Wired Responds In Manning Chat Log Controversy 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."
yeah. well done. (Score:2, Insightful)
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. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
This is what Wikileaks is all about (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
The thing is... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Truth, lies, chat logs... and profit levels (Score:5, Insightful)
We want to see the documents. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And that's what's wrong! (Score:4, Insightful)
isn't that the same reason why wikileaks hasn't released all of the cables? hypocrite much?
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Careful word play by Wired (Score:2, Insightful)
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:Have you considered the possibility... (Score:2, Insightful)
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:Truth, lies, chat logs... and profit levels (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:Have you considered the possibility... (Score:5, Insightful)
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
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... (Score:4, Insightful)
Ah, the good ol' days, when we waited for organized, serial-crime-committing-organizations to commit yet another crims, and then lashed out with a posse and a mass lynching because we were pretty sure we had the right guys, and what the heck, stringing up half a dozen guys who look guilty is a good deterrent anyway, right?
Do you know any history at all? Covert agents, working to enforce the law, go back thousands of years. Why? Because criminals are sneaky, and organized criminals are often even better at it. And when you think that an organization with a history of committing crimes is going to commit another one, you want to prevent it from doing so, and figure out who all the players - not just the foot soldiers you catch in the act - are.
Or what of protecting people who testify by successfully jailing all those criminal elements who seek to do them harm?
And you were planning on doing this how, exactly, without knowing in advancec who all of those people are, where they operate, how they move themselves and their resources around specifically to evade capture, etc? Reality doesn't want to comply with your tidy solution.
Relying on secrets to keep these things safe is the same as putting a password on a stick note. Just plain stupid.
By your logic, that means that there should be no passwords, just like there should be no encryption and no un-announced health inspections, or un-announced movements of nuclean materials. Just line a few hundred miles of roadways with thousands of troops! A much better idea, no question.
Re:yeah. well done. (Score:5, Insightful)
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...
Who says Wired needs to have a stance on the matter at all? This might be before your time, but journalism used to be about telling a story, not selling an opinion.