5 ms·

Snitching Hacker Adrian Lamo vs. Hostile Crowd at Hacker Convention

32 points by fiaz 16y ago

sofuture 16y ago
I was at HOPE and saw this talk. The irony of "Stop Snitching" shirts appearing on crowds of people who have almost undoubtedly spent zero minutes being interrogated by even local police was not lost on me. It's a well-worn topic, but I was disheartened to see so many people launch into tangential rants that really skirted (avoided, even) the reality of the situation.
- aw3c2 16y ago
  From what I know about this, Adrian Lamo initiated the contact. It has nothing to do with being interrogated by anyone. He himself decided to rat on the whistleblower.
  - Alex63 16y ago
    Whistleblower? Which US law is the "whistleblower" accusing the government of breaking?
    - mcantelon 16y ago
      US law may permit killing non-American civilians (as shown in the "Collateral Murder" video), but international law frowns upon it.
      - confuzatron 16y ago
        International law does cover treatment of civilians during conflicts, but I'm afraid you are wrong - international law doesn't automatically class any and all civilian deaths as war crimes. This is pretty basic stuff.
        mcantelon 16y ago
        During "Collateral Murder", an Apache gunship shot up, with no warning, a civilian van that exhibited no aggression. Would this be legal under international law?
        Alex63 16y ago
        Article 5 of the 4th Geneva Convention states (in part): Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State. So your question comes down to whether the crew of that gunship suspected the van of containing persons who threatened the security of the Afghan state. I don't know the answer to that. Do you?
        mcantelon 16y ago
        Watching that video, there doesn't seem to be a reason to suspect the van of being engaged in hostile activities. Your interpretation of that law would allow the military to kill any civilians they please, merely stating that they suspected them. I suspect this interpretation is incorrect.
        Alex63 16y ago
        I'm sorry, in the interest of brevity I may have been unclear. I don't think that I'm "interpreting" the Geneva Conventions. I reported what the convention said, and explained that to know whether the US had violated the conventions, we would have to know whether there was "suspicion". It would be up to a court to determine this. While the video is one piece of evidence, we have no way of knowing what other information was available (e.g., did the daily intel briefing warn crews that Taliban forces were using white vans to transport fighters). My point was that the GC does not make all civilian deaths illegal.
      - Alex63 16y ago
        Which particular international law are you referring to? The Geneva Conventions?
    - sophacles 16y ago
      A whistleblower points out wrongdoing. This is different from pointing out lawbreaking. Please note for future reference: legality and morality are at best loosely related. Just because something is legal does not make it right, and vice versa.
      - Alex63 16y ago
        I understand (and agree to some extent with) your larger point, but my concern was with the specific term "whistleblower", which is usually associated with someone who identifies a crime occurring within their own organization. Whistleblowers are often protected because of the recognition that publicizing a crime is usually in the public good. In this case, I hesitate to use the term "whistleblower" because I think it implies circumstances and motivations that do not apply. At this point we are all speculating, but it appears that the alleged leaker made classified information available to another party, knowing that it would be made public, because they disagreed with US policy. In my mind, revealing privileged information because you do not agree with a policy is not the same thing as "whistleblowing". Would you classify Kim Philby, or Robert Hanssen as "whistleblowers"?
        sophacles 16y ago
        I would not classify Kim Philby or Robert Hanssen as whistleblowers. Of course both of them traded secrets to their sworn enemy for money. This is a much different situation than releasing secrets to the public out of a desire to uncover improper government lies. In fact other than the release of secrets, the situations are very different, your analogy is a strawman. As for whistleblowing: Shawn Carpenter, Peter Buxtun, and Wendell Potter have all received that label, while not informing on their bosses about illegal activities, just reprehensible ones. There are plenty more.
        Alex63 16y ago
        Both Philby and Hanssen were agents of their respective governments, with a sworn duty to protect their country's secrets, as was the alleged leaker. People who work in these organizations, who hold top secret security clearances and handle sensitive information, are understandably expected to adhere to standard of personal behavior which does not include making personal judgments about government policy (in Philby's case, it is questionable whether he was motivated by money). Surely we agree that government agents (in their many forms) cannot choose which directives to obey based on their personal beliefs about the rightness/wrongness of the policy, although they must disobey unlawful commands/orders. This is admittedly a fine line to draw, but most government organizations offer avenues to report concerns without releasing sensitive information to the public. With respect to your examples of "whistleblowers", I'll accept that designation for Carpenter and Buxtun, but in both cases I think they were reporting something that was clearly illegal (Carpenter) or at odds with accepted standards (Buxtun). And both Carpenter and Buxtun did report their concerns through appropriate channels before "leaking".
  - sofuture 16y ago
    Whistleblower? Leaking the single video was arguably whistleblowing. Dumping documents en masse without knowledge of their contents is not, by any stretch of the word, whistleblowing. Regardless, whether you agree with the leaking, in whole or in part, Adrian Lamo was going to end up in an interrogation room sooner or later if he didn't come forward. Manning put him in that situation quite carelessly. This is not about politics/policy -- this is about someone instantly making another person a potential co-conspirator. It's rather easy to comment from the sidelines and urge someone else to ignore the potential consequences they face.
Alex63 16y ago
This is depressing, but I'll hope it's just a knee-jerk reaction, and that people will reconsider after they have a chance to think about it. Presumably the audience does not support informing because it believes that cracking and leaking are not a crime on the same level as , for example, child abuse or murder. Of course, people who participate in illegal activities often have no trouble rationalizing or excusing their actions. And for those who will wave the flag for "civil disobedience", I'll say right now that I have no problem supporting the idea of civil disobedience, as long as you realize the consequences of civil disobedience have typically been conviction and punishment. It's the conviction and punishment that drives public opinion to change the law, not whining.
- mcantelon 16y ago
  Cracker culture has been traditionally marginalized by the state and law enforcement. It's unlikely that it will grow a sudden fondness for those who work with the state. Lamo, in addition to selling out Manning after telling him he was a journalist, is also involved with Project Vigilant, an organization that claims to use ISP EULA loopholes to spy on private citizens: http://bit.ly/dsS60a http://bit.ly/dsS60a.
maukdaddy 16y ago
Using the word "snitch" makes you sound like a 12 year-old.
- Tycho 16y ago
  Plus I thought snitching was ratting out your partners in crime to save your own skin, not simply informing on a criminal.
  - sophacles 16y ago
    In older senses, yes you are correct. This is not really the case in the last 30 or so years -- a snitch is anyone within a group (hacker community, black community, drug underworld for common examples) who informs to the police about someone within that group. It has less to do with the informants involvement in a specific action(s) than his/her group membership.
ambiate 16y ago
Let's assume for a moment that his choice was neither right or wrong: A crowd of people attacking an informant without being placed in his shoes. This group mentality leads to ignorance leads to violence. Suppose for a moment, some korean spy was bragging about all the US documents they were funneling back to their government. These documents consisted of building names, employee's names, and a few other misc trails. Do we worry that the spy might obtain even more sensitive information and release it or ignore the spy completely and continue on with our daily lives? What if there was a man working at your mom's bakery leaking all of your mom's baking secrets/employee information and boasting about it on his facebook page. Would you let your mom know that this employee is letting everyone in the world know her address and she makes an excellent strawberry muffin? Hacker, civilian, crackhead, secretary, garbage man; whatever title, if you believe a person might be endangering your government, people, or rights(or baking secrets)... is it so wrong to alert an authority of the situation before it gets out of hand? Could he have stumbled upon some new nuclear weapon schematics that wiped out an entire continent and went "OH LOOK WHAT THE US IS DOING, MUST SHARE THIS?!" (BTW: I don't really understand why we push democracy on other countries. The best way to spread democracy is by example and let other countries adapt on their own, in their own way... rebellion, civil war, or civil disobedience or whatever new method springs up. Democracies don't just spring up over night, the US just got extremely lucky in forming its republic. Many lives were lost, rights were nonexistent, and somehow we still ended up at this point.) (Also, that soldier knew the risk of leaking documents in a time of 'war,' so, I feel no pity for his capture.) (I should also note that I know nothing of Lamo or bradass other than what I saw on the daily show. This video is just group stupidity.)
- sophacles 16y ago
  Wow your strawman is made of many little strawmen. My mom's baking recipe being leaked or not will not result in someone's death, nor will snitching on the leaker. Nuclear secrets likewise are a completely different story than outdated opsec. On the other side, not all instances of Authority are the same. Some should never be notified, others more often. Of course, you are basing all of this on the assumption that someone leaking X must necessarily possess NO ability to reason and choose wisely about what to leak next (if anything) -- an assumption that is in no circumstances warranted.
dkarl 16y ago
Apparently, for many of the hackers present, it was an issue of snitching. That's pretty stupid. I don't think there's any "no snitching" ethic that would obligate a gun enthusiast to keep his mouth shut when he sees somebody killed with a gun. I don't see why hacking should be any different. I question Lamo's motives, and I disagree with what he did (because I think the U.S. government dishonestly sweeps its mistakes under the rug of "classified for reasons of national security,") but he could have done what he did from a pure motive to protect civilians, soldiers, and U.S. interests.
mcelrath 16y ago
Federal offense. I'd have turned his ass in too. Hackers know they are breaking the law, and shouldn't be squawking too loudly when they get prosecuted for it.

32 points by fiaz 16y ago

I was at HOPE and saw this talk. The irony of "Stop Snitching" shirts appearing on crowds of people who have almost undoubtedly spent zero minutes being interrogated by even local police was not lost on me. It's a well-worn topic, but I was disheartened to see so many people launch into tangential rants that really skirted (avoided, even) the reality of the situation.

aw3c2 16y ago
From what I know about this, Adrian Lamo initiated the contact. It has nothing to do with being interrogated by anyone. He himself decided to rat on the whistleblower.
- Alex63 16y ago
  Whistleblower? Which US law is the "whistleblower" accusing the government of breaking?
  - mcantelon 16y ago
    US law may permit killing non-American civilians (as shown in the "Collateral Murder" video), but international law frowns upon it.
    - confuzatron 16y ago
      International law does cover treatment of civilians during conflicts, but I'm afraid you are wrong - international law doesn't automatically class any and all civilian deaths as war crimes. This is pretty basic stuff.
      - mcantelon 16y ago
        During "Collateral Murder", an Apache gunship shot up, with no warning, a civilian van that exhibited no aggression. Would this be legal under international law?
        Alex63 16y ago
        Article 5 of the 4th Geneva Convention states (in part): Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State. So your question comes down to whether the crew of that gunship suspected the van of containing persons who threatened the security of the Afghan state. I don't know the answer to that. Do you?
        mcantelon 16y ago
        Watching that video, there doesn't seem to be a reason to suspect the van of being engaged in hostile activities. Your interpretation of that law would allow the military to kill any civilians they please, merely stating that they suspected them. I suspect this interpretation is incorrect.
        Alex63 16y ago
        I'm sorry, in the interest of brevity I may have been unclear. I don't think that I'm "interpreting" the Geneva Conventions. I reported what the convention said, and explained that to know whether the US had violated the conventions, we would have to know whether there was "suspicion". It would be up to a court to determine this. While the video is one piece of evidence, we have no way of knowing what other information was available (e.g., did the daily intel briefing warn crews that Taliban forces were using white vans to transport fighters). My point was that the GC does not make all civilian deaths illegal.
    - Alex63 16y ago
      Which particular international law are you referring to? The Geneva Conventions?
  - sophacles 16y ago
    A whistleblower points out wrongdoing. This is different from pointing out lawbreaking. Please note for future reference: legality and morality are at best loosely related. Just because something is legal does not make it right, and vice versa.
    - Alex63 16y ago
      I understand (and agree to some extent with) your larger point, but my concern was with the specific term "whistleblower", which is usually associated with someone who identifies a crime occurring within their own organization. Whistleblowers are often protected because of the recognition that publicizing a crime is usually in the public good. In this case, I hesitate to use the term "whistleblower" because I think it implies circumstances and motivations that do not apply. At this point we are all speculating, but it appears that the alleged leaker made classified information available to another party, knowing that it would be made public, because they disagreed with US policy. In my mind, revealing privileged information because you do not agree with a policy is not the same thing as "whistleblowing". Would you classify Kim Philby, or Robert Hanssen as "whistleblowers"?
      - sophacles 16y ago
        I would not classify Kim Philby or Robert Hanssen as whistleblowers. Of course both of them traded secrets to their sworn enemy for money. This is a much different situation than releasing secrets to the public out of a desire to uncover improper government lies. In fact other than the release of secrets, the situations are very different, your analogy is a strawman. As for whistleblowing: Shawn Carpenter, Peter Buxtun, and Wendell Potter have all received that label, while not informing on their bosses about illegal activities, just reprehensible ones. There are plenty more.
        Alex63 16y ago
        Both Philby and Hanssen were agents of their respective governments, with a sworn duty to protect their country's secrets, as was the alleged leaker. People who work in these organizations, who hold top secret security clearances and handle sensitive information, are understandably expected to adhere to standard of personal behavior which does not include making personal judgments about government policy (in Philby's case, it is questionable whether he was motivated by money). Surely we agree that government agents (in their many forms) cannot choose which directives to obey based on their personal beliefs about the rightness/wrongness of the policy, although they must disobey unlawful commands/orders. This is admittedly a fine line to draw, but most government organizations offer avenues to report concerns without releasing sensitive information to the public. With respect to your examples of "whistleblowers", I'll accept that designation for Carpenter and Buxtun, but in both cases I think they were reporting something that was clearly illegal (Carpenter) or at odds with accepted standards (Buxtun). And both Carpenter and Buxtun did report their concerns through appropriate channels before "leaking".
- sofuture 16y ago
  Whistleblower? Leaking the single video was arguably whistleblowing. Dumping documents en masse without knowledge of their contents is not, by any stretch of the word, whistleblowing. Regardless, whether you agree with the leaking, in whole or in part, Adrian Lamo was going to end up in an interrogation room sooner or later if he didn't come forward. Manning put him in that situation quite carelessly. This is not about politics/policy -- this is about someone instantly making another person a potential co-conspirator. It's rather easy to comment from the sidelines and urge someone else to ignore the potential consequences they face.

Alex63 16y ago

This is depressing, but I'll hope it's just a knee-jerk reaction, and that people will reconsider after they have a chance to think about it. Presumably the audience does not support informing because it believes that cracking and leaking are not a crime on the same level as , for example, child abuse or murder. Of course, people who participate in illegal activities often have no trouble rationalizing or excusing their actions. And for those who will wave the flag for "civil disobedience", I'll say right now that I have no problem supporting the idea of civil disobedience, as long as you realize the consequences of civil disobedience have typically been conviction and punishment. It's the conviction and punishment that drives public opinion to change the law, not whining.

mcantelon 16y ago
Cracker culture has been traditionally marginalized by the state and law enforcement. It's unlikely that it will grow a sudden fondness for those who work with the state. Lamo, in addition to selling out Manning after telling him he was a journalist, is also involved with Project Vigilant, an organization that claims to use ISP EULA loopholes to spy on private citizens: http://bit.ly/dsS60a http://bit.ly/dsS60a.

maukdaddy 16y ago

Using the word "snitch" makes you sound like a 12 year-old.

Tycho 16y ago
Plus I thought snitching was ratting out your partners in crime to save your own skin, not simply informing on a criminal.
- sophacles 16y ago
  In older senses, yes you are correct. This is not really the case in the last 30 or so years -- a snitch is anyone within a group (hacker community, black community, drug underworld for common examples) who informs to the police about someone within that group. It has less to do with the informants involvement in a specific action(s) than his/her group membership.

ambiate 16y ago

Let's assume for a moment that his choice was neither right or wrong: A crowd of people attacking an informant without being placed in his shoes. This group mentality leads to ignorance leads to violence. Suppose for a moment, some korean spy was bragging about all the US documents they were funneling back to their government. These documents consisted of building names, employee's names, and a few other misc trails. Do we worry that the spy might obtain even more sensitive information and release it or ignore the spy completely and continue on with our daily lives? What if there was a man working at your mom's bakery leaking all of your mom's baking secrets/employee information and boasting about it on his facebook page. Would you let your mom know that this employee is letting everyone in the world know her address and she makes an excellent strawberry muffin? Hacker, civilian, crackhead, secretary, garbage man; whatever title, if you believe a person might be endangering your government, people, or rights(or baking secrets)... is it so wrong to alert an authority of the situation before it gets out of hand? Could he have stumbled upon some new nuclear weapon schematics that wiped out an entire continent and went "OH LOOK WHAT THE US IS DOING, MUST SHARE THIS?!" (BTW: I don't really understand why we push democracy on other countries. The best way to spread democracy is by example and let other countries adapt on their own, in their own way... rebellion, civil war, or civil disobedience or whatever new method springs up. Democracies don't just spring up over night, the US just got extremely lucky in forming its republic. Many lives were lost, rights were nonexistent, and somehow we still ended up at this point.) (Also, that soldier knew the risk of leaking documents in a time of 'war,' so, I feel no pity for his capture.) (I should also note that I know nothing of Lamo or bradass other than what I saw on the daily show. This video is just group stupidity.)

sophacles 16y ago
Wow your strawman is made of many little strawmen. My mom's baking recipe being leaked or not will not result in someone's death, nor will snitching on the leaker. Nuclear secrets likewise are a completely different story than outdated opsec. On the other side, not all instances of Authority are the same. Some should never be notified, others more often. Of course, you are basing all of this on the assumption that someone leaking X must necessarily possess NO ability to reason and choose wisely about what to leak next (if anything) -- an assumption that is in no circumstances warranted.

dkarl 16y ago

Apparently, for many of the hackers present, it was an issue of snitching. That's pretty stupid. I don't think there's any "no snitching" ethic that would obligate a gun enthusiast to keep his mouth shut when he sees somebody killed with a gun. I don't see why hacking should be any different. I question Lamo's motives, and I disagree with what he did (because I think the U.S. government dishonestly sweeps its mistakes under the rug of "classified for reasons of national security,") but he could have done what he did from a pure motive to protect civilians, soldiers, and U.S. interests.

mcelrath 16y ago

Federal offense. I'd have turned his ass in too. Hackers know they are breaking the law, and shouldn't be squawking too loudly when they get prosecuted for it.