Slashdot Mirror
Wired Responds In Manning Chat Log Controversy
Hugh Pickens writes "Earlier this week Glenn Greenwald wrote in Salon about the arrest of US Army PFC Bradley Manning for allegedly acting as WikiLeaks' source and criticized Wired's failure to disclose the full chat logs between Manning and FBI informant Adrian Lamo. Now Wired's editor-in-chief Evan Hansen and senior editor Kevin Poulsen have responded to criticisms of the site's Wikileaks coverage stating that not one single fact has been brought to light suggesting Wired.com did anything wrong in pursuit of the story. 'Our position has been and remains that the logs include sensitive personal information with no bearing on Wikileaks, and it would serve no purpose to publish them at this time,' writes Hansen."
... is the difference between journalism and what Assange does.
Well done Wired.
This just in: rape charges in foreign nation against Wired's editor-in-chief Evan Hansen have been dropped! =P
There's a spot in User Info for World of Warcraft account names? Really?
well done for protecting the interests of their private masters, the established megacorps. see who ultimately owns wired, and see what publications they are running.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advance_Publications
as long as morons like you around, who can be easily fooled to believe that a publishing outfit is 'free' and 'unbiased' because of having the cognitive capacity to actually go around and check the corporate ownership chain going up to the ultimate parent company, it will be very easy for the private interests to make monkeys out of citizens.
well done sir. bask in your morondom. and, make comments like 'now, this is journalism'.
Read radical news here
If however those in power create a conspiracy upon an individual, they gain power over them and are able to silence them, imprison them, and otherwise dispose of them until they are no longer a threat to the greater conspiracy.
Assange has a wacky way of seeing the world, but it makes sense once you untwist the terminology he uses. A healthy Democracy can only continue to exist as long as a majority of its citizens have sufficient knowledge of what their leaders are doing and are able to hold them accountable.
Notice they don't say "...the logs ARE ENTIRELY sensitive personal information..." We shouldn't have to take Hansen or Poulsen's word for it. Journalism 101: Redact the "sensitive personal information with no bearing on Wikileaks" and publish the rest.
True or false, Wired has no credibility in my book since a long time ago. Some time in the early 90s, shortly after launching and becoming wildly successful, they made a clear decision - to go the route of all-out business sellouts, and away from people's needs and interests. They stopped the stories with the tone of "technology is human evolution, revolution with peace is invented", and kept only the stories to the tone of "technology is product and profit". I cancelled my subscription, since edition #2, shortly afterwards, and never cared for it much again.
Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
'Our position has been and remains that the logs include sensitive personal information with no bearing on Wikileaks, and it would serve no purpose to publish them at this time,' writes Hansen."
The press wants to be the SOLE "Decider" of what the people get to see. Does anyone doubt that a crime was committed by providing classified material to an unauthorized individual or organization?
The government needs to go get a warrant and execute this warrant, if it has probable cause. Without the warrant, any individual/organization doesn't have to reveal what it knows. With the warrant, Hansen and Poulsen have two choices: Cooperate or go to jail. And that's at the heart, by the way, of civil disobedience. It's that you're willing to -pay the normal punishment- for that disobedience (and not just get a slap on the wrist because you were "doing it for the right reasons".)
That's all we want, documents. Too many people lying. We want evidence, of which there is lots, all hidden. That's what everyone wants, and what Wikileaks gives.
Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
Wired stated the following in TFA:
Not one single fact has been brought to light suggesting Wired.com did anything wrong in pursuit of this story.
I've seen this word play before. In fact, it was done by Portugal's foreign affairs minister, when discussing the issue of CIA flights passing through portuguese territory to move kidnapped "terrorists" to Guantanamo. He also repeatedly iterated that no one had any proof that these flights existed and that the Portuguese government authorized them. Yet, thanks to the cablegate posts from the US embassy in Lisbon, it has become clear that that very same minister not only knew those flights were passing through Portuguese territory, and some even making stops in Portuguese airports, but he also had an understanding with the US government that, whenever he was asked about them, he would simply iterate that there wasn't any proof they existed. And notice the subtle detail: he never said they never existed, and only claimed that no one could prove they existed. Subtle and important.
This is exactly the same approach Wired is making to this problem. Wired doesn't claim they never did so. Wired doesn't claim they are innocent nor wired's spokesperson tries to dispel the accusation. Wired only claims that no one can prove they did it. But that, as we've seen before, is not the same thing as not making them.
Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
At this point, does everyone not know that both Lamo and Manning are gay? Do you really think that Manning cares if you release the logs about his complaints about DADT? His fight with his boyfriend? Lamo's own prurient rant? The only thing that could be considered personal is the names of their partners. Redact them, and release.
Or are you waiting to be compelled at trial to release the full logs to have something more to write about?
They never said they didn't share the chat logs with the government. In fact, Manning was arrested after Lamo tipped off the FBI about his confessions. I presume Lamo gave the FBI the same chat logs he gave Poulsen. This is about sharing the chat logs with everybody else.
I'm pretty sure the conversation that is/will happen here belongs under a tinfoil hat graphic.
If only there were a whistle-blower website of some kind that specializes in publishing leaked documents that someone at Wired with access to the chat logs could submit them to. Anybody know of such a website?
I have a friend that works for the feds, he said it's a everyday occurrence were some newspaper or blog writes about the feds badgering them for info while in the same breath handing everything over for a "leaked" story in the future.
When The New York Times ran an entirely appropriate and well reported profile of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange — discussing his personality and his contentious leadership style — Greenwald railed against the newspaper, terming the reporters “Nixonian henchmen.”
Similarly, when Assange complained that journalists were violating his privacy by reporting the details of rape and molestation allegations against him in Sweden, Greenwald agreed, writing: “Simultaneously advocating government transparency and individual privacy isn’t hypocritical or inconsistent; it’s a key for basic liberty.”
With Manning, Greenwald adopts the polar opposite opinions. “Journalists should be about disclosing facts, not protecting anyone.” This dissonance in his views has only grown in the wake of reports that Manning might be offered a plea deal in exchange for testimony against Assange.
I don't know whether or not Wired is guilty or innocent here. But it seems they've got a fair point about Greenwald, and it seems fair to give them the benefit of the doubt.
That they might actually be withholding them for a good reason? Such as:
1) They'd just make Manning look even worse to a lot of people without adding anything new or newsworthy?
2) They contain state secrets that would get Wired in trouble if they released them?
3) They're simply not relevant to the discussion?
If the stuff is important to understanding Manning, I'm sure his defense counsel will subpoena it from Wired because it'll be useful in his defense. If it's not useful in his defense, then it's not newsworthy because the public already knows enough from what's been released to have a clear idea of what he is accused of doing.
If we released the full chat logs it would prove that we are not telling the truth.
Glenn Greenwald is just a guy that somehow got a job being a professional troll. I dont like wired, but at least they break news, albeit censored rather than just fill the net with more troll poop.
Anyway, at one point during the panel I recall someone asking him how he came to know Manning; his response was that Manning found him after reading a little about him online, and then proceeded share a lot of "personal things" with him. The insinuation seemed to be that it wasn't anything as simple as moral opposition to the war or his role in it; the fact that Lamo left it so open and wouldn't go into details seemed to me that Manning may be gay, and was struggling to deal with being a closeted member of the military under DADT policy. If you check Lamo's Wikipedia page, it classified him as being an "LGBT person from the United States". Maybe Manning spoke at length to Lamo about being a closested homosexual, and the frustrations that came with it, especially being in the military?
I could be way off here, but maybe the reason they don't want to release the logs is more to protect Bradley Manning's right not to be outed, or to have other potentially "embarrassing" things revealed about his private life that are irrelevant to the rest of the case.
Character assassination is so much easier than dealing with the truth!
I searched on google and ixquick but could find no reference to wikileaks divulging the name of iranian protestors. Could you provide a citation or link to an article that backs up your assertion? Could you provide a single link anywhere that says information published by Wikileaks has led to a single death?
Because I hear this mantra all the time but have yet to find a single shred of evidence to back it up. So it would appear to be more of the same: fear mongering to shut people up.
"If you think that the innovation that hires people, increases standards of living, enables previously impossible forms of communication, and which trickles into everything"
What a freeking dodge. What the heck does innovation have to do with Wired's unethical "cash for kudos" editorial model, where whoever pays the highest buck is wired and everything else is tired? "a business's need to generate the income" isn't a blank check for a corporation to do whatever the hell it wants. People who read wired do so because they _believe_ they are getting someone's real opinion, the fact that everything is paid placement in wired is deceptive. It's not right, and it's not permissible because its the quickest way for Wired to make a buck.
How dare you tell someone they can't call out unethical behavior and instead have to "vote with their dollars" on the free market? Fuck everything about that!
[Anonymous because I'm going to be downvoted all to hell for calling BS on this]
Kevin Poulsen, His name was Kevin Poulsen, His name was Kevin Poulsen...
I think the Manning case looks like Manning contacted Wired to give them the scoop and the leaks. He wanted to report about the wrong, illegal and underhanded tactics of US government, especially its foreign policy. Im very unconvinced he was bragging about it all over.
Wired tricked Manning and instead of protecting him as their source the douchebags turned him over to the feds, and im very sure thats something that the logs show with utmost clarity. If it wasnt for Wired being a bunch of retards the US would still be running around looking for a culprit, accusing Assange of hacking so i guess there is one upside to their complete lack of moral and spines.
HTTP/1.1 400
So many people speak like they are an authority on a subject without any real knowledge or true understanding of what they are speaking about.
Rule #1. Assume nothing as to assume is always the first mistake. The odds in someone here on Slashdot speaking with authority on the subject are next to nil yet people imply a lack of creditability on the magazine because they don't like their articles. Yet others claim they are doing the right thing because said information has no barring on Wikileaks or indicts Wired's parent company. How do they know?
People who advocate the disclosure of information via Wikileaks under a pseudonym have no standing. They obviously have made a judgement that their own personal information is too private to disclose, but deny the same judgement to others. And yes, there is a significant amount of information that puts individuals at risk exposed in the Wikileaks data as opposed to general government policy.
One of the key complaints by Greenwald is that Wired redacted parts that did not contain "sensitive personal information". The Washington Post and BoingBoing have either full or partial copies of the logs and have published sections that Wired did not include. And guess what... they extra parts they published aren't sensitive personal information.
Firedog Lake put together a merged transcript of what has been published so far and you can decide for yourself whether Wired should have redacted it. I believe most of the relevant part is from May 22.
http://firedoglake.com/merged-manning-lamo-chat-logs/
I believe Greenwald is also asserting that Lamo has been making claims that are not substantiated by the logs that have been released. One key claim has to do with whether or not Assange provided assistance to Manning in obtaining the classified documents. Greenwald's article states Lamo said:
"Manning explicitly told him in these chats that he had help from Assange and from WikiLeaks 'intermediaries' in Boston."
That's important because the government is trying to build a conspiracy case against Assange. The logs would help to clarify what Lamo is saying since Lamo previously said Manning never explicity said he had support.
That, my friends, appears to be the real difference between WikiLeaks and other more traditional news organizations: discretion.
WikiLeaks receives information and, if it is deemed good, they throw the whole lot of it out there where others can sort through and make decisions about the value of the information. The traditional media outlets will typically research and weigh what they've received, and then publish the information that is relevant to the story.
Look at the leak of diplomatic cables from WikiLeaks. Much of what was released really didn't help support any specific story. Mostly, it just proved that people often have private opinions and motivations that do not match the face of foreign policy. Haven't you ever had a conversation with someone, and then walked away while confiding in a friend that the other guy "is an idiot"? Sure, there are some topics in the stack that are newsworthy, but those are the items that should have been published, along with the framework to let people know why the information is important.
I use irony whenever I can, but my shirts are still wrinkled...
"there is a significant amount of information that puts individuals at risk exposed in the Wikileaks"
..
Tell that to the thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians killed in the 'liberation'
Some of the chat logs that are out there have hints from Manning about that. One interpretation of the chat logs, where he says he didn't like the fact that pictures of him would be him "as [a] boy", is that he wishes he were a woman. What would be the point in releasing that information other than to create a sensationalist headline?
"Screw Sun, cross-platform will never work. Let's move on and steal the Java language." - Visual J++ Product Manager
in italy we are used to hear wealthy people and politicians to call for privacy in order not to disclose lawful interceptions, communications and stuff. it's their way to state they are 100% guilty of something.
I guarantee you, Glenn Greenwald is not going to fall for this bullshit excuse.
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
Wired editor Kevin Poulsen is employed by the United States government as an FBI informant. To characterize him as an impartial journalist in search of the truth is comical.
Okay so I don't exactly feel good about posting this, but given that it's out (pun intended) already -- and will probably come to larger light eventually... If you go digging around over at boingboing.net you can probably figure out what and why wired is holding back in the sensitive personal information category...
Glenn Greenwald eviscerates this latest Wired tripe here: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/29/wired_1/index.html
I suggest everyone reading this write to Wired and express your disgust with their shoddy journalism with regards to the Bradley Manning case.
I find laziness to be an excellent motivator.
http://cryptome.org/0002/wired-crime.htm
I think http://cryptome.org/0002/cryptome-hack6/cryptome-hack6.htm
has all the previous parts listed.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
http://www.boingboing.net/2010/12/29/lamomanning-wikileak.html
"Responding to questions on Twitter, Poulsen wrote that the unpublished portion of the chats contain no further reference to 'private' upload servers for Manning, while Hansen indicated that they contain no further reference to the relationship between Manning and Wikileaks chief Julian Assange."
2019 is going to be the year of Linux on the desktop.