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!

Wired Responds In Manning Chat Log Controversy

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the rumbling-grumbling dept.

Privacy 222

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."

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

And this ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34697440)

... is the difference between journalism and what Assange does.

Well done Wired.

yeah. well done. (1, Insightful)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34697462)

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 [wikipedia.org]

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'.

Re:yeah. well done. (3, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#34697482)

Protecting the interests of their private masters? Okay, now look. Just forget all that shit about the enemy of my enemy, or the friend of my enemy, and just recognize that you should applaud the laudable and decry that which should be cried over. Wired is here seeking to strike a blow for journalistic integrity and they should be supported in the same.

If you want to complain, complain about how the comment is not supported by the article. In it, Wired or its staff utterly fail to take a stance on Assange's actions at all, because that's not what it's about. By responding to this particular coward you are only applying more scrutiny to his comment.

Re:yeah. well done. (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34697620)

Protecting the interests of their private masters? Okay, now look. Just forget all that shit about the enemy of my enemy, or the friend of my enemy, and just recognize that you should applaud the laudable and decry that which should be cried over. Wired is here seeking to strike a blow for journalistic integrity and they should be supported in the same.

oh no, i cant. because that 'decent journalism' always kicks in at the time a corporate publication needs to protect the interest of their masters.

Re:yeah. well done. (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#34697654)

All I know about Wired is that they produce more articles worth reading than most other outlets with which I am familiar. (I did read the list of sibling companies. So that's slightly hyperbolic.)

Re:yeah. well done. (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#34697872)

Really? I had thought their stuff was pretty generic and written for the "mass market". Granted, I last cracked open a Wired magazine many years ago...which means it has not only been a while, but I was quite a bit younger then too.

Hmm...maybe I'll give them a second chance...still won't be a substitute for Byte, though. Greatest magazine in the history of life.

Re:yeah. well done. (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#34697938)

Really? I had thought their stuff was pretty generic and written for the "mass market".

Most of what's in wired is a bunch of crap. Usually there is one decent article per issue. This differs from most other magazines I've picked up in that most of the time there are zero decent articles. I'm over buying magazines, though. There is no reason to pay for content on paper unless you need the paper.

Re:yeah. well done. (1)

BobMcD (601576) | more than 3 years ago | (#34698966)

They could be the embodiment of Christ himself by measurement of their good works and it would still be wrong for them to succumb to external pressure from their owners or the government.

Have you considered the possibility... (2, Insightful)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 3 years ago | (#34697670)

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.

Re:Have you considered the possibility... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34697720)

state secrets is something to be determined by a court, not by the government or by an individual. with that said, if it's a state secret it probably should be released.
making manning look worse is just a statement made by you, and not validated anywhere.
obviously it's relevant. it's the fucking chat log, dooofus.

how about that releasing the full text might get other people in trouble, duh. There are reasons not to release this. for you, you're 0/3 and none of your reasons are correct.

a REAL reason would be such as: this could identify informants, etc.

Re:Have you considered the possibility... (1, Insightful)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 3 years ago | (#34697828)

if it's a state secret it probably should be released

If this is your take on it, you're a lost cause. You cannot run counter-intelligence, diplomatic missions, counter-terror operations, law enforcement, nuclear power plants, and a lot of other things without the ability to keep some documents out of the hands of bad actors. Your contention that there probably should be no state secrets shows you to be either a juvenile troll, or a completely naive person who should wait a few years, talk to a lot more people, and think things through before yammering on topics about which you're clearly clueless.

Re:Have you considered the possibility... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34697904)

The people are the state in a democracy. If you keep secrets from the people, then you are living in a fascist state, not a democracy.

And no. Governments don't need secrets to operate. They can do everything 100% legal and above board and get along just fine.

Re:Have you considered the possibility... (4, Insightful)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 3 years ago | (#34698080)

Governments don't need secrets to operate

Ah. So, the identity of an undercover cop who is working to bust up an organized crime operation - that should be public, right? The location and identity of people in witness protection programs - definitely public need-to-know, right?

The timing and routes of shipments of nuclear materials - definitely something that should be easily Googled in advance, right? Encryption keys used to secure communications by South Korea as they coordinate their efforts to be ready in case North Korea tries to sink another of their ships ... absolutely no need to keep any of that secret, obviously?

The government employment records, including household/family details, of the people who work with everything from smallpox to anthrax in NIH, NIST, military, CDC, and related labs? Definitely something that should be run past Julian Assange, for his personal decision on whether it should be public, right? The number of, and location of each shipment in the nation's strategic bauxite reserve system, and the purchase plans that foreign commodity manipulators would love to know? Definitely something that should be published overseas right before checks are written, right?

Re:Have you considered the possibility... (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 3 years ago | (#34698358)

Please mod parent up. I think most people have been approaching this subject with very simplistic views that government secrets are always inherently bad. In reality, we want our government to be open and honest to us on major policy, but there is a real need for government secrets on a number of issues.

Re:Have you considered the possibility... (1)

X.25 (255792) | more than 3 years ago | (#34698366)

Ah. So, the identity of an undercover cop who is working to bust up an organized crime operation - that should be public, right? The location and identity of people in witness protection programs - definitely public need-to-know, right?

I am not sure if you are naturally dumb or too much TV made you the way you are, but undercover cops or witness-protection programs have nothing in common with government's need for secrecy.

I know it's hard concept to grasp, but try to make distinction between a law-enforcement agency and a government "business".

Re:Have you considered the possibility... (1)

blizz017 (1617063) | more than 3 years ago | (#34698826)

Out of all that, that's the one thing in his post you wanted to highlight? Really is it that hard of a concept to swap out 'LEO busting organized crime'' and put 'Intelligence Agent undercover in foreign terror cell' or shit even a 'LEO undercover inside domestic terror cell'. This distinction between 'Law-enforcement agency' and 'Government business' isn't as clear cut as you'd like it to be; in fact the lines are highly highly blurred. But you know that's because Law enforcement is apart of the government. You did realize that right?

Re:Have you considered the possibility... (2)

Americano (920576) | more than 3 years ago | (#34698920)

I'm pretty certain that "law enforcement" is a subset of "the government," specifically, part of the Executive branch.

You might also want to consider that 'undercover cops' are often FBI agents, because... wait for it... they're part of the executive branch, and they people they're gathering evidence against would likely be prosecuted under Federal RICO statutes.

So, would you please outline for us the difference in your mind between "law enforcement" and "the government," then?

And to underscore: The military is commanded by the executive branch of the federal government; The diplomats report to the State Department, which is also part of the executive branch of the federal government; The FBI, and other domestic law enforcement agencies, are part of the executive branches of their respective government bodies (federal, state, or local). I'm keen to hear what you see as the difference between "law enforcement agency secrets" and "government secrets," as the only difference I can see is that one is simply a broader category that includes the other.

In other words: all law-enforcement agency secrets are government secrets, but not all government secrets are law-enforcement agency secrets. And you have still not demonstrated that there is no compelling need for government, in general, and law-enforcement, in specific, to keep secrets, other than your trite bit of naive hand-waving above.

Re:Have you considered the possibility... (1)

mark99 (459508) | more than 3 years ago | (#34698898)

Agree completely. I think Assange is at the very least guilty of gross breach of many people's privacy.
I hope everyone who had documents exposted to the world that they considered private communications between them and the parties that they communicate them too sue the guy.
I would be so pissed if he had done this to me personally. And I imagine practically everone on slashdot would think the same if it happened to them. It is just that most people forget that governments have actual people working in them.

Re:Have you considered the possibility... (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 3 years ago | (#34698882)

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?

It's rediculous to claim that Wired could not
1. Add anything new to the story and
2. Redact personal information about Manning in order to shed more light on the situation/Lamo's comments

I'm sure Wired has a reason for sitting on the logs, but I doubt it has anything to do with protecting Manning's privacy or the logs' lack of relevancy.

Re:Have you considered the possibility... (4, Informative)

rudy_wayne (414635) | more than 3 years ago | (#34698944)

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.

You have completely missed the point. Just like Wired completely avoided the point in their lengthy response.

Adrian Lamo has made many public statements about what was said by Bradley Manning in their chats. But many of the things Lamo claims do not appear in any of the chat logs that Wired has published. No one is asking Wired to publish "state secrets" or information that is "not relevant" or "not newsworthy". What people DO what to see is the portions of the chat logs which are referenced by Adrian Lamo in the public statements he has made.. A little confirmation that maybe what he is saying is true, especially since he has made some contradictory statements.

Not only has Wired refused to publish those portions of the chat logs which relate to public statements made by Lamo, they refuse to answer a simple question, like "Adrian Lamo said _________ . Is that actually in chat logs. Yes or No."

Re:yeah. well done. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34697802)

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 [wikipedia.org] 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'.

Agreed - and thanks for saving me the time to find a possible explanation for Wireds' lame defence. Why should I be surprised when they seem to make shit up just to tear it down, then strut about as if they actually done something clever (Obama gives America to the Indians)

Wireds' story didn't look too suss *until* I read the article they were rebutting *and* did a little research on the questions Greenwald raised about Vigilant.

So Lamo liked cracking into sites for lolz - no surprise there. His decision to bait and dob in Manning will ultimately decide his fate - 'not' that I'm the sort of person who would glad-wrap the cunt if I got the chance, but there might be one or two others that might. History will decide whether Manning did the right thing - not a military tribunal, and not a media distorted public court. Lamo and Poulsen have chosen their side, and if there is any justice, they will be forever condemned for the spineless scumbags they are.

Just saying...

Re:yeah. well done. (1)

Dishevel (1105119) | more than 3 years ago | (#34698362)

make comments like 'now, this is journalism'.

The neat thing here is your use of quotes surrounding a statement never made by the GP. That coupled with the idiocy spewed forth from your keyboard luckily points out that future comments by you be readily ignored.

Re:And this ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34697556)

No a journalist protects his sources, he doesn't turn them in.

Re:And this ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34697616)

For the love of christ, we had this same bullshit in comments for the last story. If you can't keep the people straight, don't fucking post. Lamo, who does not work for Wired, turned in Manning. Paulson, who does work for Wired, got the info from Lamo and reported on it. No one who works for Wired has turned anyone in. Lamo did not request anonymity, so there were no ethical implications to Wired giving his name as the source, Lamo actually requested it.

This just in... (2)

DWMorse (1816016) | more than 3 years ago | (#34697460)

This just in: rape charges in foreign nation against Wired's editor-in-chief Evan Hansen have been dropped! =P

This is what Wikileaks is all about (4, Insightful)

arcite (661011) | more than 3 years ago | (#34697510)

The conspiracy of those in power enables them to control the status quo. Expose the conspiracy of those in power and common citizens have the possibility to change the system (they gain the knowledge of the conspiracy and are empowered by that knowledge).

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.

We want to see the documents. (5, Insightful)

h00manist (800926) | more than 3 years ago | (#34697568)

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.

Re:This is what Wikileaks is all about (2)

Anon-Admin (443764) | more than 3 years ago | (#34698042)

And people called me crazy and a nut when I said "A government run by the people and for the people should not be allowed to keep secrets from the people"

The thing is... (5, Insightful)

killmenow (184444) | more than 3 years ago | (#34697512)

'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.

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.

Re:The thing is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34697712)

After all, you're entitled to that.

Re:The thing is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34698336)

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.

I think this is a bizarre statement. Whether or not you agree with the Wired's editorial staff, they don't actually _owe_ the public anything (whatever your moral and/or ethical bent may be). They're private journalists working for a company.

There may be an argument that that government secrets should be available to the people (one I don't agree with), but where is the logic that non-governmental entities should spill information out for public review just because you feel entitled to it? Other than the fact that it's easier to pressure a business than it is to lean on the government?

Grammar (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34697520)

Wikileaks'

Wikileaks's

There are not more than one "Wikileak". There is just one "Wikileaks".

No, it is not a matter of style; it is a matter of logic.

Truth, lies, chat logs... and profit levels (5, Insightful)

h00manist (800926) | more than 3 years ago | (#34697522)

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.

Re:Truth, lies, chat logs... and profit levels (2, Insightful)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 3 years ago | (#34697900)

away from people's needs and interests

If you think that the innovation that hires people, increases standards of living, enables previously impossible forms of communication, and which trickles into everything from medical care to energy production is "away from people's needs and interests," then you're ... an idiot. I know it truly, truly bothers you that it's possible for someone to actually earn a living while doing something that other people want and need without doing so under the benevolent direction of someone like yourself, but ... get over it. While you're wringing your hands over a business's need to generate the income that employs its staff, pays for its bandwidth, etc., they're actually out there doing things. And if you don't like them, it doesn't cost you anything ... as opposed to what you seem to prefer: that they follow your personal editorial direction, instead of those that dedicate some of their own resources (money) in supporting Wired's editorial stance. You've already chosen not to do business with them. Great. Who have you chosen to pay to write things for you? Why aren't you talking about them, instead?

Re:Truth, lies, chat logs... and profit levels (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34698264)

You've already chosen not to do business with them. Great. Who have you chosen to pay to write things for you? Why aren't you talking about them, instead?

I hope you do manage to notice that Wired is the subject of the Slashdot piece here. Also, I get the impression that you feel that the guy you were responding to has some kind of need to provide an "alternative" if he wants to trash Wired. That's ridiculous.

As for paying for Wired isn't that like paying for a "slashvertorial"? Since Wired whores out subs at like under $10 per annum I would guess that all the ADVERTISERS (many of whom undoubtedly are also giant fucking corporations) are the one paying the writers. Hack bullshit at its worst.

Re:Truth, lies, chat logs... and profit levels (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34698400)

And if you don't like them, it doesn't cost you anything

There is nothing that is truly free of externalities, personal loss of a preferred magazine (a real cost to him, no matter if you choose to marginalize his opinion or not) there is also their effect on public opinion of tech fields. Whether that effect is good or bad, you can't just deny that it exists, so that line's bullshit.

as opposed to what you seem to prefer: that they follow your personal editorial direction, instead of those that dedicate some of their own resources (money) in supporting Wired's editorial stance.

Cut the fucking doublethink, he was one of those supporting Wired's editorial stance, you deride his opinion as "personal editorial direction", yet it is principally no different from the people who you seem to applaud, they just happen to be louder (and probably more numerous as well). Either way, OP was doing what you seem to approve of, so that argument doesn't hold water eiter.

You've already chosen not to do business with them. Great.

Not doing business with someone isn't enough if you actually want to affect things with your choices in who to deal with, making them know is important, making others who might share your ideas and follow your lead can actually be effective. That is what public discourse is all about. Wired is out there doing things (like responding to criticism)? Like it or not, so is OP.

Who have you chosen to pay to write things for you? Why aren't you talking about them, instead?

And finally the sweet irony of someone criticizing another's critique on the grounds that it is critique. If you don't like people bitching about things, DON'T.

Bullshit Bullshit Bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34698458)

"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]

Re:Truth, lies, chat logs... and profit levels (1)

Steauengeglase (512315) | more than 3 years ago | (#34698482)

Take out the populism and I think the GP's complaint is that Wired is pretty much the tech equivalent of Time magazine. It is not awful, but it isn't that great either.

Re:Truth, lies, chat logs... and profit levels (1)

h00manist (800926) | more than 3 years ago | (#34698756)

I run a business and pay salaries and costs and buy things and sell things. I know how it works. That doesn't mean I think businesses are out there to produce good service, good product or good social policy or laws. You think the primary concern of businesses and corporations are people's needs, and not profit? And that the need for increasing profits, for satisfying investors, loans, paying bills, is not a business direct, constant pressure to cut costs, increase prices, and market illusion instead of truth? The primary purpose of any company is to find things as cheap as possible, add as little as possible, and sell it for as much as possible, as many as possible. So we have a society where everything is expensive, because that's the idea. Every business says "clients first", of course. But only while the client brings money, then only until there is another with more money. Go to any country where there is basically no law, and see what kind of society business builds all by itself. Do many businesses build useful things and service? Yes. Is that the primary concern? No. It's income, expense, profit level. Want a good business? High client demand? An excellent business investment? High income entertainment services. Quality products. Excellent service. Home delivery. Drugs, alcohol and prostitution, for example, can be all those. Some legal liability must be calculated, that's all. Business isn't social nirvana. The "Greed is good" party ended a while ago, even if nobody's left yet. We're just waiting for the Wall St fat lady to sing, so we can move on to some other society, even if nobody quite knows what it will look like.

Re:Truth, lies, chat logs... and profit levels (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 3 years ago | (#34698416)

You haven't read it in a decade, but you're sure you know what the content is? And that is insightful?

http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/magazine/17-10/ff_smartlist [wired.com]

I've honestly read more revolutionary ideas in Wired the past few years than anywhere else. And while I generally don't care for dead-tree editions of anything, I gladly pay $10 a year to help keep Wired a float.

Grammar (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34697546)

Wikileaks'

Wikileaks's

There are not more than one "Wikileak". There is just one "Wikileaks".

And that's what's wrong! (2)

david.emery (127135) | more than 3 years ago | (#34697548)

'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".)

Re:And that's what's wrong! (3, Insightful)

js3 (319268) | more than 3 years ago | (#34697608)

isn't that the same reason why wikileaks hasn't released all of the cables? hypocrite much?

Re:And that's what's wrong! (5, Interesting)

Troed (102527) | more than 3 years ago | (#34697692)

No. Wikileaks has realised since earlier big leaks that releasing everything at once causes information overflow and the individual atrocities don't get enough attention.

Releasing the cables over a prolonged period of time allows press coverage, discussion and digestion.

In Sweden we're currently somewhat disturbed by the Wikileaks-revealed fact that several laws having been imposed on us during the last few years were dictated by the US, with a threat of sanctions if we didn't implement them even though it was known the populace weren't in favor.

That's info from one single cable.

Re:And that's what's wrong! (2)

js3 (319268) | more than 3 years ago | (#34697738)

I don't buy this logic. If truth should be free then it should not be held hostage as someones insurance, or for attention whoring.. if truth should be free then release all of it now or you're a hypocrite like everyone else.

Re:And that's what's wrong! (3, Interesting)

Troed (102527) | more than 3 years ago | (#34697814)

They've released it all to the participating old media magazines, and apparently other have access as well*. The logic, which you don't buy, is also based on earlier observations and thus can be said to be based in fact. It also seems those who have access to all of them believe the reasoning to be sound since no one has dumped them all yet.

*) http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704278404576038170585686718.html [wsj.com]

Re:And that's what's wrong! (-1, Flamebait)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 3 years ago | (#34697954)

individual atrocities don't get enough attention

True. It's important that when Assange decides it's a good idea to reveal the identity of an important Iranian political protester, that the Mullahs' regime gets plenty of undistracted time to round up him and his family. Yes, Assange has been the very picture of thoughtfulness as he participates in the dissemination of such constructive information. It's so nice to know that an attention-whoring weasle like himself is the arbitor of what should be secret (like how is organization pays people, and how it provides server space to people like Manning during the theft of a quarter million documents) and what should not be (like the methods used to combat organizations that like to burn teachers alive for the intolerable sin of teaching girls to read).

Re:And that's what's wrong! (1)

Troed (102527) | more than 3 years ago | (#34698014)

I'm curious. Why do you post lies? What would be your motivation?

Re:And that's what's wrong! (1)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 3 years ago | (#34698176)

I'm curious. Why do you post lies?

I don't. I used these specific examples because they were in one of the early releases of the diplomatic cables that Assange decided to publish. If I wanted to make something up, it would have been different.

Stolen embassy cables identifying a key Iranian political protest organizer? Check! Released by Assange.

Stolen embassy cables detailing arrangements made to fight AQ in Yemen? Check! Released by Assange.

Details on Wikileaks' funding, and their choices of how and when to compensate people who work with them? Check! Kept secret, by Assange.

What would be your motivation?

I think the better question would be, what's your motivation for pretending those things aren't true?

Re:And that's what's wrong! (1)

Troed (102527) | more than 3 years ago | (#34698220)

Several news organizations have access to all cables, and decide themselves what to release and when. That's why your post was false.

Your second post makes completely different claims. Again, I'm curious as to what you believe that will accomplish.

Re:And that's what's wrong! (1)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 3 years ago | (#34698988)

Several news organizations have access to all cables, and decide themselves what to release and when. That's why your post was false.

So, you're saying that Assange's specific, deliberate decision to provide the stolen documents to publishers means he has no hand in it? That the leaks he publishes on WikiLeaks aren't something that the people at WikiLeaks decide to publish?

I'm curious as to what you believe that will accomplish

Accomplish? It's what I want to counter-accomplish. Assange has accomplished the building of a reputation with certain people as a heroic, all-knowing vetter of government activities as being worthy of disclosure or not. I'm pointing out that that reputation is a fiction, and that he's more interested in his public persona than he is in the consequences of his actions.

citation needed (1)

killmenow (184444) | more than 3 years ago | (#34698386)

...when Assange decides it's a good idea to reveal the identity of an important Iranian political protester...

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.

Re:citation needed (1)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 3 years ago | (#34698930)

Assange is completely coy about this. Oh, so careful to redact names! But how many sources for intelligence about Iran and the protest movements there are (per Assange's deliberately leaked documents) British-educated engineers from a prominent pre-revolution Isfahan family that owned a large Iranian factory and were once Iranian national fencing champion and former president of the Iran Fencing Association, and former vice-president of an Azerbaijan sports association? The Iranian regime may be medieval about some things, but even they can put two and two together with information like that. Thanks, Julian!

Re:And that's what's wrong! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34697992)

I'd be interested to know which laws were implemented.

Re:And that's what's wrong! (3, Informative)

Troed (102527) | more than 3 years ago | (#34698058)

In Swedish by the Pirate Party European Parliament representative: http://christianengstrom.wordpress.com/2010/12/23/foliehatten-av-for-sveriges-marionettregering/ [wordpress.com]

Short summary in English by the Pirate Party: http://www.piratpartiet.se/cables-us-driving-swedish-data-retention [piratpartiet.se]

Re:And that's what's wrong! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34698112)

If I were from Sweden, I'd be much more concerned about the fact that the rest of the world sees your country as a pliant chute through which the US obtains foreigners for its torture chambers. At least the UK has some courage in standing up to the US. You guys are so ready to hand over people to be tortured that you've become complicit in the act.

Re:And that's what's wrong! (5, Informative)

Troed (102527) | more than 3 years ago | (#34698154)

In reality, once we found that out we put a stop to it. Since the US apparently lied to us, we had to find it out ourselves:

Confirmation that the planes were transporting prisoners came in April 2006 after a daring “surveillance operation” was ordered by Swedish security service Säpo and carried out without the knowledge of the Americans.

On Säpo’s orders, Swedish military intelligence agents dressed up as airport service personnel and boarded the plane. The agents reported back that the plane was carrying prisoners.

[---]

no more secret American prisoner transports have landed in Sweden since 2006

http://www.thelocal.se/30626/20101205/ [thelocal.se]

(This story verified by Wikileaks cable releases)

Actually (2)

killmenow (184444) | more than 3 years ago | (#34697614)

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.

Re:And that's what's wrong! (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 3 years ago | (#34697640)

The thing is, reporters that refuse to divulge information to protect the rich and powerful often win their cases and successfully protect the rich and powerful. For instance, Judith Miller [wikipedia.org] , who by all appearances was trying to protect somebody in the vice-president's office (possibly Scooter Libby, possibly somebody else that Libby took the fall for).

So it's safe to say that Hansen is trying to protect somebody, and using this as a lame excuse.

Re:And that's what's wrong! (2)

Sonny Yatsen (603655) | more than 3 years ago | (#34697664)

You don't see how it might set a bad precedent allowing government to seize evidence held by news organizations and journalists?

Re:And that's what's wrong! (1)

david.emery (127135) | more than 3 years ago | (#34697678)

What's more important, the law or individual journalist's opinions of their own self-worth?

There is 200 years of law & court decisions on this topic in the US.

Re:And that's what's wrong! (4, Informative)

Sonny Yatsen (603655) | more than 3 years ago | (#34697776)

I'm an attorney and I say [citation needed].

Despite the fact that I carry no burden of proof to show you're full of it, I will cite you this:

42 USC 2000aa - Privacy Protection Act

(a) Work product materials
Notwithstanding any other law, it shall be unlawful for a government officer or employee, in connection with the investigation or prosecution of a criminal offense, to search for or seize any work product materials possessed by a person reasonably believed to have a purpose to disseminate to the public a newspaper, book, broadcast, or other similar form of public communication, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce; but this provision shall not impair or affect the ability of any government officer or employee, pursuant to otherwise applicable law, to search for or seize such materials, if—
(1) there is probable cause to believe that the person possessing such materials has committed or is committing the criminal offense to which the materials relate: Provided, however, That a government officer or employee may not search for or seize such materials under the provisions of this paragraph if the offense to which the materials relate consists of the receipt, possession, communication, or withholding of such materials or the information contained therein (but such a search or seizure may be conducted under the provisions of this paragraph if the offense consists of the receipt, possession, or communication of information relating to the national defense, classified information, or restricted data under the provisions of section 793, 794, 797, or 798 of title 18, or section 2274, 2275, or 2277 of this title, or section 783 of title 50, or if the offense involves the production, possession, receipt, mailing, sale, distribution, shipment, or transportation of child pornography, the sexual exploitation of children, or the sale or purchase of children under section 2251, 2251A, 2252, or 2252A of title 18); or
(2) there is reason to believe that the immediate seizure of such materials is necessary to prevent the death of, or serious bodily injury to, a human being.

Re:And that's what's wrong! (1)

MacGyver2210 (1053110) | more than 3 years ago | (#34698618)

If you think about it, realistically they violated that clause when they shut down (or demanded it of) the WikiLeaks DNS servers/site. Assange was clearly in the process/business of disseminating information in the form of a 'broadcast, or other similar form of public communication' and yet, the government didn't think twice before trying to shut him down.

Re:And that's what's wrong! (1)

Sonny Yatsen (603655) | more than 3 years ago | (#34698640)

That's not a search or a seizure and thus does not violate the text of the law.

Re:And that's what's wrong! (1)

david.emery (127135) | more than 3 years ago | (#34698986)

Thank you for the relevant citation.

Why doesn't this particular provision apply? ... but such a search or seizure may be conducted under the provisions of this paragraph if the offense consists of the receipt, possession, or communication of information relating to the national defense, classified information, or restricted data ...

We're talking about an investigation on the release of classified material to unauthorized recipients, focusing on "who", "what" and "how". IANAL, but this seems to be pretty clear to me.

Re:And that's what's wrong! (1)

Sonny Yatsen (603655) | more than 3 years ago | (#34697842)

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/2000aa.html [cornell.edu]

Here's the link to the statute.

And as far as your "200 years of law and court decisions", pretty much every lawyer and judge realizes that the Alien & Sedition law was a really bad law 200 years later.

Re:And that's what's wrong! (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#34697846)

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".)

Actually, at the heart is the risk of punishment. And really, living a life of fleeing from prosecution is just another kind of punishment. I'm tired of people suggesting you have to go to jail to be civilly disobedient.

Re:And that's what's wrong! (2)

clarkholmes (874132) | more than 3 years ago | (#34698548)

I don't know why the government should feel the need to exercise any warrant against Wired... apparently they (the FBI) have the hard drive the logs were stored on, according to TFA.

Re:And that's what's wrong! (1)

MacGyver2210 (1053110) | more than 3 years ago | (#34698560)

You seem to be confusing the cushy county lockup you may have seen after a late-night bender with Leavenworth Prison, where they send those accused/convicted without proper due process and civil rights because they chose to put their lives at risk by joining the military.

The press has a right/obligation to protect its sources - it always has, and it always should. How good for business would it be for a journalistic outlet to go "Oh hey, guess what awful government secret John Doe over here just gave me" ? They'd never get another tip or story again.

Careful word play by Wired (4, Interesting)

GreatBunzinni (642500) | more than 3 years ago | (#34697596)

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 [213.251.145.96] , 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.

Re:Careful word play by Wired (1, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#34697680)

Your attempt to conflate the two situations is ridiculous because in one case we're discussing the illegal incarceration of human beings with... what, exactly? It's asserted that Wired is being less than responsive when asked to hand over information that may be used to incriminate someone being punished for providing information needed to evaluate the state of a democracy?

This is exactly the same approach being used to assassinate the character of Julian Assange. I sure fucking hope you're getting paid for this, because otherwise you're just a useful idiot. Either way, I have detected that you are a total tool.

Re:Careful word play by Wired (1)

GreatBunzinni (642500) | more than 3 years ago | (#34698328)

You fail at reading comprehension. No one insinuated that Wired's alleged wrongdoings and unethical behaviour has any relation to the "illegal incarceration of human beings". The parallel which was pointed out between Wired's unethical mishaps and Portugal's foreign affairs minister's fuckup is that both have been responding to the series of suspicions that they are involved in unethical and even criminal acts not by denying but by simply claiming "you can't prove that", which is a convenient way to appear to claim they haven't done it while safeguarding the fact that when they are caught they can also claim that they haven't been lying.

Re:Careful word play by Wired (1)

kilfarsnar (561956) | more than 3 years ago | (#34698378)

He's not conflating anything. He is saying that Wired didn't say, "We didn't do anything wrong". They said, "Not one single fact has been brought to light suggesting Wired.com did anything wrong". Those two statements are not the same.

Anyway, the issue Glenn Greenwald raises is that Lamo has been making public statements about stuff in the chat logs that is not in the published excerpts. Lamo has changed his story a number of times. So Greenwald wants to see the rest of the chat logs to see if they back up Lamo's statements. Wired won't release them because they claim they are not relevant.

Re:Careful word play by Wired (2)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 3 years ago | (#34697762)

And notice the subtle detail: he never said they never existed, and only claimed that no one could prove they existed.

This is one of the classic versions of what Carl Bernstein described as the "non-denial denial": You don't actually say it's untrue, you just say that the intrepid reporter can't prove anything.

Re:Careful word play by Wired (1)

GreatBunzinni (642500) | more than 3 years ago | (#34698352)

That's precisely what I was referring to. Thanks for pointing it out in such a concise way.

Re:Careful word play by Wired (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34698028)

If you've watched All The President's Men, you'll recognise it as a "non-denial denial" - in other words, it's denial that means nothing.

Re:Careful word play by Wired (1)

zero0ne (1309517) | more than 3 years ago | (#34698124)

I am a bit confused, and to be honest don't feel like reading an article on Wired that is clearly 100 paragraphs too long.

Is the current common belief that Wired was the sole entity that had the chat logs and that they were served a warrant for the info at which point they coughed up the information? IE the source Wired got the info from ended up being a dead end for the US Gov't and they leaned on Wired and got what they needed?

This would mean that Wired basically gave up their source without a fight.

Re:Careful word play by Wired (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34698544)

Bollocks. If you can't bring in even ONE SINGLE FACT to bolster your claims of malfeasance, then you're full of shit and should shut the hell up.

Example: I'm claiming you're a pedophile. Nevermind there (probably) isn't any evidence out there that you are anything of the sort - but just because I decided to sling some mud your way you are now required to prove that you aren't.

Nonsense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34697598)

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?

Re:Nonsense (1)

Demonoid-Penguin (1669014) | more than 3 years ago | (#34697884)

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?

Should the logs ever actually be leaked - how suprised would you be if the unreleased material was not about Manning. Note how few points Greenwald raised that Wired addressed. Claiming the high ground of "protecting the source" after betraying the source is a scumbag act. The sort of act performed by people who may well have engineered Mannings' arrest - oh wait, that's the sort of shit "Vigilant" and duh J35t3r do.

Re:Nonsense (1)

darien.train (1752510) | more than 3 years ago | (#34698824)

Note how few points Greenwald raised that Wired addressed.

That is really the point of all this isn't it. The attitude in the Wired article should tell you everything. It's a bunch of bluster that makes Wired look petty and guilty at the same time. That to me should be the most telling part. They're dodging. Big time.

One of my favorite aspects to Greenwalds recent high-profile writings is that the targets of his questions keep shooting themselves in the foot with their responses. Michael Lind [salon.com] did this last week and I'm sure anyone who cares enough time to read through it all will find that Wired went straight down Lind's already face-palming path.

It's really a wonder to behold.

Can we get this article category reassigned? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34697618)

I'm pretty sure the conversation that is/will happen here belongs under a tinfoil hat graphic.

If only (1, Funny)

killmenow (184444) | more than 3 years ago | (#34697622)

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?

FBI (2)

andoman2000 (1755610) | more than 3 years ago | (#34697634)

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.

Re:FBI (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34697926)

Hi, I'd be interesting in understanding the contents of your post. Could you perhaps rephrase it a little?

The Critical Section (4, Interesting)

Ieshan (409693) | more than 3 years ago | (#34697656)

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.” [twitter.com]

With Manning, Greenwald adopts the polar opposite opinions. “Journalists should be about disclosing facts, not protecting anyone.” [twitter.com] 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.

Re:The Critical Section (1)

Boronx (228853) | more than 3 years ago | (#34697774)

Not really, there's no indication that Greenwald intends to go after Manning's or Lamo's personal life, so there's no equivalence here. The Assange rape story has been blown out of proportion in an effort to crucify the guy in the press. Acknowledging that is not the same as saying that the press should cover it up. Wired may be covering up important information. Acknowledging that is not the same as saying that Manning's personal life should be splashed all over the Times.

Re:The Critical Section (1)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 3 years ago | (#34697986)

Yes. Greenwald is a huge, agenda-driven, axe-grinding hypocrite on this entire topic. He wants to have it both ways, but only when and how he sees fit. Just like Assange.

You fa1l it (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34697682)

Arrogance was gains market share philosophies must FrreBSD used to eyes on the real FUCKING NUMBERS, the political mess completely before Consider worthwhile would choose to use

Let me translate for everybody. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34697866)

If we released the full chat logs it would prove that we are not telling the truth.

Glenn Greenwald = Troll (1)

jermo (1898720) | more than 3 years ago | (#34697888)

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.

Re:Glenn Greenwald = Troll (1)

darien.train (1752510) | more than 3 years ago | (#34698620)

Glenn Greenwald is just a guy that somehow got a job being a professional troll.

Consitutional lawyers have a way of being trolls against those who violate the constitution's tenants. That's kind of their job. You get a cookie.

Another theory (3, Interesting)

sean_nestor (781844) | more than 3 years ago | (#34697902)

I was at The Next Hope over the summer, where they had Adrian Lamo on a panel along with Emmanuel Goldstein, Kevin Mitnick, BernieS, and Phiber Optik, discussing the ethical issues of becoming an informant. It was obviously a pretty tense panel; Julian Assange was originally supposed to be the keynote speaker the day prior, though obviously he couldn't because by that point he was a wanted man. A lot of people had really, really harsh words for Lamo, and you had to give the guy credit for knowing that and still being willing to show up.

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.

But but... (1)

arcite (661011) | more than 3 years ago | (#34698180)

Character assassination is so much easier than dealing with the truth!

Re:Another theory (1)

thethibs (882667) | more than 3 years ago | (#34698276)

In a thread full of juvenile rotgut, a calm, reasonable voice!

Careful. If this spreads, it could change /. completely.

Re:Another theory (1)

jovius (974690) | more than 3 years ago | (#34698534)

There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what Slashdot is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.

There is another theory which states that this has already happened.

His name was... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34698694)

Kevin Poulsen, His name was Kevin Poulsen, His name was Kevin Poulsen...

Wired up douchebags. (1)

miffo.swe (547642) | more than 3 years ago | (#34698718)

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.

What a beatdown it is to read /. sometimes (1)

C_Kode (102755) | more than 3 years ago | (#34698860)

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?

Hypocrites (1)

pleasegetreal (744605) | more than 3 years ago | (#34698896)

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.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?