rather than taking some decisions on the hoof under pressure which later turn out to be poor ones. Look at it as a full frank discussion rather than demonization. There but for the grace of god go us all...

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really think you guys should cool down.

This leaker's indiscretion could have been used to make Adrian's life, and everyone else he talked to, very very uncomfortable. It was carelessness, and though the outcome is unfortunate, the onus was unto him to keep quiet.

Second of all, the use of the term "ex-hacker" is a media creation, and is not a term adopted by Adrian himself. He was, and always shall be, a hacker.

Adrian is a good guy. You shouldn't be so quick to demonize him, esp. if you didn't actually know who he was previous to this article's release.

... *if*, and it's a big if, this is a case of an intel analyst suddenly going moronic.

It's more likely he was led to believe he was a protected journalistic source, even if Lamo has Asburger's and has managed to compartmentalize and rationalize he "technically" wasn't acting as the journalist. Take how Lamo was quoted by BBC today, and try to think about the implications dispassionately.

"I was a private citizen in a private capacity - there was no source, journalist relationship," he told BBC News.

"I did tell him that I worked as a journalist. I would have been happy to write about him myself, but we just decided that it would be too unethical."

The story of Mr Manning's arrest was first reported on wired.com by Mr Lamo's long-term associate Kevin Poulsen, also a former hacker and now a journalist.

I personally and without the "full story" think this is a pretty telling quote right here, and I read it thus ... I'd be interested to see if anyone can show a reasonable alternate reading.

"I was never going to write the story. I made that clear. I did say I was working closely with a journalist so maybe he was led on, but tough cookies. Poulsen and I decided privately that it's a breach of ethics if I wrote the story since the source was getting outed once they gave details".

Until today, I'd tended to not bother with this story thinking it was simply a loudmouth who couldn't help but brag. Reading the BBC piece today, that quote by Lamo is *waaaaaaaay* to telling for me to think that's a certainty in good conscience any longer. I think the analyst was duped into thinking he was dealing as a protected press source. Lamo keeps his conscience clean by "technically" being the source himself, not the journalist. His quote alludes he truly believes he's the source in this story. It's bizarre.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This leaker's indiscretion could have been used to make Adrian's life, and everyone else he talked to, very very uncomfortable. It was carelessness, and though the outcome is unfortunate, the onus was unto him to keep quiet.

I agree. Sort of. I wouldn't want this guy telling me about his crimes, because I wouldn't want to be implicated. But - and this is a big but - Lamo could have just ended the communication when he realized things were being said that were going in a bad direction.

Second of all, the use of the term "ex-hacker" is a media creation, and is not a term adopted by Adrian himself. He was, and always shall be, a hacker.

You never become an ex-snitch either. Double-edged sword, you know.

Adrian is a good guy. You shouldn't be so quick to demonize him, esp. if you didn't actually know who he was previous to this article's release.

If what Rightcoast is saying is accurate, Lamo was acting as a quasi-journalist. that makes him a scumbag for dropping a dime on this guy. Unless there is some pertinent information that is unknown at this time, Lamo is a big fucking piece of garbage.

edit: I did find it funny that some people seemingly didn't know who Adrian Lamo was prior to this story. I certainly did, and if memory serves, we had him on Default Radio for a brief segment during the whole New York Times thing. Unless we cut it out, I don't recall.

Edited by decoder
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think Phail_Saph's mention of me was meant as a compliment.. for that thank you..

i have only read briefly about this story...

being in a similar situation (making public information that should not be public) i can understand the side of the dude who posted the video to wiki leaks, i also believe they said he was responsible for releasing a bunch of classified cables... i do not know his motivation but if it was anything like mine, it was dissatisfaction from management and wanting to fit in with my newly found hacker and phreak friends online by being able to contribute something to the community

now i do not know much about the guy who ratted him out, but regardless of his reasons - even if the phedz were making a case against him for something, or they offered him a reward, he is still a rat, regardless of how nice of a person he may be...

the guy who leaked the video would have eventually gotten caught on his own, took them about 2 years after i released info into the wild to be tracked back to me... but he would have eventually slipped up and released info on a PC that could be tracked back to him..

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From that article :-

'As far as general thoughts on the topics of leaks, he says he generally stands by Wikileaks. He says that despite repeated attacks on him and fellow security expert Kevin Poulsen by Wikileaks director Julian Assange, he still supports and donates to the site. He says, "Wikileaks is an important source, regardless of who runs it."

He adds, however, that it needs "more oversight". He suggests a model like is used in a missile silos -- have a couple people screen every decision to post, rather than leave that discretion to just one person. That way, "common sense" would hopefully prevail and someone would prevent the leaking of information that would pointlessly endanger countries.'

The whole concept is everything that appears on wikileaks "pointlesssly endangers" things in some way depending on your perspective. Or it wouldn't need leaking to a leak site would it?

Edited by MrFluffy
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From that article :-

'As far as general thoughts on the topics of leaks, he says he generally stands by Wikileaks. He says that despite repeated attacks on him and fellow security expert Kevin Poulsen by Wikileaks director Julian Assange, he still supports and donates to the site. He says, "Wikileaks is an important source, regardless of who runs it."

He adds, however, that it needs "more oversight". He suggests a model like is used in a missile silos -- have a couple people screen every decision to post, rather than leave that discretion to just one person. That way, "common sense" would hopefully prevail and someone would prevent the leaking of information that would pointlessly endanger countries.'

The whole concept is everything that appears on wikileaks "pointlesssly endangers" things in some way depending on your perspective. Or it wouldn't need leaking to a leak site would it?

Precisely. If that's Lamo's excuse, it's not a very good one.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://risky.biz/lamo

Podcast... Adrian talks about his motivations and why he did it. Some good questions get asked.

What a douchebag. They say he is going to DefCon and Hope this year, that is not a great idea on his part.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a douchebag. They say he is going to DefCon and Hope this year, that is not a great idea on his part.

Why is it not a good idea? He stands by what he did. Not everyone in the "hacker scene" seems to think he is a rat. I think he should come to HOPE and Defcon. There, if people can act like adults, there can be discussion about where/how these lines get drawn (again, pointing to the fact that this is *not* a clear cut issue).

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The funny thing about Defcon is that so many people are gonna just gonna be like "zomg it's fucking Adrian Lamo", if they even know who he is, and be all excited to see him that nothing will probably happen. Sure there will be a small minority of people there who know who he is and what he's done but still. I still think the funniest thing was last year at the IOActive party the anti-sec guys who got a picture with Dan Kaminsky with an anti-sec sign while he was wasted.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we're talking a 22yo intelligence analyst who spends his life looking at things and facts and making judgement calls on it and has grown up with google and the net...

You realize this statement is contradictory? A 22 year old who has only been in the military for <= 4 years does not have the perspective to determine what information should be public and what shouldn't be -- not on the scale he was talking of outputting --- particularly not for things that are entire U.S. security and foreign policy operations. He's hired to sift through data and find out valuable nuggets to be passed to higher-ups. He didn't make decisions beyond that. The argument that growing up on Google somehow improves his wisdom in terms of making decisions on classified information is a bit erroneous.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a douchebag. They say he is going to DefCon and Hope this year, that is not a great idea on his part.

Why is it not a good idea? He stands by what he did. Not everyone in the "hacker scene" seems to think he is a rat. I think he should come to HOPE and Defcon. There, if people can act like adults, there can be discussion about where/how these lines get drawn (again, pointing to the fact that this is *not* a clear cut issue).

Well ruling out any of the so called threats on his life, there will still be people out to fuck with him. Asking people to act like adults when their around friends and intoxicated is a hard thing to ask. I think his best bet would to be to do a few interviews and then keep his head down for a year until it blows over.

From his augments alone makes me dislike him, I have no personal issues with the man but to me a rat is a rat, whether its clear cut or not.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but to me a rat is a rat, whether its clear cut or not.

I could come up with a dozen thought experiments to test you on this.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two semi-understandable reasons to drop a dime on someone:

1. They are making DIRECT credible threats against you/your family/friends or have already done some serious shit to you/your family/friends

2. They are some monumental scumbag and you are doing it just to fuck with them for fun. (this may be subjective, of course, but in some cases a persons scumbag status is not really up for debate.)

This "lives were in danger" shit that Lamo is peddling is completely retarded. The phone book might put lives in danger if some maniac stalker wants to find you. Let's outlaw it. Along with Google. And the rest of the fucking internet.

Bottom-line, this cat should be ashamed of himself - and he should probably lay low in public.

edit: oops, this was supposed to be a reply to the above post from Pan. What are the other 10?

Edited by decoder
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we're talking a 22yo intelligence analyst who spends his life looking at things and facts and making judgement calls on it and has grown up with google and the net...

You realize this statement is contradictory? A 22 year old who has only been in the military for <= 4 years does not have the perspective to determine what information should be public and what shouldn't be -- not on the scale he was talking of outputting --- particularly not for things that are entire U.S. security and foreign policy operations. He's hired to sift through data and find out valuable nuggets to be passed to higher-ups. He didn't make decisions beyond that. The argument that growing up on Google somehow improves his wisdom in terms of making decisions on classified information is a bit erroneous.

I wasn't intending the google comment to be taken in that context. Simply that as the analyist had grown up with google and he did sift through data to find valuable nuggets on a daily basis, the first thing I would have expected him to do when considering the leak was to do some of that sifting on whomever he chose to leak his stuff to see if it was a "safe" bet. Regardless of its final payload. He's about to go out on a serious limb here, and he obviously has a analytical mind that will evaluate the steps.

Taken that way it isnt contradictory. Nor a value judgement on any of his actions.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wikileaks Commissions Lawyers to Defend Alleged Army Source Read More http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/wikileaks-to-lamo/#ixzz0qg32dKbG

Here's something funny:

“No, I’m not going to give the logs to someone who suggests that I might have been drug-addled when I decided to turn in a spy,” says Lamo, who takes prescription medication for depression and Asperger’s Disorder. “Private Manning’s attorney can get them by discovery like everyone else.”

Hmmm, except Lamo had no problem handing over the logs to the feds. He should really learn to just shut up. It won't be that hard since his foot is planted so firmly in his mouth - even with his head so far up his ass. This clown is a real fucking contortionist.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

edit: oops, this was supposed to be a reply to the above post from Pan. What are the other 10?

Here's some you neglected:

#3. If the information divulges things that would be detrimental to negotiations between foreign powers (particularly those who have nuclear capability or are known to have taken hostages). We know that some of the information relates to North Korea and other foreign powers along those lines.

#4. Information that could divulge location of important resources/people/etc.

etc.

This actually ties into my comment about a 22-year old who has only been in the military for a short time not having the experience. There is no way that he could have the proper background to know the effects of his actions along these lines. That's not a decision for one person, let alone one at his level.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now