'National hero' or just a 'plain snitch'?

[Spiritual_Beggar]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/10255887.stm

Adrian Lamo (ex hacker) shopped in Brad Manning (22) to authorities.


Brad Manning is the 'source' behind the Wikileaks articles and videos (including the video of the US Apache killing 12 people, 2 of which were Reuters journalists).


Now, this Adrian Lamo says that is was an extremely hard decison to take. But he did it because he felt he was left with no choice. By keeping the 'source' secret he felt he was putting his family at risk since he was leaving himself open to presecution.


Now, a lot of people has disliked this move, because of the importance they feel Wikileaks has had in keeping the certain organisations 'Honest'.



Personally, I can see a strong arguement for either course of action. My mind is not made up where I stand on yet. What do you all think?

[DonkeyApple]

Difficult one to answer.

Separately, you have to assume that Wikileaks is finished now as a concept?

Edited to add:

Scrap all that. Just read the article

OK, what made me think that he was right was this one single bit:

'he had handed over thousands of classified documents and classified military video'

Thousands!!!! does make it sound like the kid was out of control. If it had been a one off then I would think diferently but it appears he was sending Wikileaks pretty much everything he found and there could have been some very harmful stuff in amongst it all.

On reflection, I don't think he had any choice.

Edited by DonkeyApple on Tuesday 8th June 13:38

[Silent1]

What an utter cocksocket.
The bloke who boasted is a fking tool as well.

[Fittster]

Journalists shouldn't reveal their sources.

[Slinky]

I read the wired story on this, it was more the case that Lamo realised that Manning was in a position to abuse a huge amount of classified information.

Whilst Manning should be applauded (IMO) for leaking the Apache video, his flagrant abuse of the classification system should not go without action.

Wired story here : http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/leak/

[Fittster]

Slinky said:

I read the wired story on this, it was more the case that Lamo realised that Manning was in a position to abuse a huge amount of classified information.

Whilst Manning should be applauded (IMO) for leaking the Apache video, his flagrant abuse of the classification system should not go without action.

Wired story here : http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/leak/

If the press don't publish classified information when it's in the public interest how will a government be held accountable?

[Spiritual_Beggar]

Slinky said:

I read the wired story on this, it was more the case that Lamo realised that Manning was in a position to abuse a huge amount of classified information.

Whilst Manning should be applauded (IMO) for leaking the Apache video, his flagrant abuse of the classification system should not go without action.

Wired story here : http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/leak/

I think I lean towards this side more than the otehr.


If it were my country, I'd be concerned that although Manning had remained loyal so far, who's to say that with enough persuasion ($$$) he would not have eventually sold the info to 'other' people.

[Stevenj214]

DonkeyApple said:

Difficult one to answer.

Separately, you have to assume that Wikileaks is finished now as a concept?

The source was an idiot, the snitch was wrong to tell (in my opinion).

Wikileaks should be ok. They will just have to amend their policy to "We will never reveal our sources, but we can't stop our sources identifying themselves".

[Fittster]

Spiritual_Beggar said:

Slinky said:

I read the wired story on this, it was more the case that Lamo realised that Manning was in a position to abuse a huge amount of classified information.

Whilst Manning should be applauded (IMO) for leaking the Apache video, his flagrant abuse of the classification system should not go without action.

Wired story here : http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/leak/

I think I lean towards this side more than the otehr.


If it were my country, I'd be concerned that although Manning had remained loyal so far, who's to say that with enough persuasion ($$$) he would not have eventually sold the info to 'other' people.

I take it 'other people' isn't the citizens of the country who might like to question the actions the state is taking on their behalf?

[Stevenj214]

Spiritual_Beggar said:

Slinky said:

I read the wired story on this, it was more the case that Lamo realised that Manning was in a position to abuse a huge amount of classified information.

Whilst Manning should be applauded (IMO) for leaking the Apache video, his flagrant abuse of the classification system should not go without action.

Wired story here : http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/leak/

I think I lean towards this side more than the otehr.


If it were my country, I'd be concerned that although Manning had remained loyal so far, who's to say that with enough persuasion ($$$) he would not have eventually sold the info to 'other' people.

Surely the security lapse could be closed without identifying the person though?

[Slinky]

Stevenj214 said:

Spiritual_Beggar said:

Slinky said:

I read the wired story on this, it was more the case that Lamo realised that Manning was in a position to abuse a huge amount of classified information.

Whilst Manning should be applauded (IMO) for leaking the Apache video, his flagrant abuse of the classification system should not go without action.

Wired story here : http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/leak/

I think I lean towards this side more than the otehr.


If it were my country, I'd be concerned that although Manning had remained loyal so far, who's to say that with enough persuasion ($$$) he would not have eventually sold the info to 'other' people.

Surely the security lapse could be closed without identifying the person though?

How do you identify where the security lapse is without pointing the finger at the lapse.. If the military then decide to tell the masses that they've caught the leak, then that's their decision!

[ErnestM]

Fittster said:

Spiritual_Beggar said:

Slinky said:

I read the wired story on this, it was more the case that Lamo realised that Manning was in a position to abuse a huge amount of classified information.

Whilst Manning should be applauded (IMO) for leaking the Apache video, his flagrant abuse of the classification system should not go without action.

Wired story here : http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/leak/

I think I lean towards this side more than the otehr.


If it were my country, I'd be concerned that although Manning had remained loyal so far, who's to say that with enough persuasion ($$$) he would not have eventually sold the info to 'other' people.

I take it 'other people' isn't the citizens of the country who might like to question the actions the state is taking on their behalf?

That is probably correct, for every Manning (who probably is a self important narcissist), there is the potential for a Robert Hanssen. Sometimes people's lives depend on certain information remaining secret.

[Fittster]

ErnestM said:

Fittster said:

Spiritual_Beggar said:

Slinky said:

I read the wired story on this, it was more the case that Lamo realised that Manning was in a position to abuse a huge amount of classified information.

Whilst Manning should be applauded (IMO) for leaking the Apache video, his flagrant abuse of the classification system should not go without action.

Wired story here : http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/leak/

I think I lean towards this side more than the otehr.


If it were my country, I'd be concerned that although Manning had remained loyal so far, who's to say that with enough persuasion ($$$) he would not have eventually sold the info to 'other' people.

I take it 'other people' isn't the citizens of the country who might like to question the actions the state is taking on their behalf?

That is probably correct, for every Manning (who probably is a self important narcissist), there is the potential for a Robert Hanssen. Sometimes people's lives depend on certain information remaining secret.

But sometimes the world needs to know: Valerie Plame

Freedom of the press is so important I'm willing to put thousands of lives at risk to protect it.

[Somewhatfoolish]

Fittster said:

Journalists shouldn't reveal their sources.

He wasn't a journalist.

I'd keep it confidential under most circumstances.

[Fittster]

Somewhatfoolish said:

Fittster said:

Journalists shouldn't reveal their sources.

He wasn't a journalist.

I'd keep it confidential under most circumstances.

If you believe you have access to information that is in the public interest you go to a journalist who, if appropriate can bring it to the attention of the wider population via the press.

[Fittster]

"Mr Lamo is a former hacker, who exposed security flaws at the New York Times, Yahoo and Microsoft. After a brief stint hiding from the FBI, Mr Lamo was imprisoned and fined. He now works as a journalist and security analyst."

So Mr Lamo is a journalist and should protect his sources.

[Somewhatfoolish]

Fittster said:

"Mr Lamo is a former hacker, who exposed security flaws at the New York Times, Yahoo and Microsoft. After a brief stint hiding from the FBI, Mr Lamo was imprisoned and fined. He now works as a journalist and security analyst."

So Mr Lamo is a journalist and should protect his sources.

I think it's fairly clear he wasn't being spoken to as a journalist. The guy doesn't really have a reasonable expectation of privacy here.

[Fittster]

Somewhatfoolish said:

Fittster said:

"Mr Lamo is a former hacker, who exposed security flaws at the New York Times, Yahoo and Microsoft. After a brief stint hiding from the FBI, Mr Lamo was imprisoned and fined. He now works as a journalist and security analyst."

So Mr Lamo is a journalist and should protect his sources.

I think it's fairly clear he wasn't being spoken to as a journalist. The guy doesn't really have a reasonable expectation of privacy here.

From the BBC story it's not clear to me. If Manning thought he was speaking to Lamo working in the capacity of journalist then Lamo actions are wrong in my opinion.

If he was talking to Lamo as a friend/random stranger then it changes the context of the conversation.

[ErnestM]

Fittster said:

ErnestM said:

Fittster said:

Spiritual_Beggar said:

Slinky said:

I read the wired story on this, it was more the case that Lamo realised that Manning was in a position to abuse a huge amount of classified information.

Whilst Manning should be applauded (IMO) for leaking the Apache video, his flagrant abuse of the classification system should not go without action.

Wired story here : http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/leak/

I think I lean towards this side more than the otehr.


If it were my country, I'd be concerned that although Manning had remained loyal so far, who's to say that with enough persuasion ($$$) he would not have eventually sold the info to 'other' people.

I take it 'other people' isn't the citizens of the country who might like to question the actions the state is taking on their behalf?

That is probably correct, for every Manning (who probably is a self important narcissist), there is the potential for a Robert Hanssen. Sometimes people's lives depend on certain information remaining secret.

But sometimes the world needs to know: Valerie Plame

Freedom of the press is so important I'm willing to put thousands of lives at risk to protect it.

What the wiki article doesn't tell you is what she said to her soon to be husband upon meeting him for the first time at a cocktail reception "I work for the CIA. I'm a spy"...

...maybe so, just not a very good one.

[Stevenj214]

Slinky said:

Stevenj214 said:

Spiritual_Beggar said:

Slinky said:

I read the wired story on this, it was more the case that Lamo realised that Manning was in a position to abuse a huge amount of classified information.

Whilst Manning should be applauded (IMO) for leaking the Apache video, his flagrant abuse of the classification system should not go without action.

Wired story here : http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/leak/

I think I lean towards this side more than the otehr.


If it were my country, I'd be concerned that although Manning had remained loyal so far, who's to say that with enough persuasion ($$$) he would not have eventually sold the info to 'other' people.

Surely the security lapse could be closed without identifying the person though?

How do you identify where the security lapse is without pointing the finger at the lapse.. If the military then decide to tell the masses that they've caught the leak, then that's their decision!

He described the security lapse. It could have been relayed without mentioning names.