Phail_Saph

"Hacker" rats out Wikileak Suspect

86 posts in this topic

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

OK, understood, but still, see my comment above about experience. There's no way he has the experience (or wisdom) to make decisions about information that could affect foreign policy. His job was not to divulge information to the public, nor practice diplomacy. He doesn't have that kind of training or experience.

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.

I vehemently disagree. What you're basically saying is that no information should ever be leaked that is of interest to anyone. If the info isn't important, why would anyone care?

If one had access to information which proved that Norway was behind the 9/11 attacks, you're saying that it shouldn't be released because it could be "detrimental to negotiations between foreign powers." On the contrary, that is the precise reason it should be leaked.

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.

If you believe that to be true, then I'm assuming you also want to see his superiors punished for allowing this inexperienced 22-year old access to such info.

On the other hand, if you don't think his superiors should also be punished, then the information he had access to wasn't all that essential to national security and your entire argument about the possible danger of this info is irrelevant.

Which is why Lamo was dead wrong in his reasoning for ratting this guy out. No argument in his favor can stand without also being an argument against freedom of any information. Hacking is, in large part, about information being free - which is why Lamo is correctly described as an "ex-hacker." Current rat.

Bear in mind, I'm not defending Manning for what he did. I do believe that the helicopter footage he released - which started this whole ball rolling - was important. Lamo wouldn't have snitched on Manning for that, either. It was Manning's decision to just start leaking all sorts of shit for little reason that I don't agree with; But for Adrian to think he has the right to make that call is ridiculous. Unless Lamo is severely mentally disabled, he must know that Manning is going to be facing at least 10 years in federal prison, if he's lucky. If Lamo was an ethical person, and not the piece of shit that he is, he would have done the right thing and explained to Manning why the helicopter footage was important, and to not just start leaking shit because of some juvenile vendetta.

Was Manning wrong? Sure. Does he deserve - at the minimum, if he's lucky - 10 years behind a federal wall for it? Of course not. That's where Lamo fucked up, and I think they both did it for the same reason. Media attention. Manning for the attention to the info, and Lamo for the attention to himself.

Edited by decoder
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

I do still think that Lamo was acting as a quasi-journalist, and frankly, worse. Warning, rabbit hole ahead.

I think him and Poulsen worked the story in cahoots, though they will never, ever say that. You seem to have a decent grasp on the morals at play here Decoder. I'm curious to see your take on the following. Poulsen seems to have "taken the bait" so to speak. Just a couple of hours ago he chimed in reply to an anonymous comment with what I am claiming is a damning point. Problem is ... since no sane press agent would ever admit this, this is as good as "evidence" will ever get in regard to Poulsen-Lamo working together before the story broke. I'd like to preface first by linking to a very short back and forth:

http://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchism/comments/ccrtn/brad_manning_wikileaks_leaker_betrayed_by_adrian/c0rqcyh

Taking that into account, over the course of the week things came together in a more complete picture. Culminating in this comment (which includes points you've made here re: danger of lives, etc) that Poulsen actually felt he needed to address:

http://www.boingboing.net/2010/06/13/video-wikileaks-foun.html#comment-809677

Poulsen replies here to the anonymous comment.

http://www.boingboing.net/2010/06/13/video-wikileaks-foun.html#comment-810304

Now, I feel it's essential to note that when he does comment, he doesn't deny most of that. It won't make sense for those who haven't had time to digest the reddit conversation and the anon comment yet ... but as I've tried to illustrate, Lamo believes he is the source, not Manning, and in what I call a damning non-denial ... Poulsen says:

"Everyone knows ..." "How likely is it ..." "It's obvious ..." "Could it really be ..." "How do we know Poulsen isn't a Communist?"

I added the last one. Just trying help you find the next step in your principled stand against the military industrial complex.

Our stories have been perfectly clear about my role. Here's a hint: look at the name after "By" in the article. I'm a journalist reporting a story, and Adrian is a source and subject.

...

IMO, his half-hearted denials and acting above even answering to the anonymous critic (but answering nonetheless) are telling and damning IMO.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, let me see if I have this all straight: According to Kevin Poulson, The story BY Kevin Poulson was on the subject of Adrian Lamo, and his involvement in the arrest of Bradley Manning.

Well, that's evidence enough that they (Poulson and Lamo) were working on this together beforehand. If Poulson were an actual journalist reporting this story in good faith, then the story BY Kevin Poulson would have been on the subject of Bradley Manning, with the role that Adrian Lamo played being included as pertinent information, but not the main subject matter.

There are so many more things wrong with this situation than I realized that my head is starting to hurt.

Essentially, Kevin Poulson claims that Adrian Lamo was the source of a story about Adrian Lamo? Both of those fuckfaces need to get their meds adjusted.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I vehemently disagree. What you're basically saying is that no information should ever be leaked that is of interest to anyone. If the info isn't important, why would anyone care?

If one had access to information which proved that Norway was behind the 9/11 attacks, you're saying that it shouldn't be released because it could be "detrimental to negotiations between foreign powers." On the contrary, that is the precise reason it should be leaked.

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.

If you believe that to be true, then I'm assuming you also want to see his superiors punished for allowing this inexperienced 22-year old access to such info.

On the other hand, if you don't think his superiors should also be punished, then the information he had access to wasn't all that essential to national security and your entire argument about the possible danger of this info is irrelevant.

Which is why Lamo was dead wrong in his reasoning for ratting this guy out. No argument in his favor can stand without also being an argument against freedom of any information. Hacking is, in large part, about information being free - which is why Lamo is correctly described as an "ex-hacker." Current rat.

Bear in mind, I'm not defending Manning for what he did. I do believe that the helicopter footage he released - which started this whole ball rolling - was important. Lamo wouldn't have snitched on Manning for that, either. It was Manning's decision to just start leaking all sorts of shit for little reason that I don't agree with; But for Adrian to think he has the right to make that call is ridiculous. Unless Lamo is severely mentally disabled, he must know that Manning is going to be facing at least 10 years in federal prison, if he's lucky. If Lamo was an ethical person, and not the piece of shit that he is, he would have done the right thing and explained to Manning why the helicopter footage was important, and to not just start leaking shit because of some juvenile vendetta.

Was Manning wrong? Sure. Does he deserve - at the minimum, if he's lucky - 10 years behind a federal wall for it? Of course not. That's where Lamo fucked up, and I think they both did it for the same reason. Media attention. Manning for the attention to the info, and Lamo for the attention to himself.

First, you're stating an extreme position. I did not say *never* divulge information. What I said was that national security information is very sensitive and even in divulging it, one has to be cognizant of what the effects could be. His length of service, job position, comments to Adrian, and various personal issues (noted elsewhere) demonstrate he was not the person to be divulging sensitive information willy-nilly -- and make no mistake: the comments he made indicate he was using *zero* restraint. Some people might confuse Adrian's action with an attack on Wikileaks. Adrian has said it is not. I believe that.

I think "Information should be free" has some caveats. Absolute freedom does not work in any societal context. To quote Hakim Bey's "Temporary Autonomous Zone": Not everyone needs to know everything. The other thing is that "information should be free" does not trump "people should not do stupid things".

Ironically, you say "if Lamo was an ethical person". What if Adrian actually believes that human lives could be affected and that Manning also put him in a precarious position. I've not had a chance to see the IRC logs, but there is some indication Lamo was like "get the @#$% up off me". If that's the case, and manning was being pushy (or unstable), Lamo has a right to be concerned for his and other people's safety and freedom. You do a disservice to the discussion by not at least attempting to acknowledge that Adrian maybe did have a higher motive.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Essentially, Kevin Poulson claims that Adrian Lamo was the source of a story about Adrian Lamo? Both of those fuckfaces need to get their meds adjusted.

So, what you're saying is that in this case, the flow of information should have some constraints (i.e. for "ethical" reasons, it should have come from someone other than the source).

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, you're stating an extreme position. I did not say *never* divulge information.

That is correct, you didn't. What you said was that it is acceptable to inform on someone who is divulging something that could be important.

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

And I happen to think that's ridiculous. But that's only what you typed. The implication was that:

national security information is very sensitive and even in divulging it, one has to be cognizant of what the effects could be.

In other words, important Government and/or military information - unless the person divulging it really fucking knows what they're doing. Hey, man, it's hard enough trying to guess how much of what Poulson and Lamo are saying is true, and what their motivations were, and if those motivations were independent of each other, and whether or not this was a set-up to begin with, etc., for me to sit around and ponder just who might be cognizant of what effects and who might be a bit funny in the head.

You are probably 100% correct that Manning had no clue what he was doing and that he probably shouldn't have even been given the opportunity to pull these shenanigans in the first place. But that is not the subject at hand. What we're talking about here is whether or not it's cool to drop a dime on some jerk who thinks he's talking to a journalist, and whether or not Lamo has adequately explained himself.

Some people might confuse Adrian's action with an attack on Wikileaks. Adrian has said it is not. I believe that.

Whether intended or not, this ended up seeming a lot like an attack on Wikileaks. And while I don't think it was an intentional attack by Lamo, Wikileaks does. For whatever that's worth (probably not much).

I think "Information should be free" has some caveats. Absolute freedom does not work in any societal context. To quote Hakim Bey's "Temporary Autonomous Zone": Not everyone needs to know everything. The other thing is that "information should be free" does not trump "people should not do stupid things".

How, exactly, is that a defense of Adrian Lamo's actions? This story is now - for better or worse - a story and a discussion about Adrian Lamo, his actions and his motivations and not Bradley Manning or his actions.

And what the fuck was with Hakim Bey? I agree that not everyone needs to know everything - but I don't agree with fucking little boys or that the Moors were black, or that African Spacemen colonized America B.C. (Before Columbus), along with many other things that Hakim Bey asserts, or theorizes, or mindfucks us with. Shit, for a while, I thought Hakim Bey was Robert Anton Wilson. I also thought Thomas Pynchon was Robert Anton Wilson until RAW died nearly penniless. Sometimes I still think those things, and honestly this whole discussion is convoluted enough without quoting anarchist, pedophile, Sufi mystics. :blink:

Ironically, you say "if Lamo was an ethical person". What if Adrian actually believes that human lives could be affected and that Manning also put him in a precarious position. I've not had a chance to see the IRC logs, but there is some indication Lamo was like "get the @#$% up off me". If that's the case, and manning was being pushy (or unstable), Lamo has a right to be concerned for his and other people's safety and freedom. You do a disservice to the discussion by not at least attempting to acknowledge that Adrian maybe did have a higher motive.

Informants don't get the benefit of the doubt. Adrian Lamo has given his reasons for his actions, and his defenders are merely inventing scenarios which may or may not be accurate in order to justify those actions.

I'm simply dealing with the information provided, not what if's and maybe's.

As far as me doing "a disservice to the discussion by not at least attempting to acknowledge that Adrian maybe did have a higher motive", I acknowledged that Adrian may have had motives unknown (higher or otherwise) in my very first post in this thread:

Unless there is some pertinent information that is unknown at this time, Lamo is a big fucking piece of garbage.

And, interestingly enough, I don't think that apologists inventing maybe's and excuses is a "disservice to the discussion"; I just don't happen to agree, that's all.

EDIT, I missed this:

Essentially, Kevin Poulson claims that Adrian Lamo was the source of a story about Adrian Lamo? Both of those fuckfaces need to get their meds adjusted.

So, what you're saying is that in this case, the flow of information should have some constraints (i.e. for "ethical" reasons, it should have come from someone other than the source).

Nope. I'm saying that the whole situation seems really fishy, that's pretty much it. Well, that and the fact that this may have been a serious violation of journalistic ethics. But mostly that I smell a rat - figuratively. :wink:

My musings earlier about free information were more of a commentary on "hacker" ethics and values, regarding the description of Lamo as an "ex-hacker", than anything else.

Edited by decoder
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only real issue I have with this entire subject is that Adrian claims he could be found "culpable" by the government for knowing the person who leaked the goods.

Adrian made his own choice to hang in the scene and hang out in the chatrooms where purportedly Manning logged into as well. Adrian also says that he knows about others doing "illegal things" all the time but this one case he did something about it. Just because this one case was made famous by Wikileaks did he go to the cops. But none of the other things he sees on an allegedly a daily basis did he report? Should we be giving him a medal because he sold out a whistleblower? If it wasn't for it being international news, I doubt Adrian would have lifted a finger because 99% of the stuff in chatrooms is bullshit and lies.

I'm just having a hard time seeing where he can justify crossing the line for being in a chatroom. If that's the case, then Stank should probably shutdown Binrev because it's exactly the same analog. Luckily, SD has laws protecting him from being responsible for the content being posted.

I think this is a black or white issue. Either report all illegal activities or don't. If you do it once, you might as well do it all the time and get your McGruff the Crime Dog award. At least the rest of us will know what you're about.

As for whether or not Manning would have endangered troops... he has that power already as that's his job feeding information about the enemy to the commanders for them to act on it. There are always filters involved to validate whether or not any information is actionable for both the good guys and the enemy. And from what I heard he leaked, it looks like he could have done a world of good releasing this information in Obama's "Open Government". It doesn't appear Manning was the type to go traitor.

But nope... he'll be dishonorably discharged, sentenced to decades in military prison and his life will end before it began. And the people who shot the journalists as well as the people in the state department will keep on doing the illegal things they did (which had nothing to do with the conflicts or combating terrorism). Way to go Adrian.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edit, actually read what I was replying to and realized Id taken it wrong and wrote a load of shite :)

Edited by MrFluffy
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wikileaks is a powerful resource for the truth. The transparency afforded by such an institution is vital for the proper functioning of democracy in the complexities of the "Information Age."

As for Adrian Lamo, I'd generally say it's extremely "lame" to betray a friend who appeals to you in confidence for advice regarding a difficult moral or ethical situation. Just about the only case I can think of where such a betrayal might be excusable, is where failure to report the incident to the authorities would likely result in serious harm to an innocent 3rd party.

While I strongly disagree with Mr. Lamo's behavior (especially using a 'journalism' pretense to garner attention for himself for betraying the trust of a friend), the larger issue is rather complicated. I don't know how true it is, but Lamo has recently gone on record as saying that Bradley Manning had intended to leak other military information, some extremely sensitive. He claims that was his real reason for turning in his friend. Now that may be true, or it may be just a defensive lie to mitigate the backlash of criticism he's received.

Unfortunately, we're unable to get Mr. Manning's side of the story. Being that this is a case of military justice, most of that information will likely always be a matter of speculation.

Edited by Colonel Panic
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is correct, you didn't. What you said was that it is acceptable to inform on someone who is divulging something that could be important.

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

And I happen to think that's ridiculous. But that's only what you typed. The implication was that:

national security information is very sensitive and even in divulging it, one has to be cognizant of what the effects could be.

In other words, important Government and/or military information - unless the person divulging it really fucking knows what they're doing. Hey, man, it's hard enough trying to guess how much of what Poulson and Lamo are saying is true, and what their motivations were, and if those motivations were independent of each other, and whether or not this was a set-up to begin with, etc., for me to sit around and ponder just who might be cognizant of what effects and who might be a bit funny in the head.

You are probably 100% correct that Manning had no clue what he was doing and that he probably shouldn't have even been given the opportunity to pull these shenanigans in the first place. But that is not the subject at hand. What we're talking about here is whether or not it's cool to drop a dime on some jerk who thinks he's talking to a journalist, and whether or not Lamo has adequately explained himself.

Some people might confuse Adrian's action with an attack on Wikileaks. Adrian has said it is not. I believe that.

Whether intended or not, this ended up seeming a lot like an attack on Wikileaks. And while I don't think it was an intentional attack by Lamo, Wikileaks does. For whatever that's worth (probably not much).

I think "Information should be free" has some caveats. Absolute freedom does not work in any societal context. To quote Hakim Bey's "Temporary Autonomous Zone": Not everyone needs to know everything. The other thing is that "information should be free" does not trump "people should not do stupid things".

How, exactly, is that a defense of Adrian Lamo's actions? This story is now - for better or worse - a story and a discussion about Adrian Lamo, his actions and his motivations and not Bradley Manning or his actions.

And what the fuck was with Hakim Bey? I agree that not everyone needs to know everything - but I don't agree with fucking little boys or that the Moors were black, or that African Spacemen colonized America B.C. (Before Columbus), along with many other things that Hakim Bey asserts, or theorizes, or mindfucks us with. Shit, for a while, I thought Hakim Bey was Robert Anton Wilson. I also thought Thomas Pynchon was Robert Anton Wilson until RAW died nearly penniless. Sometimes I still think those things, and honestly this whole discussion is convoluted enough without quoting anarchist, pedophile, Sufi mystics. :blink:

Ironically, you say "if Lamo was an ethical person". What if Adrian actually believes that human lives could be affected and that Manning also put him in a precarious position. I've not had a chance to see the IRC logs, but there is some indication Lamo was like "get the @#$% up off me". If that's the case, and manning was being pushy (or unstable), Lamo has a right to be concerned for his and other people's safety and freedom. You do a disservice to the discussion by not at least attempting to acknowledge that Adrian maybe did have a higher motive.

Informants don't get the benefit of the doubt. Adrian Lamo has given his reasons for his actions, and his defenders are merely inventing scenarios which may or may not be accurate in order to justify those actions.

I'm simply dealing with the information provided, not what if's and maybe's.

As far as me doing "a disservice to the discussion by not at least attempting to acknowledge that Adrian maybe did have a higher motive", I acknowledged that Adrian may have had motives unknown (higher or otherwise) in my very first post in this thread:

Unless there is some pertinent information that is unknown at this time, Lamo is a big fucking piece of garbage.

And, interestingly enough, I don't think that apologists inventing maybe's and excuses is a "disservice to the discussion"; I just don't happen to agree, that's all.

EDIT, I missed this:

Essentially, Kevin Poulson claims that Adrian Lamo was the source of a story about Adrian Lamo? Both of those fuckfaces need to get their meds adjusted.

So, what you're saying is that in this case, the flow of information should have some constraints (i.e. for "ethical" reasons, it should have come from someone other than the source).

Nope. I'm saying that the whole situation seems really fishy, that's pretty much it. Well, that and the fact that this may have been a serious violation of journalistic ethics. But mostly that I smell a rat - figuratively. :wink:

My musings earlier about free information were more of a commentary on "hacker" ethics and values, regarding the description of Lamo as an "ex-hacker", than anything else.

Define "important"? It's important that we practice foreign policy to avoid getting the world blown up or the very least, getting soldiers and/or civilians hurt. I'd say that is substantially important. I'm curious why the folks who are so vehemently against what Lamo did never have a response to the issue of foreign diplomacy and security. Those people, including yourself, tend to gloss over it.

Yes, absolutely, the person divulging better have a fucking clue what it is that they're doing. Manning was not in the mental state nor did he have the experience to know what he was doing. Yes, we *do* have to be stop idiots from ruining it for everyone else. I'll avoid mixing analogies too much, but it's like the douchebags burning stuff in Toronto right now. They *ruin* it for the people working hard to change the system (including those underground). That is dangerous. Dangerous needs to be stopped if there is a greater cause.

See, this is exactly what I'm talking about: THIS STORY IS ABOUT MANNING. Manning's mental state, previous actions and proposed actions. He was threatening to do stupid shit that could have serious consequences. Threats need to be neutralized. The only reason that this is in any way about Lamo is because he happened to be the person who had enough common sense to stop it.

People need to define "informant". You (and every other critic) have never called the police on something you thought was a threat to human life?

About Poulson and Lamo relationship: Every journalist has an "inside" guy/gal. That's nothing new. If you follow the timeline outlined since the original article, it's clear that Poulson didn't get involved until after the shit had hit the fan. Anytime someone throws out comments about "meds", my attention starts to wane because it's more about personal attacks and easy-write-offs than looking at facts over time. Everyone seems to have rushed to judgement before even getting the entire story.

Another thing that "hackers" don't want to touch is that if Manning continued he would have given an even worse name to the hacker scene. Ruining diplomacy and putting people's lives at risk is not something that will garner a lot of love.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I strongly disagree with Mr. Lamo's behavior (especially using a 'journalism' pretense to garner attention for himself for betraying the trust of a friend), the larger issue is rather complicated. I don't know how true it is, but Lamo has recently gone on record as saying that Bradley Manning had intended to leak other military information, some extremely sensitive. He claims that was his real reason for turning in his friend. Now that may be true, or it may be just a defensive lie to mitigate the backlash of criticism he's received.

They weren't friends. Manning approached Lamo.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is correct, you didn't. What you said was that it is acceptable to inform on someone who is divulging something that could be important.

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

And I happen to think that's ridiculous. But that's only what you typed. The implication was that:

national security information is very sensitive and even in divulging it, one has to be cognizant of what the effects could be.

In other words, important Government and/or military information - unless the person divulging it really fucking knows what they're doing. Hey, man, it's hard enough trying to guess how much of what Poulson and Lamo are saying is true, and what their motivations were, and if those motivations were independent of each other, and whether or not this was a set-up to begin with, etc., for me to sit around and ponder just who might be cognizant of what effects and who might be a bit funny in the head.

You are probably 100% correct that Manning had no clue what he was doing and that he probably shouldn't have even been given the opportunity to pull these shenanigans in the first place. But that is not the subject at hand. What we're talking about here is whether or not it's cool to drop a dime on some jerk who thinks he's talking to a journalist, and whether or not Lamo has adequately explained himself.

Some people might confuse Adrian's action with an attack on Wikileaks. Adrian has said it is not. I believe that.

Whether intended or not, this ended up seeming a lot like an attack on Wikileaks. And while I don't think it was an intentional attack by Lamo, Wikileaks does. For whatever that's worth (probably not much).

I think "Information should be free" has some caveats. Absolute freedom does not work in any societal context. To quote Hakim Bey's "Temporary Autonomous Zone": Not everyone needs to know everything. The other thing is that "information should be free" does not trump "people should not do stupid things".

How, exactly, is that a defense of Adrian Lamo's actions? This story is now - for better or worse - a story and a discussion about Adrian Lamo, his actions and his motivations and not Bradley Manning or his actions.

And what the fuck was with Hakim Bey? I agree that not everyone needs to know everything - but I don't agree with fucking little boys or that the Moors were black, or that African Spacemen colonized America B.C. (Before Columbus), along with many other things that Hakim Bey asserts, or theorizes, or mindfucks us with. Shit, for a while, I thought Hakim Bey was Robert Anton Wilson. I also thought Thomas Pynchon was Robert Anton Wilson until RAW died nearly penniless. Sometimes I still think those things, and honestly this whole discussion is convoluted enough without quoting anarchist, pedophile, Sufi mystics. :blink:

Ironically, you say "if Lamo was an ethical person". What if Adrian actually believes that human lives could be affected and that Manning also put him in a precarious position. I've not had a chance to see the IRC logs, but there is some indication Lamo was like "get the @#$% up off me". If that's the case, and manning was being pushy (or unstable), Lamo has a right to be concerned for his and other people's safety and freedom. You do a disservice to the discussion by not at least attempting to acknowledge that Adrian maybe did have a higher motive.

Informants don't get the benefit of the doubt. Adrian Lamo has given his reasons for his actions, and his defenders are merely inventing scenarios which may or may not be accurate in order to justify those actions.

I'm simply dealing with the information provided, not what if's and maybe's.

As far as me doing "a disservice to the discussion by not at least attempting to acknowledge that Adrian maybe did have a higher motive", I acknowledged that Adrian may have had motives unknown (higher or otherwise) in my very first post in this thread:

Unless there is some pertinent information that is unknown at this time, Lamo is a big fucking piece of garbage.

And, interestingly enough, I don't think that apologists inventing maybe's and excuses is a "disservice to the discussion"; I just don't happen to agree, that's all.

EDIT, I missed this:

Essentially, Kevin Poulson claims that Adrian Lamo was the source of a story about Adrian Lamo? Both of those fuckfaces need to get their meds adjusted.

So, what you're saying is that in this case, the flow of information should have some constraints (i.e. for "ethical" reasons, it should have come from someone other than the source).

Nope. I'm saying that the whole situation seems really fishy, that's pretty much it. Well, that and the fact that this may have been a serious violation of journalistic ethics. But mostly that I smell a rat - figuratively. :wink:

My musings earlier about free information were more of a commentary on "hacker" ethics and values, regarding the description of Lamo as an "ex-hacker", than anything else.

Define "important"? It's important that we practice foreign policy to avoid getting the world blown up or the very least, getting soldiers and/or civilians hurt. I'd say that is substantially important. I'm curious why the folks who are so vehemently against what Lamo did never have a response to the issue of foreign diplomacy and security. Those people, including yourself, tend to gloss over it.

Yes, absolutely, the person divulging better have a fucking clue what it is that they're doing. Manning was not in the mental state nor did he have the experience to know what he was doing. Yes, we *do* have to be stop idiots from ruining it for everyone else. I'll avoid mixing analogies too much, but it's like the douchebags burning stuff in Toronto right now. They *ruin* it for the people working hard to change the system (including those underground). That is dangerous. Dangerous needs to be stopped if there is a greater cause.

See, this is exactly what I'm talking about: THIS STORY IS ABOUT MANNING. Manning's mental state, previous actions and proposed actions. He was threatening to do stupid shit that could have serious consequences. Threats need to be neutralized. The only reason that this is in any way about Lamo is because he happened to be the person who had enough common sense to stop it.

People need to define "informant". You (and every other critic) have never called the police on something you thought was a threat to human life?

About Poulson and Lamo relationship: Every journalist has an "inside" guy/gal. That's nothing new. If you follow the timeline outlined since the original article, it's clear that Poulson didn't get involved until after the shit had hit the fan. Anytime someone throws out comments about "meds", my attention starts to wane because it's more about personal attacks and easy-write-offs than looking at facts over time. Everyone seems to have rushed to judgement before even getting the entire story.

Another thing that "hackers" don't want to touch is that if Manning continued he would have given an even worse name to the hacker scene. Ruining diplomacy and putting people's lives at risk is not something that will garner a lot of love.

Here is the thing about diplomacy...the documents that were leaked implies that we are doing fucked up shit behind our allies and enemies backs. Like secretly poisoning the Queen of England and actively helping slaughtering Middle Eastern people for oil and land.

Guess what...WE SHOULD NOT HAVE THIS KIND OF DIRT IN THE FIRST PLACE!

If our government ran well we would be like Sweden or Canada: A mouse. A non threat because we don't do anything to piss people off.

So if we are doing secret evil shit behind innocent people's backs and we elected such people in to represent ourselves, then we NEED to deal with the consequences with that. Much like how we had to deal with the consequences that we did not give a fuck about Al Quada even though the Russians warned us about their 9/11 plot years in advanced and our TSA system has huge loop holes pre-9/11 that you could drive a fleet of Mac Trucks in.

Also, here is the other thing: If you have bad news, you might as well say it now. Because here is the golden rule of secrets: Eventually they get out. And even though it's going to catch you shit right now, you are going to catch more ungodly shit when they find out that you had the audacity to HIDE it for such a period of time maintaining a sham before they found out.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pan, my philosophy is that if the information was made available to Manning - some inexperienced 22-year old, as many have noted - then it probably wasn't all that damning. If the info was that sensitive, then why was Manning granted access?

The reason I have pretty much ignored this part of the story is because it's irrelevant. The story is - for better or for worse - about Lamo, which is what he wanted. And even if you disagree, this thread certainly is about Lamo. And he hasn't explained himself adequately - his defenders are offering nothing but speculation. Speculation which I don't buy.

Edit: And I agree with what Sidepocket has to say - for the most part. Not to get too deep into philosophy here, we are at an interesting point in history; never before did (regular) people have access to so much information. Those who deal in secrets either need to step up their game (i.e., have protocol in place that wouldn't allow people like Manning near anything sensitive) or just fucking die out.

The information and communications revolution is about much more than just being able to get on your computer and read what idiots like me have to say; it's about the entire structure of society changing.

Edited by decoder
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They weren't friends. Manning approached Lamo.

Sorry for entering the discussion so poorly prepared.

I guess I must have gotten that impression from reading the chat logs. So Manning was just pouring his guts out to a complete stranger on IRC (albeit one whom he obviously admired). It's a familiar pattern on IRC and not uncommon for noobs, but such behavior on the part of a military guy with intel responsibilities seems to indicate an appalling emotional insecurity and hubris.

There's no doubt that helicopter massacre video was a valuable item for many reasons -- especially for informing the public discourse -- but I'm guessing that in his crusader's enthusiasm, Manning might have somewhat overestimated the earth-shattering importance of the other stuff he'd leaked.

Nonetheless, Poulsen and Lamo come out smelling like real assholes in this thing. They seem to have acted purely out of self-interest in selling this poor guy down the river.

It would have been one thing if Manning had come to Lamo and sent him digital versions of sensitive documents unsolicited. But Lamo misrepresenting himself as a journalist and even a minister (!) to entice Manning to divulge details of his Wikileaks activities is just appalling. It stinks out loud, especially considering how Lamo and Poulsen have made careers for themselves out of exploiting the loophole of journalistic source confidentiality to cover up and profit from their own computer crimes.

And what's with the allegations that Manning is a transvestite? This story just keeps getting weirder and weirder, the longer and farther the bloggers run with it.

Edited by Colonel Panic
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They weren't friends. Manning approached Lamo.

Sorry for entering the discussion so poorly prepared.

I guess I must have gotten that impression from reading the chat logs. So Manning was just pouring his guts out to a complete stranger on IRC (albeit one whom he obviously admired). It's a familiar pattern on IRC and not uncommon for noobs, but such behavior on the part of a military guy with intel responsibilities seems to indicate an appalling emotional insecurity and hubris.

There's no doubt that helicopter massacre video was a valuable item for many reasons -- especially for informing the public discourse -- but I'm guessing that in his crusader's enthusiasm, Manning might have somewhat overestimated the earth-shattering importance of the other stuff he'd leaked.

Nonetheless, Poulsen and Lamo come out smelling like real assholes in this thing. They seem to have acted purely out of self-interest in selling this poor guy down the river.

It would have been one thing if Manning had come to Lamo and sent him digital versions of sensitive documents unsolicited. But Lamo misrepresenting himself as a journalist and even a minister (!) to entice Manning to divulge details of his Wikileaks activities is just appalling. It stinks out loud, especially considering how Lamo and Poulsen have made careers for themselves out of exploiting the loophole of journalistic source confidentiality to cover up and profit from their own computer crimes.

And what's with the allegations that Manning is a transvestite? This story just keeps getting weirder and weirder, the longer and farther the bloggers run with it.

My take on it is,

loose lips sink ships and Manning sunk his own ship show boating , however Manning's leaks aren't the first I've seen or the last . I've seen plenty of leaked combat vids

from returning vets coming in/out of Iraq that would make the wiki leaks vid look tame. And some crap will never make it to digital form on some mil server

simply b/c there is not always a camera or document .

Manning however seemed to be truly disturbed by the vids which is more than I can say for some vets I've encountered who showed off disturbing videos like it

was some comedy clip. Thing of it is, combat desensitizes people into accepting brutal acts of wanton killing as common place and normal.

I think Manning had lot of guts for what he did, namely doing what he felt was right (if only there were more people like him during WW2 on the German side)

but I can't understand how anyone could blindly trust such a self centered and obsessed personality like Lamo , but don't think Manning is the only one who

has it bad, Lamo will have to watch his step for the rest of his life. I doubt Lamo will even be able to have a public email address or any sort of privacy without

government assistance b/c by doing what he did, he painted himself a major target. Its hard not to blame Lamo either, he could have simply ignored it or walked away

almost effortless to do. Lamo willfully took the extra step to inform on Manning , almost as if he were demonstrating some sort of hypocritical self righteousness .

I think thats what infuriates most about the situation, and now Lamo is probably going to need some serious meds for the amount of anxiety and fear hes probably experiencing

as a result .

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Manning was not in the mental state nor did he have the experience to know what he was doing.

See, this is exactly what I'm talking about: THIS STORY IS ABOUT MANNING. Manning's mental state, previous actions and proposed actions.

Anytime someone throws out comments about "meds", my attention starts to wane because it's more about personal attacks and easy-write-offs than looking at facts over time.

So we should consider the mental state of Manning, but not Lamo? Certainly, Manning seemed (and admitted to being) nervous, confused, and "a total mess", but other than that we have no information on his mental status. Lamo, on the other hand, was very recently committed to a mental institution. His (estranged?) wife also had some very interesting things to say about his overall mental state and about a specific incident involving medication, and I can't find the link, but there is an interview that Lamo gave over Skype in which it certainly appears that whatever meds he takes need to be adjusted.

In the Wired article about Lamo's involuntary hospital stay, Adrian says that his meds were adhusted and now he's feeling fine. The Skype interview I saw does not lend credence to that.

So Manning was just pouring his guts out to a complete stranger on IRC

I thought it was AIM. An AIM name which Lamo provided to Manning. Since we only have edited logs, we don't really know how Adrian presented himself, but that's probably what would have been edited out.

And what's with the allegations that Manning is a transvestite? This story just keeps getting weirder and weirder, the longer and farther the bloggers run with it.

(1:13:10 PM) bradass87: i just... dont wish to be a part of it... at least

not now... im not ready... i wouldn't mind going to prison for the rest of

my life, or being executed so much, if it wasn't for the possibility of

having pictures of me... plastered all over the world press... as boy...

(1:14:42 PM) bradass87: s/as boy/as a boy

(1:30:32 PM) bradass87: >sigh<

(1:31:40 PM) bradass87: i just wanted enough time to figure myself out...

to be myself... and be running around all the time, trying to meet someone

else's expectations

As a boy? I don't understand that in any other context.

Edited by decoder
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So in this whole situation which has the potential to ruin his entire life, the thing he's most worried about is the media ruining his opportunity to publicly reinvent himself as a female? This guy certainly has issues. His priorities are all kinds of screwed up.

So Lamo made some bad-faith offers of confidentiality and then jumped on the horn to Paulsen with a scheme to throw this poor confused kid under the train and then bang out a self-aggrandizing story, right? And now he's trying to play the valiant hero for the public eye and soon the hacker con lecture circuit.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So in this whole situation which has the potential to ruin his entire life, the thing he's most worried about is the media ruining his opportunity to publicly reinvent himself as a female? This guy certainly has issues. His priorities are all kinds of screwed up.

Although Manning does look a bit androgynous, I'm not going to jump to conclusions about this. It's one small snippet, and nothing more. Manning may have meant it in a different context. Maybe it's a regional thing? Boy as opposed to Man? I dunno.

Or, maybe that was added in to make Manning look bad. That edited log came from Adrian Lamo, and Lamo claims that Wikileaks leaked it, which Wikileaks denies. Who the hell knows where it really came from and what was edited (in or out).

edit: Wait, maybe he meant photos of himself when he was younger. As a boy. Maybe he was a huge dweeb, or a fat kid, or something. That kinda makes sense. I would say, "as a kid" but, as I said, maybe it's a regional thing.

On the other hand, Lamo is bisexual and was appointed to some LBGT thing in San Fran, so who knows. Incidentally, are Lamo and Poulson lovers? :wub:

So Lamo made some bad-faith offers of confidentiality and then jumped on the horn to Paulsen with a scheme to throw this poor confused kid under the train and then bang out a self-aggrandizing story, right? And now he's trying to play the valiant hero for the public eye and soon the hacker con lecture circuit.

Yes.

Edited by decoder
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dunno about that. Either way, I think they're jerks.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if this is real, but it was around before Lamo decided to come out of the closet as a COINTELPRO operative, so we have no reason to believe it's not him (other than the name 'disinformation').

http://www.formspring.me/disinformation

Did you or did you not tell Manning that his conversations with you were covered by journalist shield laws?

I told him they /could/ be, an offer that he did not accept.

This guy is a more than just a jerk.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO Lamo was in a very tough situation, I can certainly see a lot of problems with what he did, but I really don't think he should be as getting as maligned as he has in public opinion. Obviously snitching is nothing be to be taken lightly (except in the two scenarios Decoder pointed out), but Manning should have known better than to go around telling people about his leaking of classified information.

Also you've got to remember that however unlikely, had something Manning leaked gotten someone killed, Lamo would have been in the position of failing to save lives.

It's just important to remember how weighty of a decision he was faced with, and how bad the consequences were either way.

Edit: 123rd post haha!

Edited by Skunkworks
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Military had definitely won this mindwar.

Everyone is saying "what if the stuff Manning released got people killed", and Manning is going to be in a Military prison for a very long time, yet no one is talking about the people in "Collateral Murder" who were actually killed, and those pilots are not going to jail.

Considering the objective (of the military) was to make Wikileaks look like a bad place for which to leak info, and they stated as much before any of this, I'm questioning whether "Bradley Manning" even exists.

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.

Actually, there are alot of teenagers (18 & over) that have highly classified information. Usually before any forces mov in for an attack they are briefed about the general area of the attack such as:

- will be amphibious, land, or air invasion

- what military installations are their first targets

- what about neutral citizenz, where are they housed

the list goes on and on, and is very, very "top secret.

we do not know if greatly top secret stuff was released... Just the downing of a helicopter can show a chink in it's armor and be used as an exploit against the U.S.

Not saying that info was given, but it could have been.

edit: grammar

Edited by tekio
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if this is real, but it was around before Lamo decided to come out of the closet as a COINTELPRO operative, so we have no reason to believe it's not him (other than the name 'disinformation').

"COINTELPRO operative"?

I don't believe for a minute that Lamo's a professional government spook. Even though he is now technically an 'informant,' he's obviously just an immature, self-centered, narcissistic media junkie. After reading that little QA site of his, I'm sure the title "Disinformation" and the NCIX link are his snarky idea of a joke.

But I definitely agree that whether or not Manning leaked sensitive documents that *might* cost lives, the far worse crime was the gleeful gunning down of innocent journalists and civilians, including a child. And unfortunately, it looks like that crime is going to go unpunished.

Edited by Colonel Panic
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