Wired's Response to Glenn Greenwald (re:Lamo-Manning Chat Logs) | Hacker News Reader

Wired's Response to Glenn Greenwald (re:Lamo-Manning Chat Logs)

wired.com

90 pointsAthtar60 comments

Greenwald fucked this one up. That NYT article he relied on was plain wrong, something he should have been aware of given all of his critiques of the mainstream media's handling of the case and since Wired had already put out an article saying that piece was incorrect and that the specific allegations were in the already-released logs.

(Greenwald does get stuff right sometimes though: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XInz4i6AV8M&feature=playe... )

As someone with journalism training, I find this argument compelling. If it was a case-study in a classroom setting, the answers would be difficult and the subject of much debate.

Choosing to "redact" private parts of a document without otherwise information important to the public is a perfectly reasonable position. While it is easy to say "how do we know it's just private information unless they release it", that sort of reasoning would force journalists to release all of the information they have about any topic, even when they clearly violate the professional ethics of journalists.

> that sort of reasoning would force journalists to release all of the information they have about any topic, even when they clearly violate the professional ethics of journalists.

Jouornalists don't get to say "professional ethics" - you they to explain why the relevant decisions are correct, and journalists don't get to decide what's correct.

Example - it may violate "professional ethics" for a journalist to not reveal that US troops are walking into an ambush, but if certain journalists don't do exactly that ....

Journalists are entitled and indeed obligated to be bound to ethics just as much as the next guy. The argument that everyone is obliged to deliver to the public everything they know about everything, then we will get into problems very quickly. If you don't like someone's journalism, you are free to perform your own counter-journalism; investigate and publish your findings.

There's no necessity that every journalist must publish everything they ever learn just because some guy says the journalist should. If that's how you feel journalists should behave, hire a bunch of journalists to behave that way, and perform your own journalism and do likewise.

> Journalists are entitled and indeed obligated to be bound to ethics just as much as the next guy.

Yes, but when they're claiming privileges, as they frequently do, they don't get to decide the rules.

Then why didn't they print a story "our source is now running around pumping bull into the echo chamber"?

> The excerpts we published included passages referencing both the file server and the encrypted chat room.

Interestingly, if you look at the link http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/12/wikileaks-conspirac... nowhere does Manning say anything like 'Assange set up an FTP server just for me which I then used for the video and cables'.

What he actually says is that hypothetically speaking, one of the best ways to transmit hot stuff is through SFTP, but he immediately mentions that one could also transmit over HTTPS (plus Tor) to get stuff into the Wikileaks submission queue and discusses general considerations like senior sources getting looked at first.

The only way you could read Wired's claim into that excerpt is if you made stuff up or are making a large inference based on other non-public logs. So at least with that claim, Wired is bullshitting readers.

This sort of thing never winds up reflecting well on people involved, just getting caught up in a personal back and forth and speculating on people's motives and nonsense like that. This part seemed particularly silly to me - Greenwald emails on Christmas and when they don't respond by the 26th, he says they're acting unprofessionally -

> Nonetheless, once the Times story — and our explanation — was over a week old, Greenwald sent Poulsen an e-mail inquiring about it, and giving him one day to respond to his questions. He sent that e-mail on Christmas Day.

> When we didn’t meet the urgent Yuletide deadline he’d imposed on himself to publish a piece about a 10-day-old newspaper article, he wrote in his column that we “ignored the inquiries,” adding: “This is not the behavior of a journalist seeking to inform the public, but of someone eager, for whatever reasons, to hide the truth.”

What part of what Wired is doing seems amateurish? I thought this response was thoughtful, well reasoned, and professional.

I could've phrased it better - I meant that that the whole unfolding of events generally doesn't reflect well on participants. Just getting sucked into a mudfight is bad, though their response was good. I'll do a clarity edit.

For context, here's my exact edits:

Before - This whole thing is coming across pretty amateurish on all sides.

After - This sort of thing never winds up reflecting well on people involved, just getting caught up in a personal back and forth and speculating on people's motives and nonsense like that.

"and the principal is also embodied in the Society of Professional Journalists’ code of ethics"

I'm not usually one to pick on spelling, but when such an egregious error is present in an article by a supposedly professional news organisation defending the professionalism of said news organisation, it is hard for it not to hurt the credibility of their entire writing, fact checking and proof-reading pipeline.

The part where they didn't say if Lamo is telling the truth or not.

Greenwald has posted two responses to this:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/29...

(They seem to be returning 404s occasionally for some reason.)

Wired doesn't need to publish all of the logs -- just the bits that confirm some key assertions that Lamo made. The idea that they are restricted to publishing the whole thing, or nothing more than they already have is a false dichotomy.

Wired did publish those bits. The assertions Lamo made were about things contained in the original logs--as released by Wired. Go read them, and write back if you disagree.

Actually, they're absolutely not taking the position that it's all or nothing:

"That doesn’t mean we’ll never publish them, but before taking an irrevocable action that could harm an individual’s privacy, we have to weigh that person’s privacy interest against news value and relevance."

The specific request that Greenwald made for partial disclosure missed the fact that the information referenced had already been released, as described by Wired:

"The Times story quotes Lamo as saying that Manning described uploading his leaks to Assange via a dedicated file server, and that he communicated with Assange over encrypted chat. The story says those portions of the conversations aren’t included in the excerpts we published.

"Based on that, Greenwald claims that Wired’s “concealment” of the chat logs “is actively blinding journalists and others who have been attempting to learn what Manning did and did not do.” (That’s one sentence. He goes on in that vein for quite a while.) But the Times story is incorrect, as we noted on Wired.com the day after it ran. The excerpts we published included passages referencing both the file server and the encrypted chat room."

Bottom line for me: Wired's response was well-reasoned and professional, and answered the fairly wild accusations in the original Greenwald piece.

That's one claim that Greenwald makes slightly differently:

> there is also little in the released portions about Assange using an "encrypted Internet conferencing service" to talk to Manning or specially creating a "dedicated server" for Manning to use.

I think that this is a minor distinction -- whether the server was specifically made for Manning, or pre-existing, and only "made available". Details like that rapidly get made up as the news passes around.

However:

> Lamo's claim -- that Manning told him that he physically dropped off a disk with classified information to WikiLeaks' "intermediaries" in Boston -- is nowhere to be found in the chat logs released by Poulsen.

I certainly can't find this portion.

So why don't they publish the part that confirms or denies Lamo's claims? Or just say if it does or not?

If you read Glenn's responses I think you will change your mind.

You don't get to the point of admitting leaking massive amounts of secret information via chat in a single step. Trust has to be built, and is built by slowly revealing more and more about ourselves: issues with significant others, problems with the neighbors, pains of serving with Don't Ask, Don't Tell, etc (I have no idea what the actual list might look like, I'm just giving examples.).

These are things that are highly personal and extremely private. These are the things Wired is saying they aren't releasing right now, and I, for one, appreciate it. Releasing them would just be pandering to the masses.

You can argue that Wired is withholding more than that, but I think it fails Occam's Razor. Unfortunately, the more complex the "complex" solution, the more likely it seems that people will gravitate to it:

"Wired has released all the relevant pieces and is trying to protect an individual's privacy" - simple.

"Wired is withholding relevant information because it is part of some conspiracy involving hackers prosecuted in the 80s" - complex (but, too be honest, who didn't love Angelina in leathers on the back of a motorcycle?).

Very well said all around.

Just like Wired Magazine, he does not explain why they don't address Lamo's claims not found in the logs released so far.

I'm not sure what to think of these articles from Salon and Wired. Greenwald did have one question, that remains unanswered as far as I know. Why did Manning contact Lamo?

Greenwald's point is not so much that Wired has committed journalistic errors, but that its decision not to disclose the rest of the chat logs leaves aspects of the case open to wild conjecture.

So Greenwald, for emphasis, goes on to do some wild conjecture of his own. Clearly the people at Wired failed to recognize the irony of this and quote Greenwald extensively in their refutations, something Assange cannot do since the full logs have not been released.

If your point isn't that "Wired has committed journalistic errors", you probably shouldn't name your piece "The worsening journalistic disgrace at Wired". But really, that's exactly what Greenwald was saying and I think this response pretty much refutes it.

There are allegations against Assange that he can't refute w/o the chat logs. That's my point. Wired got up in arms after a few accusations it didn't like.

They clearly stated that Lamo's recent allegations were included in the chat logs, and that the NYT piece that Glenn quoted got that wrong.

How do we know this w/o the full text of the logs?

Easy. You take the logs that Wired did release, and the information that Greenwald claims wasn't in there that was documented outside Wired, and you see if they're in there. Wired just went on the record saying they are. Go refute the claim.

We don't; how do I know you aren't payed by the government to say this unless right now you disclose all of your bank account credentials so I can check? (/sarcasm)

Greenwald's piece was predicated on new information coming to light (Lamo's recent allegations) that showed there was missing details in the chat logs that were material to the case. Wired refuted this; I just looked at the logs again and their refutation makes sense to me.

Ok, so if the chat logs are eventually revealed and they contain information relevant to the accusations against Assange, then you will reverse your opinion?

I'd gladly reverse my view on Wired in that case; I won't reverse my view on Greenwald's article; the information he used to back his argument doesn't make sense. If the conclusion ends up being correct, the argument still will have been bogus.

Tp: Uh, I think I'd rather just see the chat logs. Seems to me the Wired piece is long on unrelated attacks on Greenwald, and short on a lot of other things, like a convincing explanation of why they won't release the logs.

Who wouldn't want the chat logs? I'm sure they're a lot more fun to read than Wired's summary of what's in the chat logs. What's your point?

It is not interesting or insightful to point out that everyone wants the chat logs and will not be satisfied with anything but the chat logs. Yes. You are on record: you demand the chat logs. It is clearly obvious that you would want the chat logs.

Wired says: no. They gave their reasons.

You are not going to agree with any of those reasons, because you want to read the chat logs, and you are a commenter on a nerd message board and as such you see all those reasons as a logical system to be gamed to achieve the outcome you desire. I don't blame you because I too am commenting on a nerd message board. But: be self aware about it.

I think the issue is that Wired doesn't really come across as trustworthy and very well might be withholding relevant information. There are still a few somewhat fishy aspects to the story.

There's nothing they can reasonably do to not be "fishy" to WL supporters. Releasing the chat transcripts no more gets Wired out of the Lamo/Poulsen quandary than releasing the physical hard copy birth certificate gets Obama out of the birther quandary.

People should just admit it. They don't want the chat logs because it will make them believe Wired more. They want the chat logs because the chat logs are fun drama. It doesn't make you a bad person to concede that; it just makes you a human being.

Hah. I really don't care about the personal drama in the logs. I mostly want to see where Assange stands at this point with respect to evidence (aside from potential testimony by Manning) that he violated the espionage act.

I don't think it's necessary for you to post personal attacks or personalize the issue. I think Greenwald's response today makes it amply clear why a reasonable person would want more of the chat logs, or at least some full commentary by Wired on the chat logs. To wit: Lamo has made various public statements about what Manning supposedly said, in those logs. Wired has refused to substantiate those statements by posting relevant excerpts, or to comment on why they refuse. This objection, which is obviously not mine alone and has nothing to do with gaming this system or nerd message boards and is in fact a serious issue, also has nothing to do with any protection of privacy or embarrassing content that might also be present in those chat logs.

You might think it's not interesting to demand that the substantive issues raised by Wired's very selective posting of those logs be resolved. That doesn't make it so, and neither do personal attacks. Please note that I've refrained from attacking you.

"A few accusations it didn't like", including:

* That Kevin Poulsen was untrustworthy because he'd been caught hacking in 1990.

* That Wired had helped orchestrate Manning's arrest (Lamo turned Manning in; Lamo doesn't work for Wired).

* That Wired is being unprofessional by not releasing complete private chat transcripts, while other news outlets are being unprofessional for releasing too much private information about Wikileaks supporters.

* That Wired had refused to respond to Greenwald's request when that request was in fact issued with a 24 hour deadline on Christmas day.

* That Wired had concealed material details of the supposed Manning leaks when in fact the details they were alleged to have concealed were in fact referenced directly in the the chat logs they released.

* That Wired is responsible for Manning/Lamo/Assange stories they themselves didn't report on.

* That Poulsen is Lamo's "personal media voice" despite the fact that Lamo received significantly more coverage outside SecurityFocus (Poulsen didn't meet Lamo while working at Wired) than in it.

* That Mark Rasch prosecuted Poulsen for computer hacking when in fact he left federal government service in 1991, before Poulsen was tried (by two unrelated state prosecutors).

* That all the time Greenwald accused Wired of bias, he was using Jacob Applebaum (Wikileaks' US spokesperson) as a primary source without disclosing the affiliation, was privately trying to hire an attorney for Manning, and was carrying on daily off-the-record conversations with Assange.

Yeah, I can see how Wired might "get up in arms" about this.

That Wired is being unprofessional by not releasing complete private chat transcripts, while other news outlets are being unprofessional for releasing too much private information about Wikileaks supporters.

I know that's essentially paraphrased from Wireds response, like everything else you called out - but is that actually what Greenwald has done? What I've seen is two fold:

1- Greenwald calling out news organizations for presenting Assanges displeasure at his own privacy breaches as hypocrisy when it actually isn't hypocrisy for a democratic govt to have limited privacy and an individual to have maximum privacy.

2- Assange calling out the Swedish govt for leaking information about the case when the govts own laws dictate that the information remain private.

So although Wired eloquently said one thing, and you helpfully repeated it, is it even true? I haven't seen it, perhaps you could provide a link to Greenwald where he said it. And maybe there are a few more items on your cheerleading list that would be better served with some citations.

It's not "my" cheerleading list; it's distilled contents of the two official responses. If you disagree with them, you disagree with the article.

I believe Poulsen more than I believe Greenwald, but that's neither here nor there. Unless you think I've misrepresented the article, leave me out of it.

Wasn't clear to me in what you wrote that you were attempting to objectively summarize the article.

You missed at least one other, that part where Poulsen "refuted" Greenwalds accusation that Poulsen notified the NYTimes re: Lamos breach and then wrote an article about it by correcting Greenwald in that Poulsen actually notified the NYTimes about Lamos breach and then wrote an article about it ... with a quote from the NYTimes.

Thanks for your summary, though.

I also left out that Mark Rasch wasn't actually a bona fide Wired contributor, and I'm sure a bunch of other stuff. I was responding to 'grandalf's insinuation that Wired was having a nitpicked temper tantrum, when in fact they were condemned publicly in Salon for serious journalistic ethics lapses.

Greenwald has been talking about this since Manning got arrested, this is not the first article he has written about Wired.

One of the issues Greenwald brings up is that the logs are the only evidence to understand what happened in the Manning case.

Greenwald that Lamo makes statements to the press, regarding his interactions with Manning. He points out that some statements made have even contradicted themselves.

The only evidence are the chat logs themselves, which are not available.

I think we can all see how much more straightforward Greenwald's job would be if he had all the chat transcripts, but their release is Wired's prerogative, not his.

There's one thing missing in this response: do the non-public portions of the chat logs support the public statements that Lamo has been making or not?

It's a pity they didn't clarify some of the contradictions of Lamo's statements. It would be nice to know for example whether Manning did claim to use a dedicated server or not. And Poulsen actually confirmed he was talking to Lamo even before Manning arrest.

On the other hand it is quite surprising indeed that Greenwald didn't check the basic facts about Rausch and Poulsen

> his computer hard drive was confiscated, and he no longer has has a copy

That's a bit surprising. I have multiple copies (one offsite) of family pictures, code and documents. I don't think I would have only one copy of the log if I was the hacker guy.

He would have been asked if he had copies and would have been criminally liable had he lied. He's already been convicted of crimes in the past. Would you fuck around in a case like this one if you'd been in his shoes?

TL;DR. Are they releasing the full logs or not?

We need more people like Glenn Greenwald and fewer talking heads spewing talking points.

What specifically separates Glenn Greenwald from all the other talking heads except for your own personal political view? I mean, he's pretty much the definition of a pundit.

How about having 10x the intellectual rigor, more integrity, and being right a lot more often? Oh, and having the cojones to stand up for Wikileaks, too. That takes some guts in the current political environment.

Glenn's pretty impressive, most of the time. If he proves to have called this one wrong, so be it. But he sure isn't on the same level as your average hack pundit.

The definition of "pundit" from Wikipedia:

A pundit is someone who offers to mass-media his or her opinion or commentary on a particular subject area (most typically political analysis, the social sciences or sport) on which they are knowledgeable.

Greenwald seems pretty clearly to be offering commentary on these events, and not just straight fact/story-reporting.

How much you like him or find him honest doesn't change what you call what he does. You can set him apart from other "pundits" but it's hard to say he isn't commentating or offering his opinion.

What was asked was, what sets Greenwald apart from OTHER pundits? I attempted to answer that. I didn't attempt to say he's not a pundit. I happen to think he's a particularly good pundit; others might disagree.

As an aside, there certainly seems to be a lot of downvoting based on disagreement in this comment thread.

What he says is that most pundits spit "talking points", implying that he thinks there's a general tendency towards spitting a party line rather than original thought and discourse. If you watch Glenn dismantle some of those pundits in interviews and debates on TV (ex: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XInz4i6AV8M ), you'll probably agree regardless of your political leanings that he's a cut above most pundits.

This is nothing more than a despicable smear campaign based on the oldest misdirection in the book: Shoot the messenger.

Sounds familiar...

Wired: How about you just post the fucking chat logs and let the tubes decide right and wrong.

Edit (added): Wired just sounds like that a-hole kid on the playground that you just want to punch in the freakin' nose.

"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."

How can the "tubes" decide right and wrong in a situation like this? Once the chat logs on the internet, it's not like the internet can collectively decide that Wired was right, that the remaining logs are personal and meaningless, and erase them forever.

I guess it comes down to he said, she said. And by nothing more than gut, Wired seems like they need to prove it's a matter of privacy. It just feels fishy. I wish they would do more to dispel the feeling.

Wikileaks feels open. Wired feels closed. Wikileaks feels like the future. Wired feels like the past. Personal feelings, of course.

My gut is my gut and they have every right not to do anything more. I believe there's probably others that feel the same way, so that's the reason for my strongly worded comment.

But you're absolutely right. Nothing can be erased. So a cool mind gets your point.

But whose sensitive personal information is it? BradAss87 or Lamo's? Does it shed light on why BradAss87 would admit to treason to some guy on IM? Does the sensitive personal information identify Manning as BradAss87? Also: will Manning's lawyer get to see the entirety of the logs?

I agree that you can't put the genie back in the bottle, but a enormous genie has already escaped.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com