http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/leak/ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/conscience/
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/leak/ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/conscience/
I've read more about your involvement in the Lamo-Manning conversation, and I've changed my mind. Lamo turned in Manning. But you knew Lamo was planning to deceive Manning to make him confess more leaks in a second chat:
http://www.salon.com/2010/06/18/wikileaks_3/
I can't edit nor delete my original comment since the edit link has expired.
As an important actor in the Lamo-Manning story, I would like to ask you some questions.
- Do you think Adrian Lamo acted ethically?
- What's your opinion on whistle-blowers and their role in democracy?
Thanks.
Cute. I'm sure he read Dilbert a few times too.
It takes quite an astonishing level of arrogance to suggest that being an "Ars Technica reader" was an important part of his identity, as that article did. Internet nerd makes a few comments on tech website, huge shock there.
It was tongue-in-cheek.
Anybody with any sense knows you're a plant, not a hacker, and your hacking charges were laid there by the US Attorney to give you cover to turn on real hackers. Wired has been part of the compromised media from the day they published anything written by you.