4 ms·
"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 t
by fuzzmeister 16y ago
"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.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- 8ig8 16y agoI 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.
- robterrell 16y agoBut 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.