3 ms·

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

by wnoise 16y ago

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.

cma 16y ago
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.
wycats 16y ago
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.
- wnoise 16y ago
  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.
- spot 16y ago
  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.
sitmack 16y ago
Greenwald was just asking them to refute or corroborate the claims made by Lamo.

by wnoise 16y ago

cma 16y ago

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.

wycats 16y ago

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.

wnoise 16y ago
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.
spot 16y ago
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.

sitmack 16y ago

Greenwald was just asking them to refute or corroborate the claims made by Lamo.