Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Wikileaks Source Outed To Stroke Hacker's Own Ego

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the collateral-jerk dept.

Censorship 347

Binary Boy writes "Bradley Manning, the US Army private arrested recently by the Pentagon for providing classified documents — including the widely seen Apache helicopter videomay have been duped by wannabe hacker Adrian Lamo, according to Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com. Lamo told Manning he could provide protection under both journalist shield laws, and the clergy-lay confidentiality tradition, and instead immediately turned him in to authorities in an act of apparent shameless self-promotion." The article also goes into Wired's role in the whole situation, the strange, sometimes sensationalist media coverage, and the odd similarity between this case and proposed scenarios in a US Intelligence report from earlier this year aimed at undermining Wikileaks.

cancel ×

347 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I took a leak in the commons area. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32619996)

There were knowbody.

Re:I took a leak in the commons area. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32620020)

And I hear there are a whole bunch of lame-o's...

Re:I took a leak in the commons area. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32620036)

It has come to my attention that the entire wikileaks community is a hotbed of so called "alternative sexuality", which includes anything from hedonistic orgies to homosexuality [goatse.fr] to paedophilia.

First rule of breaking the law (5, Insightful)

Wonko the Sane (25252) | more than 4 years ago | (#32620010)

If you don't want to get caught keep your damn mouth shut.

Re:First rule of breaking the law (2, Informative)

Saeed al-Sahaf (665390) | more than 4 years ago | (#32620074)

If you don't want to get caught keep your damn mouth shut.

Indeed. This guy "outed" himself by bragging online to other people.

Re:First rule of breaking the law (1, Troll)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 4 years ago | (#32620168)

Er, no he didn't.

You could try reading the fucking summary at least:

"Lamo told Manning he could provide protection" ... "instead immediately turned him in to authorities in an act of apparent shameless self-promotion."

Fucking douchebag (both you and Lamo).

Re:First rule of breaking the law (1, Insightful)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 4 years ago | (#32620178)

Wow, actually I'm the douchebag here. Durr!

Re:First rule of breaking the law (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32620404)

Yes you are the douchebag. Perhaps YOU are the one who should "read up" on how this guy got busted, and not ASSume that the Slashdot story tells the whole story.

Re:First rule of breaking the law (2, Funny)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#32620210)

Precisely. I don't go round bragging about the various politicians and CEOs that have "disappeared" over the years. Ooops

I shouldna told ya that.

details? (1)

AffidavitDonda (1736752) | more than 4 years ago | (#32620270)

Could you provide some details? We will protect you under both journalist shield laws and the clergy-lay confidentiality tradition...

Re:details? (1, Funny)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#32620366)

"Oh good. I can trust you then. Heh heh heh heh." - George Duh Bush

Re:details? (1, Funny)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#32620922)

-1 Troll? Jeez. Would it have been funnier if I wrote:

"Oh good. I can..... just a minute my teleprompter froze up..... uh, I can, you know, trust you... uh... with my... with the... uh, secret communique." - Barak Øbama

Re:First rule of breaking the law (1)

nephilimsd (936642) | more than 4 years ago | (#32620282)

You could have at least checked the "Post anonymously" box first.

Re:First rule of breaking the law (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32620644)

ANUS

Re:First rule of breaking the law (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32621152)

ANAL FETUS

Re:First rule of breaking the law (5, Insightful)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 4 years ago | (#32620084)

Kind of difficult to follow that advice when the lawbreaking in question consists solely of not keeping your mouth shut.

Re:First rule of breaking the law (1)

peacefinder (469349) | more than 4 years ago | (#32620152)

Which is an important caution to keep in mind when committing this particular variety of crime. :-)

Re:First rule of breaking the law (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32620570)

You know, Manning could have just dropped off the package (containing video media) anonymously to the local media or some such in the middle of the night. I would have advised wearing latex gloves in the process. Either way, if you want to be a whistleblower, do so without it being traced back to you.

Re:First rule of breaking the law (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 4 years ago | (#32620672)

Don't talk about what you did after the fact.

One of the real stories is how this guy leaked information, but didn't actually understand how to interpret. So he put his own ignorant spin on the thing to make it fit into his world view.'

He probably need to read fewer issues of 2600.

Re:First rule of breaking the law (2, Insightful)

couchslug (175151) | more than 4 years ago | (#32620674)

"Kind of difficult to follow that advice when the lawbreaking in question consists solely of not keeping your mouth shut."

Kind of EASY to follow when you are both computer-literate and trained in security. If idiot boy had been leaking data out of principle instead
of being an attention whore, he'd have stayed anonymous and ensured an ongoing flow of data rather than wanting recognition from the Leet.

Re:First rule of breaking the law... DON'T (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32620316)

IF, this is true, THEN Adrian Lamo DID THE RIGHT THING!

This worthless unpatriotic piece of filth was going to betray his country. By taking the info and turning him in, he did his country a great service, assuming Lamo doesn't do anything with the classified information, and gives it directly back to the government.

A better way would have been to inform the government BEFORE receiving the info however.

Re:First rule of breaking the law (5, Insightful)

DrugCheese (266151) | more than 4 years ago | (#32620552)

But he's not breaking the law. He swore an oath to protect the constitution from ALL enemies, foreign and domestic.

blah blah blah nazi blah blah blah blindly following orders

The fact that his employer is the enemy of the constitution should bear no moral weight.

Re:First rule of breaking the law (1)

Wonko the Sane (25252) | more than 4 years ago | (#32620706)

Regardless of if his actions are justified or not he was stupid to open his mouth to a "journalists" or anyone else.

That's the point (5, Interesting)

twoallbeefpatties (615632) | more than 4 years ago | (#32620558)

Read the article - that's part of what Glennwald is asking. He's asking, why would a 22-year-old Private with access to high-security information get onto AIM and spill his guts about an issue that could get him thrown into jail for a long time with some guy that he's never met before? Something is funny about the whole notation.

Adrian Lamo? for serious? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32620018)

Yes, I think this hacker is aiming for all the lulz he can get. Adrian Lamo? Adrian Lmao? indeed....

Re:Adrian Lamo? for serious? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32620112)

If you're implying that it's a pseudonym, his name is actually Adrian Lamo [wikipedia.org] . The Lamo/LMAO thing is a coincidence, and Lamo's been hacking since before anyone knew what the lulz were.

Re:Adrian Lamo? for serious? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32620334)

He's also been soaking corks for longer than many slashdotters have been having wet dreams.

Re:Adrian Lamo? for serious? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32621180)

Please, I was disconnecting modems for the lulz while this guy was learning 2 times 2 is 4.

Re:Adrian Lamo? for serious? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32620450)

He might be aiming for all the lulz he can get, but you better be careful of what you wish for. Sometimes the lulz aim back.

So.... (3, Interesting)

CdBee (742846) | more than 4 years ago | (#32620022)

So we can suppose this is an operation to make people doubt the safety of going to Wikileaks?

Suppose something happened to Lamo in revenge, out there in the offline world - maybe such operations would be discouraged in future.

Re:So.... (2, Insightful)

westlake (615356) | more than 4 years ago | (#32620046)

Suppose something happened to Lamo in revenge, out there in the offline world - maybe such operations would be discouraged in future.

That is a game any number can play. But the pros are likely to win.

Re:So.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32620138)

The only winning move is not to play.

Re:So.... (1)

gringofrijolero (1489395) | more than 4 years ago | (#32620188)

Impossible

Re:So.... (5, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | more than 4 years ago | (#32620610)

That, of course, ignores the fact that others are playing games that put our freedom and safety at risk at every turn.

There are people who seek to justify war and killing at every opportunity. Some seek to enrich themselves through the military industrial complex. Others by taking the resources of foreign lands. Meanwhile these actions make every citizen and resident of the U.S. less safe because the rest of the planet is gradually loosing appreciation for the U.S. and are taking it out on the people of the U.S.

The winning move is definitely not "not to play." In fact, it is the most assured way to lose... we are all losing while the players are winning.

Re:So.... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32620160)

Suppose something happened to Lamo in revenge, out there in the offline world - maybe such operations would be discouraged in future.

That is a game any number can play. But the pros are likely to win.

That's odd you feel that way, considering the amateurs outnumber the pros 1000 to 1.

Re:So.... (1)

blackraven14250 (902843) | more than 4 years ago | (#32620836)

Only 1 out of the 1000 amateurs is willing to play.

Re:So.... (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 4 years ago | (#32621080)

That's odd you feel that way, considering the amateurs outnumber the pros 1000 to 1.

The amateur lacks organization, discipline, training and resources. It's the pro who goes into the field with a thousand men at his back.

Re:So.... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32620240)

Oh yeah, because their track record is SO GOOD against outnumbered, outgunned dudes out in the middle of nowhere.

Re:So.... (2, Interesting)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#32620154)

What I don't get, is how Adrian Lamo found out Manning was the guy who did it?

I mean, how do you dupe someone into giving you that kind of information if you don't know they have it?

So, it sounds like Manning was "boasting" about it - which one of the articles even uses that words, which is entirely his own stupidity and not some "operation" preformed by anyone, at all.

Re:So.... (1)

Concerned Onlooker (473481) | more than 4 years ago | (#32620542)

Who do you think you are? Sharon Angle [youtube.com] ?

Re:So.... (1)

jonnat (1168035) | more than 4 years ago | (#32620660)

If only we could get Lamo to draw a picture of Muhammad...

Wannabe? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32620032)

You may not like the guy, but it seems like he has done some legitimate hacking and cracking in his day.

Re:Wannabe? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32620056)

You may not like the guy, but it seems like he has done some legitimate hacking and cracking in his day.

Pay none of this any mind, it's just a slap-fight between Salon and Conde Nast (owner of wired.com).

Re:Wannabe? (1)

Concerned Onlooker (473481) | more than 4 years ago | (#32620502)

"... has done some legitimate hacking and cracking..."

I'm not sure you made this joke intentionally, but there it is.

Re:Wannabe? (1)

WillDraven (760005) | more than 4 years ago | (#32621034)

While we all tend to make a big deal about the difference between hacking and cracking, that doesn't necessarily mean that they are mutually exclusive activities.

Despite what we all like to think it is possible to be both a clever tinkerer and a morally absent jerk.

Justice is Done (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32620040)

Open source meet closed fist.

Hah. That's teach yah!

Manning must not have been able to operate Google (2, Insightful)

Trepidity (597) | more than 4 years ago | (#32620058)

He actually believed that Lamo was an ordained minister, and that his chat with him constituted a confession?

Re:Manning must not have been able to operate Goog (1)

CallMyCards (1432059) | more than 4 years ago | (#32620226)

He also believed, the guy on the other end when was saying that he's a journalist *and* a minister. Really, why not a *doctor* also, third one's charm, they say.

I don't care (4, Insightful)

decipher_saint (72686) | more than 4 years ago | (#32620076)

All I care about is why that footage hasn't really been all that well explained by the military.

I want to see and hear both sides on this obviously, but pointing out the motivation as hubris at this point is sort of the smaller part of a bigger picture.

Re:I don't care (4, Insightful)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 4 years ago | (#32620182)

That's what's bugging me here as well. Who cares how the footage was released? The important thing is WHY we have soldiers killing unarmed civilians.

The military guys seem to have a very elitist attitude about the whole thing, like us little people don't need to know how this could have happened. As though it's none of our business somehow.

Re:I don't care (4, Insightful)

decipher_saint (72686) | more than 4 years ago | (#32620230)

They say there are important bits of the video missing, great! I'm willing to believe that, show it to me!

But so far? Nada.

Re:I don't care (0, Troll)

Dhalka226 (559740) | more than 4 years ago | (#32620598)

It's classified; that's the whole point.

Maybe it shouldn't have been. Maybe it was all just a massive cover-up. Maybe it still is. But if I were a military commander or another authority in charge of these decisions, I would not be inclined to let them be dictated to me by some private breaking the law and releasing them anyway. That's not how things work, nor should it be.

The fact that he did that does not declassify what was released, and it certainly doesn't declassify what was not released.

Re:I don't care (3, Insightful)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 4 years ago | (#32620650)

The military guys seem to have a very elitist attitude about the whole thing

No, they are genuinely scared about it. Not from the enemy, but buy their own citizens.

It's one thing to be hated by a country you're fighting in. It's quite another to be hated/disowned by the country your FROM. Review the Vietnam protests for example.

Re:I don't care (2, Insightful)

mysidia (191772) | more than 4 years ago | (#32620704)

Yes... just remember it's secret for national security reasons... the familiar cry of the oppressor.

At least in the US, we are not at the stage yet where the military can openly admit that they are beginning an ongoing operation whose objective is to slaughter civillians en masse, and not expect to get an overwhelmingly negative response frmo the public....

Re:I don't care (2, Insightful)

Apatharch (796324) | more than 4 years ago | (#32621084)

At least in the US, we are not at the stage yet where the military can openly admit that they are beginning an ongoing operation whose objective is to slaughter civillians en masse, and not expect to get an overwhelmingly negative response frmo the public....

That's because they can just label them "terrorists" instead of "civilians".

Re:I don't care (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32620732)

Anyone educated and experienced at analyzing that type of material can see there are weapons.
There attitude stems fromt he fact that everyone int he world now thinks tghere an expert, so if actual experts start explining, ignorant fucks start spouting off nonsense. Since it's the media propogates that misinformation, ther eis no way this can be a plus for the military.

Example:
The Military analyst point out to a series of pixels that is a weapon. The explain why he knows it's a gun and goes on to show that section of footage and explain how the changing shades correspond exactly like it does in dozens of other video footage and like example in training footage.

Some jack hole is going to stop at the very first point and say 'you can tell there is a gun with that set of pixel! and he does it on the news. Now a bunch of people whose only experience is the movies think he is correct because it's not a perfectly color crystal clear image of a gun.

In a world where a missing pixel on an image lighted a 'controversy' over a 'face' on mars, I can see why they keep quiet.

Re:I don't care (4, Insightful)

grcumb (781340) | more than 4 years ago | (#32621134)

That's what's bugging me here as well. Who cares how the footage was released?

I do. I care a lot. Why does someone have to face a lifetime in prison just to allow us to discuss 'WHY we have soldiers killing unarmed civilians'?

The fact that it took someone breaking the law to show a commonplace incident in the so-called War on Terror can be viewed as a sad commentary on the state of censorship in our time, or (if you're an optimist) an affirmation that, despite a culture of secrecy, information really does want to be free.

In either case, Greenwald's conjecture is that Manning really was genuinely motivated by his conscience and that his 'confessor' Lamo rewarded his honesty with lies, venality and betrayal. I find his case as presented compelling but not conclusive.

Greenwald's larger point about wikileaks, however, is irrefutable:

The reason this story matters so much -- aside from the fact that it may be the case that a truly heroic, 22-year-old whistle-blower is facing an extremely lengthy prison term -- is the unique and incomparably valuable function WikiLeaks is fulfilling. Even before the Apache helicopter leak, I wrote at length about why they are so vital [salon.com] , and won't repeat all of that here. Suffice to say, there are very few entities, if there are any, which pose as much of a threat to the ability of governmental and corporate elites to shroud their corrupt conduct behind an extreme wall of secrecy.

As others will no doubt suggest, whistle blowers should understand the consequences of their actions, accepting the sometimes inevitable retribution that follows in order to serve the public good. That does not, however, excuse what Greenwald characterises as 'despicable' behaviour by Lamo. If this account proves true, then Lamo really is a sick, sorry individual.

I find this whole story compelling precisely because it demonstrates the stakes involved in something as simple as telling the truth. Secrecy and Transparency are equally costly and dangerous as we wander too far towards either end of the continuum. Stories like Manning's allow us the opportunity to gauge where we are in that continuum.

Re:I don't care (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32620482)

I agree 100%, but with the story backlog, and subsequent questionable informants surrounding this case and how it progresses to the present, provides pretty solid evidence of active Counter-Intelligence being performed against entities around WIki-Leaks, facilitated by the US Government/Military.

The military not coming clean about a leaked video is only half the damage being perpetrated here against citizens both foreign and domestic.

Re:I don't care (1, Troll)

Low Ranked Craig (1327799) | more than 4 years ago | (#32620718)

I watched the video twice and it doesn't really need any explanation. When watching the video it is important to to not analyze it with hindsight. We know NOW that there were kids in the van, and this is pointed out on the video. However watching the video without that knowledge and it is extremely unlikely that it would be known that children were in the van, given the context of the situation. We also know (now) that one of the guys had a camera with a big lens on it. It's also clear from the video that other guys had weapons (AK-47, and what looked like RPGs, or a really big tripod) Context is very important, such as what's going on on the surrounding areas (not on the video), what had been taking place in that area in the preceding days (not on the video). The guy in the video was a bit callous but his point stands - who takes kids to a place where a massive firefight just took place (as in still dust in the ait and the helicopters still circling the area)?

When I watched the video what I saw was a bunch of guys in an area where a big firefight had taken place a day or two before, and there was a column of US vehicles (Bradleys, I think) moving into the area. If I'm a helicopter pilot whose job it is to protect that column, and I see dudes in the path of that column with assault rifles and RPGs, I'm going to take them out. Period end of story.

If you're brave enough (or stupid enough) to be a reporter and hanging around with guys with guns and RPGs who are in all likelihood getting ready to ambush a column or US armor, well, I'm sorry but it sucks to be you. Then before the dust has settled a van pulls up and starts pulling the wounded and their weapons into the van (a common tactic of the insurgents), and they brought children, well, again that is really sad, but I'd have to ask the parents WTF?

I think part of the problem here is that most people don't really understand these situations, or what they know if them was learned from TV and movies. The reality is that in a war zone, you eliminate the threat. That's how it works. If you understand how this is in reality, and you understand the context of the situation, this is really a non-story.

Short version: Guys with rifles and RPGs in an area known for insurgent activity hanging around with a column of military vehicles approaching and the guys in the helicopters took out the insurgents, then parents bring kids to a gun fight and the kids are severely injured. Lessons learned: don't hang around with insurgents and don't take your kids to a fire fight.

Re:I don't care (4, Insightful)

guruevi (827432) | more than 4 years ago | (#32620978)

It is the freakin' Middle East, everybody has guns. I see this comment and other versions of it posted around here and other forums by guys with a pretty recent UID. Could there be some spreading of misinformation going on from the powers-that-be that don't want this video out?

This whole thing stinks badly. There have been mistakes before and the footage has usually been released, people accepted it, people apologized, people got punished and moved on. There seems to be a media blackout around this event and a lot of nationalistic propaganda being spread around the subject.

Re:I don't care (1)

harlows_monkeys (106428) | more than 4 years ago | (#32620908)

All I care about is why that footage hasn't really been all that well explained by the military

On places where it was heavily discussed, such as Reddit, there were quite a few posts from people who've been in similar situations that explained it pretty well. The following is from memory, so I might have some things mixed up. This was near where an intense ground fight had just happened. The cameraman on the ground didn't have a gun, but on the small screen in the helicopter, when viewed by someone who is used to seeing guns and doesn't expect to see a camera, it looks very similar to a RPG, which can take down a helicopter. Others that the cameraman appeared to be with did have guns. Everything about the encounter looked, based on the information the people in the copters had, just like numerous prior encounters where the people on the ground would have in fact been enemies involved in the nearby firefight or reinforcements coming to that fight. But no one leaks video of the hundreds of encounters where a copter shots a bunch of insurgents.

Same goes for blasting the people who came to get the wounded. In the numerous prior encounters with insurgents, they've learned that when you see someone rush out to a wounded insurgent, its not medical personal or people trying to help get the wounded guy to a hospital. It's other insurgents, trying to get the wounded guy's weapons.

Good Grief. (4, Insightful)

Saeed al-Sahaf (665390) | more than 4 years ago | (#32620124)

Honestly, if you're going to leak government docs to Wikileaks, you should't go around tooting your horn about it to random "hackers" you find on-line. This guy may have been caught in the end anyway, but he didn't do himself any favors by not KEEPING HIS MOUTH SHUT about it.

Ya well (2, Insightful)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 4 years ago | (#32620328)

It seems as though this guy didn't leak the data for the public good, but rather because he was angry. He was getting back at people etc, etc. Well that sort of thinking doesn't lead to good decision making.

There's a real difference in personality type and action between people with different motivations for breaking a trust and revealing confidential data.

In the case of conscience, it is because you really believe this is important to the public good. You believe that the world needs this information to be public. That was the case with The Pentagon Papers. The reason Ellsberg leaked the documents was he felt that he had to. He had tried to contact Senators and have them deal with it, but they wouldn't. He was out of options more or less, and felt the only way to deal with it was public disclosure, that the public's need to know outweighed the oath he'd taken to keep classified information secret.

However this was not a case like that, it was a case of ego. Manning was pissed off (in part because apparently he'd been broken up with) and decided to act out on it, in this case by leaking documents. He may have felt they should be public, but his motivation was ego. Well guess what? When ego is involved, people like to brag. They can't help but run their mouth to show how awesome they are.

Personally I don't feel a lot of sympathy for him for that reason. Were this a case of a deep personal belief, I can respect that, however he was just being spiteful more or less. Also, if he is telling the truth about leaking a quarter million diplomatic cables it is clear he doesn't care. There is no way he read all of those and decided they all needed to be public, he's just leaking information indiscriminately.

Whatever the case, it isn't likely to go well for him. Given that this was done in the course of his duties as military personnel, he will most likely be tried by court marshal as per the UCMJ. Means he's not likely to find a sympathetic civilian jury.

Citation? (5, Informative)

twoallbeefpatties (615632) | more than 4 years ago | (#32620602)

It seems as though this guy didn't leak the data for the public good, but rather because he was angry. He was getting back at people etc, etc. Well that sort of thinking doesn't lead to good decision making.

TFA has excerpts from the chat in which Manning had told Lamo that he wanted this material out in the public domain to spur debate, that he was having some moral issues with how the military was doing business. What's your source that he was doing this for revenge?

Re:Ya well (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 4 years ago | (#32620772)

However this was not a case like that, it was a case of ego.

However, the one person who has suggested that it was a case of ego and not patriotism is Lamo himself and if these allegations about Lamo are correct, then that really casts doubt on the whole idea.

Re:Good Grief. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32620376)

True enough, but that doesn't change the fact that Lamo has committed an act of treason against the People of the United States (the real government) and is an enemy of Human Rights world wide. Defending state secrets is equivalent to defending tyranny.

Shocking... (2, Insightful)

sanctimonius hypocrt (235536) | more than 4 years ago | (#32620132)

that he would betray the confidence of someone who trusted him.

Re:Shocking... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32620890)

Oh geez how loyal, I geuss when your best friend is busy raping your children you gonna keep your mouth shut because he trusts you?

Persona non grata (2)

RayMarron (657336) | more than 4 years ago | (#32620166)

Whatever the reason, nobody is ever going to trust Lamo with a secret again.

Lamo does not care (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 4 years ago | (#32620236)

Considering that he was found guilty once, I don't think Lamo wants to be carrying secrets for other people anymore. If I were him, I would be staying on the straight and narrow for a while.

Re:Persona non grata (1)

DesScorp (410532) | more than 4 years ago | (#32620862)

Thankfully, no one will ever trust Bradley Manning with a secret again, either.

More information at infoworld.com (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32620194)

href=http://www.infoworld.com/d/adventures-in-it/wikileaks-part-ii-adrian-lamo-responds-580-0?page=0,1 [infoworld.com]

and

href=http://www.infoworld.com/d/adventures-in-it/spies-wikileaks-and-hackers-oh-my-443 [infoworld.com]

Highlight of the reply from Lamo:

You have a number of questions that could be answered by contacting me. I politely request that you consider doing so via my publicly-available contact details in the future - and if you did & I was somehow unreachable, I retract this & apologize.

I would suggest that Manning is neither a whistleblower nor a spy (although he may be guilty of espionage, which is a different animal in some circles.) I was aware that KLP had little interest in keeping my identity secret.

Whether I was right is not for me to globally judge (though I believe I did the right thing, which is also a different animal. Yes, I'm splitting that hair mighty thin.)

Poulsen knows I've been around the block a couple dozen times, and I've been a bona-fide confidential source, albeit never for Poulsen. I don't feel taken advantage of. If I was pressured, it was up to me to exercise my right & ability to resist.

I object to your characterization of Asperger's as a "disability" - it's more-often described as a "syndrome" or "condition" in psychiatric circles, and in a less pejorative fashion to boot.

I know Poulsen isn't my friend. We don't socialize. We don't go clubbing. He's the most highly ethical journalist I know. If I were unaware that he considers me a source, not a friend, I'd be taken advantage of. I am however quite aware of this.

The government - and this is important - never asked me to be a source for them in the Manning case, in terms of eliciting information in furtherance of prosecution. This request would be improper, and I would decline in the interests of justice.

I have no reason to lead me to believe that Assange is on the run from anything larger than his own PR machine. It's perverse that this story has increasingly drifted from focusing on Manning to focusing on Assange.

I hope this clarifies things for you from my end. I've been entirely candid with you, and hope you'll update with a clarification from my end.

"Salon" impresses me (5, Informative)

spydabyte (1032538) | more than 4 years ago | (#32620202)

Unlike the summary posted above, the article is very unbiased. I'm surprised how sensational slashdot has become on issues like this. This isn't about some hacker wanting street cred, it's about an agent of the government getting a criminal to talk. Salon even stops slander found in other articles that is just journalism upon journalism leads to US Government vs. WikiLeaks, which at this point looks completely ridiculous.

I for one congratulate Salon for this very well balanced article.

Re:"Salon" impresses me (3, Informative)

DeadCatX2 (950953) | more than 4 years ago | (#32620320)

Did you read the same article I read? It is not unbiased (most of Glenn Greenwald's work is slightly biased, quite often with a pinch of venomous rhetoric, usually towards those who deserve it)

Greenwald believes Manning is probably a heroic whistle blower, not a criminal.

The reason this story matters so much -- aside from the fact that it may be the case that a truly heroic, 22-year-old whistle-blower is facing an extremely lengthy prison term

He also believes Lamo was doing it for the attention.

Making Lamo's conduct even worse is that it appears he reported Manning for no reason other than a desire for some trivial media attention. Jacob Appelbaum, a well-known hacker of the Tor Project who has known Lamo for years, said that Lamo's "only concern" has always been "getting publicity for Adrian." Indeed, Lamo's modus operandi as a hacker was primitive hacking aimed at high-profile companies that he'd then use Poulsen to publicize. As Appelbaum put it: "if this situation really fell into Adrian's lap, his first and only thought would have been: how can I turn this to my advantage? He basically destroyed a 22-year-old's life in order to get his name mentioned on the Wired.com blog."

Re:"Salon" impresses me (5, Interesting)

twoallbeefpatties (615632) | more than 4 years ago | (#32620498)

He also qualifies both of those beliefs with quotes from Manning. From the quotes of Lamo's chat with Manning, it seems he believed that he actually was acting in the role of a whistleblower. He mentions his moral issues with what's going on:

Manning described the incident which first made him seriously question the U.S. war in Iraq: when he was instructed to work on the case of Iraqi "insurgents" who had been detained for distributing "insurgent" literature which, when he had it translated, turned out to be nothing more than "a scholarly critique against PM Maliki":

Maliki: i had an interpreter read it for me... and when i found out that it was a benign political critique titled "Where did the money go?" and following the corruption trail within the PM's cabinet... i immediately took that information and *ran* to the officer to explain what was going on... he didn't want to hear any of it... he told me to shut up and explain how we could assist the FPs in finding *MORE* detainees... i had always questioned the things worked, and investigated to find the truth... but that was a point where i was a *part* of something... i was actively involved in something that i was completely against...


And he was leaking it to WikiLeaks because he believed that was where it would do the most public good:

Manning: i mean what if i were someone more malicious- i could've sold to russia or china, and made bank? ...it belongs in the public domain -information should be free - it belongs in the public domain - because another state would just take advantage of the information... try and get some edge - if its out in the open... it should be a public good.

In regards to his belief that Lamo was doing it for the attention:

On May 20 -- a month ago -- Poulsen, out of nowhere, despite Lamo's not having been in the news for years, wrote a long, detailed Wired article describing serious mental health problems Lamo was experiencing... Lamo called the police, who concluded that he was experiencing such acute psychiatric distress that they had him involuntarily committed to a mental hospital for three days. That 72-hour "involuntary psychiatric hold" was then extended by a court for six more days, after which he was released to his parents' home. Lamo claimed he was diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome, a somewhat fashionable autism diagnosis which many stars in the computer world have also claimed. In that article, Poulsen also summarized Lamo's extensive hacking history. Lamo told me that, while he was in the mental hospital, he called Poulsen to tell him what happened, and then told Poulsen he could write about it for a Wired article. So starved was Lamo for some media attention that he was willing to encourage Poulsen to write about his claimed psychiatric problems if it meant an article in Wired that mentioned his name.

It was just over two weeks after writing about Lamo's Asperger's, depression and hacking history that Poulsen, along with Kim Zetter, reported that PFC Manning had been detained, after, they said, he had "contacted former hacker Adrian Lamo late last month over instant messenger and e-mail." Lamo told me that Manning first emailed him on May 20 and, according to highly edited chat logs released by Wired, had his first online chat with Manning on May 21; in other words, Manning first contacted Lamo the very day that Poulsen's Wired article on Lamo's involuntary commitment appeared (the Wired article is time-stamped 5:46 p.m. on May 20).

Many of the bizarre aspects of this case, at least as conveyed by Lamo and Wired, are self-evident. Why would a 22-year-old Private in Iraq have unfettered access to 250,000 pages of diplomatic cables so sensitive that they "could do serious damage to national security?" Why would he contact a total stranger, whom he randomly found from a Twitter search, in order to "quickly" confess to acts that he knew could send him to prison for a very long time, perhaps his whole life? And why would he choose to confess over the Internet, in an unsecured, international AOL IM chat, given the obvious ease with which that could be preserved, intercepted or otherwise surveilled? These are the actions of someone either unbelievably reckless or actually eager to be caught. ...the apparent ease with which Manning quickly spilled his guts in such painstaking detail over an Internet chat concerning such serious crimes -- and then proceeded to respond to Lamo's very specific and probing interrogations over days without ever once worrying that he could not trust Lamo -- is strange in the extreme.


I mean, who told you that Manning isn't a heroic whistleblower? I'm not saying they're right or wrong, but the most of what we know is what the military's told us (he's a criminal!), what Wikileaks has told us (he's a hero!), and what's in these chat logs. It's well-known that Greenwald is a harsh critic of the military in general, both against the current and the previous administrations, but he's not just offering empty punditry here - he's putting out a lot of references and discussion of what's happened. I'd agree with him that Wired should release the full unedited chat log.

Re:"Salon" impresses me (1)

jonnat (1168035) | more than 4 years ago | (#32620786)

Whether Manning committed a crime or not is not the main issue. Most whistle-blowers are either committing a crime or breaking a contract. That's why they must be protected from prosecution.

The main issue is that we, as citizens, should always strive to get more information about our government's and corporations' actions and Lamo's self-serving betrayal will likely have a negative effect on that goal.

Re:"Salon" impresses me (0)

mysidia (191772) | more than 4 years ago | (#32620720)

Hm... wouldn't we normally call it entrapment if an agent of the government coerces a confession under false pretense, and represents to the defendant they will have rights or protections that they will not?

A well deserved name. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32620252)

I assume that his name is pronounced "lame-o."

P.S. This is the proper way to not out yourself online to a hacker.

Oh dear (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32620274)

the american society is in serious breakdown. Unfortunately, it will drag down most of western society.

The Americans are so self centred and introverted, they will commit patricide for purely save face.

Hint

>Will you dig a hole for me? You get 50% of what you find.

Yah, great idea mate!

>OK, dig here

So you want us to use american expertise and resourses?
>YEP

OK, 50%, right?

>yep

this is deep

>your problem

WRONG- THE WORLDS PROBLEM.

Re:Oh dear (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32620350)

correction:
this is derp

Re:Oh dear (3, Insightful)

dangitman (862676) | more than 4 years ago | (#32620804)

The Americans are so self centred and introverted, they will commit patricide for purely save face.

Unlike the pure, upstanding people from every other country on earth, who would never dream of doing such things? It's not just Americans who suck, it's people in general.

lame-o (0, Offtopic)

dhalsim2 (626618) | more than 4 years ago | (#32620296)

I bet that lameo Lamo is LMAO.

Where's Q when you need him? (1)

Vinegar Joe (998110) | more than 4 years ago | (#32620302)

If you want to play James Bond, you have to expect to run into Blofeld every now and then.

That article makes no sense. (1)

paxcoder (1222556) | more than 4 years ago | (#32620436)

Lamo told Manning he could provide protection under both journalist shield laws, and the clergy-lay confidentiality tradition

What? Since when is this guy a priest journalist?
I don't get it

Re:That article makes no sense. (1)

retchdog (1319261) | more than 4 years ago | (#32620872)

nearly anyone, if not anyone, can be ordained [themonastery.org] at Universal Life for free and with no special requirements. I don't know if this would actually hold up, but yeah, it'd probably be enough to convince an aspie.

Lamo Outed a Felon (1)

MarkvW (1037596) | more than 4 years ago | (#32620466)

Big wow.

Lamo caught a felon. Who cares if his motives reveal him to be just a lowlife?

Re:Lamo Outed a Felon (1)

baka_toroi (1194359) | more than 4 years ago | (#32620668)

You must be one of those who think the law is the moral compass one should be guided by.

jabs between Poulsen and Greenwald on Twitter (1)

amanicdroid (1822516) | more than 4 years ago | (#32620566)

ggreenwald: Good Gawker post on Wired's concealment of the Lamo-Manning chat logs: [is.gd] kpoulsen: @ggreenwald I'm supposed to take journalistic ethics lessons from Gawker? Pass ggreenwald: @kpoulsen No - you should explain whether the claims Adrian made about his chat that don't appear in your published logs are in them ggreenwald: @kpoulsen And you should release the parts you're concealing that don't reveal harmful national security secrets or very personal issues

Now with tags! (2, Informative)

amanicdroid (1822516) | more than 4 years ago | (#32620636)

ggreenwald: Good Gawker post on Wired's concealment of the Lamo-Manning chat logs: [is.gd]

kpoulsen: @ggreenwald I'm supposed to take journalistic ethics lessons from Gawker? Pass

ggreenwald: @kpoulsen No - you should explain whether the claims Adrian made about his chat that don't appear in your published logs are in them

ggreenwald: @kpoulsen And you should release the parts you're concealing that don't reveal harmful national security secrets or very personal issues

Adrian Lamo was a known quantity (1)

Ninja Programmer (145252) | more than 4 years ago | (#32620586)

Unfortunately it seems Julian Asange and Pvt. Manning did not know Adrian Lamo's history. He's already on an FBI watch list, and his previous encounters with hacker activities basically turned him into an "outed hacker". Such people can make careers as counter-intrusion consultants (Phiber Optik, Kevin Mitcnick) or as Journalists/radio personalities (Bernie S, Kevin Poulsen). But they *cannot* go back to grey or black hat hacking, and anything along those lines. They are being watched too carefully. On his interview on the "Off the Hook" radio show, Adrian Lamo was unusually regretful and capitulant when he got "caught" intruding into people's systems. He made no attempt to defend his actions. This should have been the first clue that this guy was basically a state actor or something of that nature. Given how effective WikiLeaks has been, it is shocking to me that they were so lax in security as to allow someone like Adrian Lamo anywhere near their crown jewels. Now Manning is going to be a fall guy, and iterpol/the FBI has a ridiculous premise for subpoenaing Julian Asange. This whole cock up sucks so much ass. Why did Julian Asange feel the need to go public? Why did they trust some outed hacker? Along with cryptome.org, Wikileaks has been *such* an important resource for free speech and open society movements everywhere. I sincerely hope that it does go down in flames from all this crap.

Re:Adrian Lamo was a known quantity (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32620756)

You didn't follow the story. Wikileaks has no relation to Lamo at all. They didn't give him any access to anything. Wikileaks had no idea who submitted the videos. Manning told Lamo he submitted the videos. Wikileaks wasn't involved. Assange didn't go public with anything. The "scandal" is that Lamo may have lied to Manning and told him that their conversation was confidential and then gone and used it anyway.

Re:Adrian Lamo was a known quantity (1)

dangitman (862676) | more than 4 years ago | (#32620866)

Wikileaks has been *such* an important resource for free speech and open society movements everywhere. I sincerely hope that it does go down in flames from all this crap.

Wait, what? Wikileaks is important for free speech and open societies, so you hope it goes down in flames? That doesn't really compute, unless you hate free speech and open societies and consider them the enemy.

Adrian Douchebag (0, Redundant)

Favonius Cornelius (1691688) | more than 4 years ago | (#32620630)

Let us indeed remember Adrian, as the colossal dillhole he is.

Not really suprised (0, Troll)

lamo is a bitch (1836854) | more than 4 years ago | (#32620692)

Lamo has always been a little bitch and only claims to be a hacker to try and get some street cred. He doesn't really know the first thing about hacking or how to write a really good article. I'm sad that Manning left himself open to be such a target to such a Lamo.

Binary Boy appears to be an idiot (1)

harlows_monkeys (106428) | more than 4 years ago | (#32620716)

wannabe hacker Adrian Lamo

Even a cursory glance at Lamo's history will show he's not a "wannabe" hacker. He was and is a quite accomplished and successful (except for getting caught) hacker.

Re:Binary Boy appears to be an idiot (0, Redundant)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 4 years ago | (#32620880)

The depends entirely on your definition of "hacker." Lamo is a "hacker" in the Hollywood sense, sure: he is able to quickly find flaws in security systems. Real hackers, though, refer to such a person as a "cracker," in the sense that they crack security; a "hacker" is someone who is a computer or electronics enthusiast.

Of course, Lamo was demonized just the same. It would not have mattered if his attack actually involved writing code, the mainstream media would have printed exactly the same stories about him.

Why did he need "Limo" in the first place? (5, Insightful)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#32620800)

I mean, really: Protip:
1. Go to some Internet café and upload everything to a "free homepage", "online hard drive" or similar service.
2. Go to another Internet café and post the link to a couple of forums that Wikileaks people frequent, saying that you just found it on that homepage trough a random google search.
3. Watch how after you leave the computer at the Internet cafés, they get wiped and overwritten with a disk image.
4. Watch dozens of customers use the same PC in the next hours/days, making it impossible to know by the fingerprints or by asking the people there, who actually did the upload or posts.
5. WIN!

adriana lima oops! i means adrian lamo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32621014)

I know Lamo, he's one of my Facebook buddies.
All i have to say is, He's a hacker, aren't all hackers about placating there ego as much as possible without getting in trouble?

In summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32621136)

Lamo is a lame-o

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>