> (02:57:34 PM) bradass87: he wont work with you if you reveal too much about yourself
So it seems that Assange really does take source protection seriously and isn't a co-conspirator as has been suggested. Why did they redact this previously?
Because it undermines the narrative they wanted to publicize. Now that the narrative is well established they can release the full logs and it won't even make a dent in broad opinion.
Aha! Reminds me of this article [1] from a couple of days ago.
Once misinformation is out there, it's almost impossible to correct it. The audience will be permanently biased towards the misinformation unless you deliberately explain that this was an attempt to mislead them and that the "continued influence effect" means that after the information is corrected it will still have an effect on their thinking.
The narrative is that Wikileaks acted as a co-conspirator in the theft of classified information.
It is legal in the US to republish illegally obtained information, so long as the publisher was not party to the crime in any way. The quoted snippet undermines claims that Julian Assanage was party to the crime.
Who has made such claims? Lamo. His claims and evidence form the motivation and basis of the Justice Department's investigation. According to Assange's lawyers, a grand jury was convened. If true, it clearly would benefit the prosecution to only enter as evidence the portions of the chat logs that best supported its case. If Wired published the entire logs, this wouldn't be possible.
I would take the release of the logs as indication that the justice department has abandoned that portion of the investigation, possibly after being denied by the grand jury.
Where in Wired.com's reporting is there any narrative that Assange directed Manning?
Your statement in the logs would somehow save Assange from a U.S. grand jury is laughable. And it's a very thin thread to try to weave a tapestry that Wired is in cahoots with the FBI. You must not read Threat Level very often.
There isn't in Wired, but there is in Lamo's statements.
They wouldn't save him, but they would significantly weaken the case. Other than Lamo's word, the only evidence is those logs and several encrypted emails.
I don't think Wired is in "cahoots" with the FBI (It's a justice department investigation also, not FBI). I do think one particular person at Wired (Poulson) is likely acting in a way that supports Lamo. Why Lamo wants all this, I don't know or care to speculate on.
Generally it's done in public, so this would be some sort of atypical procedure I'm not familiar with. And again, this is just based on statements by Assanages attorneys, which may not be trustworthy or accurately informed.
I find it disturbing Wired released these. There is a TON of extremely personal information about Brad in these logs, and I know I wouldn't want anyone knowing those things about me, even if I was in jail for the rest of my life.
In the end, that twitchy little rat fuck Lamo turned Manning in because he got shot down hitting on him.
The originally released logs already contained personal information of the sorts you are most likely refering to (i.e. they already outed manning a being gay and conflicted with DADT). The rest of what the logs tell, for example about the issues with his family and boyfriend, has already been researched by other media outlets and published.
I agree that reading Manning's actual narrative about this this is more shocking that reading a journalist telling you about it, but I don't find the fact that they released the logs disturbing.
I shan't read wired whether online or print any more. I do not know what the relationship is between Lamo or any wired editor, I understand, at least as far as lamo is concerned, there may be different political leanings or viewpoints.
That is fine, people have different opinions, we are free to debate and disagree, but, to withhold quite important information, about a very politically charged story, and use such secrecy to ones utmost advantage is a disgrace and dishonoroubale for any journalist or man in my opinion.
It would have cut rhetorics straight through back in the days had the passages between Assange and Manning been made public back then. There would have been no room, or option, for some congressmen to say what they did against Assange, nor even suspicion, towards Assange or wikileaks or any involvement of them in inducing the leaking of the information. There would have been a unanimous voice, with little room to doubt, that wikileaks is fully in the clear.
That a magazine decides to withhold vital information from the public and distort the debate with what may be or has been damaging consequences goes far beyond any political leaning or fair game. It is downright deplorable in my opinion and unless our society finds a way to hold such behaviour to account we will soon end the way of bankrupt, morally deranged, corrupt ridden, dis-functioning societies.
(10:23:34 AM) info@adrianlamo.com: I’m a journalist and a minister. You can pick either, and treat this as a confession or an interview (never to be published) & enjoy a modicum of legal protection.
I never thought I'd say it, but I was wrong. I thought Poulsen and Wired were being shady with the redactions, but they were absolutely right. It was just a bunch of chatter about his depression and identity issues that nobody needed to know about. I respect their decision to redact far more, now. Not sure why they're being released now, but I guess it doesn't really matter anymore.
It absolutely was not "a bunch of chatter about his depression". It was much more. As small sample from the excellent piece by Glen Greenwald at Salon (1):
MANNING: uhm, trying to keep a low profile for now though, just a warning
LAMO: I'm a journalist and a minister. You can pick either, and treat this as a confession or an interview (never to be published) & enjoy a modicum of legal protection.
It is clear from this passage that Lamo promised legal protection of a journalist-source or priest-penitent relationship. And it shows Poulsen's claim that the withheld chat logs were only insignificant ramblings related to Manning's mental state was simply not true.
It doesn't matter one whit whether Lamo offered protection or not, except insofar as what you think of Lamo.
The shield law doesn't require journalists to keep info private -- it simply allows a reporter to quash a subpoena from law enforcement coming knocking for the info.
If indeed Manning had taken Lamo up on the offer, at best, Manning has a civil case against Lamo.
And as for Lamo being a minister, that's a joke. Knowing Lamo he's got a minister certificate he bought for $25 just to say he has it. Furthermore, Manning didn't take him up on the offer and the chats certainly don't look like a minister and a worshipper talking.
While it's clear Lamo is double-crossing Manning and trying to suck info out of him, this bit of the chat logs don't mean anything substantively.
But folks like Greenwald need a nemesis, so any point to beat on Wired.com for reporting the story will work.
Full disclosure: I work for Wired.com and Kevin Poulsen used to be my editor, and still occasionally is. I never saw the logs till they were pubbed and had no hand in the decision.
You wrote: "But folks like Greenwald need a nemesis, so any point to beat on Wired.com for reporting the story will work."
Greenwald doesn't need to go far to find a "nemesis" in this case. And he is not "beating" on Wired for reporting the story, but for reporting only those portions that it deemed relevant. The fact is Poulsen, for whatever reason, was not truthful in his claim that the unreleased chat logs were only Manning's personal meanderings or that they would reveal national security secrets. Whether someone at the DOJ put pressure on Wired not to release the full chat logs, we will never know. But to say that the full logs are not relevant to Manning's defense or Assange's role in all of this, is absurd.
What came out in the logs isn't relevant to Manning's defense, insofar that the logs are in the hands of the prosecution and so would be given to Manning's lawyer, irregardless.
The same goes for Assange. And nothing in the logs rules out that Assange "ran" Manning nor do they prove it. All they have is Manning saying Assange is good at OPSEC. So Assange may not know WHO Manning is, but still may have directed Manning to get more info or look for this or that. That's the presumed essence of the grand jury proceedings.
Nothing in the logs changes any of that, nor would the publication require the gov attorneys to show exculpatory evidence to a grand jury. A grand jury is a one-sided proceeding intended to convince a group of people that someone likely committed a crime.
Lamo promising "immunity" to Manning on journalistic or religious grounds? Meaningless, except for your opinion of Lamo, which I assume was pretty damn low even before you saw the full logs.
This is all sound and fury, when the real truth is simple as can be. Manning chose the worst person in the world to confide in.
I dunno dood. The parts about manning coming to terms with being trans, coupled with his stories about his dad chasing him out of the house with a shotgun seem kinda personal to me.
Greenwald's a douche. These logs are super personal, not super relevant. All this has taught us is that Lamo is a fucking asshole.
i think they could have waited longer - i hadn't heard of the leaks, so i doubt they're very widespread (i mean, if i haven't, and i read places like hn, i'm sure my parents have no clue...).
also, this makes lamo look even worse. turning in some poor kid like that.
How did you not hear about it? It is basically what made wikileaks front page news for months when it happened. Maybe you just didn't realize that was this?
I don't see anything here that couldn't be a fabrication on LOMO's part as part of an attempt to smear manning. LOMO isn't exactly a stand-up character, and combined with someone inside the military (which wouldn't be hard to find when the government is looking to create a scapegoat) these logs could be easily fabricated.
I also don't think that text logs, which cannot be authenticated in any way, could be admissible in court. But then, military courts aren't usually concerned with justice.
1. Bias: I am ex military..any security clearance is forever not as access but as enforcement of secrets staying secret. Thus, why would someone already in an illegal act talk to ex military like Lamo? It does not add up.
2. why did Wired protect Lamo for a year? Obviously to protect a source rather than have it exposed as non-credible.
3. Who is working for the FBI here? Is it Lamo or Poulsen? It has to be asked given the manipulation by Lamo in the chat log. If the wired Knew the chat log was part of the FBI investigation than that explains its failure to publish. So it is reasonable to ask if Poulsen was involved currently with the FBI.
Here's the deal. First, read this: http://blogwarleaks.blogspot.com/
Note that this was written back in December, and it absolutely NAILS what's in the logs.
Second, here's the TL'DR for that link:
Lamo and Poulsen have been journalist/source for years. Poulsen met Lamo right around the time that Lamow as acting as the "homeless hacker" and being all leet by setting up fake Lexis Nexus accounts on the NYT's dime. Remember that?
Poulsen was also a pro-hacker back in the day: he intercepted a phone line at a radio staation so he could be the 100th caller and win a Porsche. Twice.
As such, Poulsen was able to connect with Lamo and use him as a source for years. It's Poulsen who made Lamo famous. And it was that fame that drew Manning to Lamo. Lamo is known, in the undergound 31337 hacker circles, to be gay. Manning, who was questioning his sexuality, saw this as a reason to contact Lamo, expecting some sympathy.
Of course, Lamo had since started working for the government, as any successful hacker can do once he's out of jail. The US likes hiring hackers for their team, and Lamo eventually turned in Manning to win points for himself in this capacity.
Poulsen surely kept Mannings info secret. The leak was entirely Lamo, as anyone who actually knows him can confirm. As I have said a few times in this thread; Lamo is a twitchy, untrustworthy little rat fuck. Despite being gay, he's had restraining orders taken out against him by women. He's that creepy and fucked up.
Not only was Poulsen not involved in outing Manning to the feds, he went all the way and protected Manning's privacy by holding these logs for a year, so far. As we now see, these logs are mostly personal, and there is nothing gained by us all reading them, except confirmation of what those of us in the "scene" already knew.
As the above-linked blog states: there is no conspiracy, there is only gayness. And thanks to Greenwald's incessant whining and conspiracy theory-mongering, we can all now read the very private conversation of a very troubled young man struggling to come to terms with his sexuality while working in an organization that, at the time, held homosexuality as tantamount to treason.
Oh, and we get to see more of Lamo's untrustworthy nature.
Good job, Greenwald. You just made things even worse for Manning: now the idiots who are already against him also know he's trans and has had a very difficult upbringing. Don't we all feel better now about locking him up in solitary?
Lamo hacked, he got hired. Manning hacked, he got publicly humiliated and will never be let out of jail. Justice, eh?
> (02:56:46 PM) bradass87: he knows very little about me
> (02:56:54 PM) bradass87: he takes source protection uber-seriously
> (02:57:01 PM) bradass87: “lie to me” he says
> (02:57:06 PM) info@adrianlamo.com: Really. Interesting.
> (02:57:34 PM) bradass87: he wont work with you if you reveal too much about yourself
So it seems that Assange really does take source protection seriously and isn't a co-conspirator as has been suggested. Why did they redact this previously?