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."
This just in... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Poulsen? Hansen? They sound like Swedish names to me...
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.
We want to see the documents. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Indeed. And in fact there's much support for this in the law already. Things like FOIA and the Presidential Records Act echo this exact same sentiment. The one advantage Wikileaks has is timeliness. Could you imagine how different our culture might be if Watergate were suppressed by the government? We the people can no longer believe that the government is able to be trusted. We must now demand access to the records, and the ledgers, and the Oval Office recordings.
And if you're in the employ of the go
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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"
This!
I suggest an Amendment that requires every single government agent to behave as though under oath whenever they are 'on the clock'. Every single statement made, every document filed, every everything is subject to the identical metrics and penalties as carried under perjury.
Let's end the lies, shall we?
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.
Their position is inaccurate (Score:4, Informative)
One of the key complaints by Greenwald is that Wired redacted parts that did not contain "sensitive personal information". The Washington Post and BoingBoing have either full or partial copies of the logs and have published sections that Wired did not include. And guess what... they extra parts they published aren't sensitive personal information.
Firedog Lake put together a merged transcript of what has been published so far and you can decide for yourself whether Wired should have redacted it. I believe most of the relevant part is from May 22.
http://firedoglake.com/merged-manning-lamo-chat-logs/ [firedoglake.com]
I believe Greenwald is also asserting that Lamo has been making claims that are not substantiated by the logs that have been released. One key claim has to do with whether or not Assange provided assistance to Manning in obtaining the classified documents. Greenwald's article states Lamo said:
"Manning explicitly told him in these chats that he had help from Assange and from WikiLeaks 'intermediaries' in Boston."
That's important because the government is trying to build a conspiracy case against Assange. The logs would help to clarify what Lamo is saying since Lamo previously said Manning never explicity said he had support.
Re: (Score:2)
After all, you're entitled to that.
As a point of fact, we are. This Manning/Wikileaks situation will define government, journalism, and the very nature of secrecy for generations to come. We are entitled to know all the details, all the facts, everything about what is happening so we might make the right decisions NOW - when they matter. This is not a matter for historians. This is a matter for all participants in democracy.
It's kind of a big deal.
Re: (Score:2)
You're not entitled to it. You'd like to have it, yes, and there are (perhaps valid) reasons you'd like to have it, but wired has absolutely zero obligation to give it to you. None. Journalism has never been about being required to publish everything, and never will be.
The fact is, though, that you aren't making any decisions relating to this episode that actually matter, and won't be making any voting decisions that could possibly have an impact until 2012 at the earliest. So knowing "now" doesn't real
Re: (Score:3)
So in your world the only votes cast are for Presidential elections? There are no States? No local government? Congressmen do not have phones? Really??
Truth, lies, chat logs... and profit levels (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Really, so is this how you run your business? Strictly focused on income, profit level, and expenses? Exploiting everybody and everything who can be exploited with no long-term plan or goal, just like a drug dealer or a pimp?
You correctly identify that the "primary concern of businesses is profit," but you seem stymied by the fact that what creates profits is *filling peoples' needs* in a substantial way. If your business plan doesn't align with something that people need, want, can afford, and will spen
Re: (Score:3)
Greed over Ethics doesn't impress me much. They were still making money, just less of it before they changed their direction.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
And that's what's wrong! (Score:3)
'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! (Score:4, Insightful)
isn't that the same reason why wikileaks hasn't released all of the cables? hypocrite much?
Re:And that's what's wrong! (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:3)
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! (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
I'm curious. Why do you post lies? What would be your motivation?
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 accomplis
Re: (Score:2)
So, again, what do you believe you will accomplish by posting lies?
The complete set of cables is still in the hands of other media organizations as well, thus Assange is not doing the things you claim. Wikileaks is a place where someone can go if they want to leak stuff, and they will then make sure it becomes available.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And they're not able to put two and two together without that? How's about that guy in the green mask throwing rocks at your cops? Suppose he's a protester?
You act as if Iran is stupid. Why? Did you miss the story about how they're privy to all the data in and out of their country thanks to collaboration from certain corporations here in the US?
Re: (Score:2)
No, I'm "acting" as if they don't always have all of the facts they'd like to have about all of the people they'd like to shut down when they rig their next election.
they're privy to all the data in and out of their country
Many of the people who support the Iranina opposition live outside of that country, and are in communication with the diplomats of other countries in the expectation that the Iranina government won't end up in possession of what they've had to say. Yo
Re: (Score:2)
Right, dismissive and ad hominem. Truly the heirlooms of effective discussion, those.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:And that's what's wrong! (Score:4, Informative)
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! (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
You don't see how it might set a bad precedent allowing government to seize evidence held by news organizations and journalists?
Re: (Score:2)
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! (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
That's not a search or a seizure and thus does not violate the text of the law.
Re: (Score:2)
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 c
Re: (Score:2)
18 USC 793 - relates to national security information related to designs for military vehicles, structures, munitions, etc. (This doesn't apply to Wired. This is for chat logs where Manning implicates himself, not for classified designs)
18 USC 794 - relates to delivering classified information to a foreign government in order to aid that government (Again, not applicable. Wired is not delivering classified information to a foreign government. Remember, once again, this is for chat logs)
18 USC 797 - relates
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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" ?
Careful word play by Wired (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
By comparing one to the other you conflate them in the mind of the typical reader; then you say "but I was only comparing a single aspect." It's like saying "You're a crossdresser so you're like Hitler, but only because a shared enjoyment of women's underwear."
Re: (Score:2)
By comparing one to the other you conflate them in the mind of the typical reader;
That would only be true if the "typical reader" lacks any reading comprehension skills and suffers from functional illiteracy. What I wrote was pretty clear and the fact that a set of fellow slashdotters managed to overcome my poor grasp of the english language and were quite capable of understanding exactly what I said is a clear sign that no, the "typical reader" does not "conflate" these two issues.
Come on, man. It's at least 5th grade reading comprehension.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
That's precisely what I was referring to. Thanks for pointing it out in such a concise way.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
The Critical Section (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re:The Critical Section (Score:5, Informative)
Greenwalds reply [salon.com] to that section:
Re:The Critical Section (Score:4, Informative)
No, you're wrong. Greenwald has consistently been on the side of protecting the individual. That's what a constitutional lawyer should do, after all. It's Wired that has been misusing this argument to defend itself.
With Assange, releasing information about rape and molestation allegations against Assange, who has not been charged with a crime, is character assassination. If the US government publicly stated: "We want to interview Person A in regards to potential child pornography charges," then it is just destroying Person A's reputation.
The same applies to Manning. Wired has already leaked portions of chat transcripts that it alleges demonstrates Manning's guilt (and Lamo's supposed hacking skills). Paulsen has written stories implying Manning's guilt, and suggesting that he was trying to brag to Lamo about what he did. However, as Greenwald writes in his column, there are holes in the chat logs (such as timestamp discrepancies) and other questionable conclusions in Wired's stories that don't quite make sense. Wired's publications have already caused a man to be jailed for months without being charged with a crime. Greenwald and others want to see the unedited chat logs to clarify things up.
I find it disingenuous that Wired tries to misquote Greenwald. The "Journalists should be about releasing facts, not protecting anyone" quote was directly about Wired. He says that Wired should not hide behind the claim of protecting Manning. How can Wired publish allegations of potential treason against Manning (as the US government calls it) and then claim that it now want to protect him?
Another theory (Score:4, Interesting)
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... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In a thread full of juvenile rotgut, a calm, reasonable voice!
Careful. If this spreads, it could change /. completely.
Re: (Score:2)
There is another theory which states that this has already happened.
What a beatdown it is to read /. sometimes (Score:2)
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
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 t
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
While I agree with you that the conspiracy theory is far-fetched, I'm not sure Wired should be lauded. While Greenwald's article is shrill, to say the least, one issue he raised stuck with me. Lamo is making claims which seems to contradict each other about what Manning said in the chats. Wired has the evidence to address these claims, they don't. I'm not sure how at least the relevant portions of the chat logs could contain private information when Lamo is talking about them.
Publishing the logs, with p
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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... (Score:5, Informative)
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:Have you considered the possibility... (Score:5, Informative)
That they might actually be withholding them for a good reason?
This seems to be a common strawman related to this issue. But Greenwald never said that Wired needs to release the full chat logs. Here is what he actually said based on the fact that Lamo has been making claims which are not supported by the released chat logs:
What they ought to do, at the absolute minimum, is post the portions of the chat logs about which Lamo had made public statements or make clear that they do not exist. . . . Poulsen could also provide Lamo -- who claims he is no longer in possession of them -- with a copy of the chat logs (which Lamo gave him) so that journalists quoting Lamo about Manning's statements could see the actual evidence rather than relying on Lamo's claims.
Re: (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 p
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
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 milita
Re: (Score:2)
Are you actually clear on the fact that law enforcement is a goverment activity?
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You mean, vice crimes like car theft rings, extortion operations, embezzlement, insurance fraud via arson, currency counterfeiting, militant terror cell operations, election fraud, industrial espionage, murder for hire
Re: (Score:2)
Undercover cops and witness protection programs are tools of the lazy and the weak. We enforced the law long before these concepts were invented and could continue to do so without them. Here's an idea, how's about making your case without deception and entrapment? Or what of protecting people who testify by successfully jailing all those criminal elements who seek to do them harm? The very fact that we cannot make cases without infiltrating and cannot protect witnesses who come forward and do the 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: (Score:2)
And your rebuttal would be what, exactly?
Re: (Score:2)
What is it that you're asking me to rebut, exactly? The notion that all we need to do to protect witnesses is to round up and imprison everybody who might hurt them prior to a trial in which they're going to testify? Do I really need to explain to you why that's neither logistically possible, nor in keeping with the constitution? When someone is going to testify against an MS-13 enforcer, you'd prefer (to hiding that person's location) to rounding up and locking u
Re: (Score:3)
What are you talking about? Are you actually for prior restraint by custody of all those connected to a criminal suspect, even without hard evidence of an imminent crime against a witness in a pending trial?
Re: (Score:2)
As usual, the sensible view is somewhere in the middle. Yes, the details of nuclear shipments and defense deployments need to be secret. No, diplomatic insults DO NOT need to be secret.
Governments the world over keep far, far too many secrets. Most of them are designed merely to avoid embarrassment and/or recriminations and/or removal from power, or to further the interests of corporate elites and other power-mongers. These secrets ought to be revealed expeditiously, repeatedly, and mercilessly until the ev
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
I don't think so (Score:2)
Tell that to the thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians killed in the 'liberation'