5 ms·

> (02:56:04 PM) info@adrianlamo.com: i mean, showed up – for you – if Julian were to slip up. > (02:56:46 PM) bradass87: he knows very little about me > (02:5

by lhnz 15y ago

> (02:56:04 PM) info@adrianlamo.com: i mean, showed up – for you – if Julian were to slip up. > (02:56:46 PM) bradass87: he knows very little about me > (02:56:54 PM) bradass87: he takes source protection uber-seriously > (02:57:01 PM) bradass87: “lie to me” he says > (02:57:06 PM) info@adrianlamo.com: Really. Interesting. > (02:57:34 PM) bradass87: he wont work with you if you reveal too much about yourself So it seems that Assange really does take source protection seriously and isn't a co-conspirator as has been suggested. Why did they redact this previously?

lclarkmichalek 15y ago
Narrative. Salon had a good piece criticizing wired in light of the full logs: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/07/14/wired/index.html http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/07/14...
jasonwatkinspdx 15y ago
Because it undermines the narrative they wanted to publicize. Now that the narrative is well established they can release the full logs and it won't even make a dent in broad opinion.
- lhnz 15y ago
  Aha! Reminds me of this article [1] from a couple of days ago. Once misinformation is out there, it's almost impossible to correct it. The audience will be permanently biased towards the misinformation unless you deliberately explain that this was an attempt to mislead them and that the "continued influence effect" means that after the information is corrected it will still have an effect on their thinking. [1] http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2011/07/11/3265013.htm http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2011/07/11/3265013.ht...
- rsingel 15y ago
  What was this narrative you speak of? Got a link or an example to back up your insinuation?
  - jasonwatkinspdx 15y ago
    The narrative is that Wikileaks acted as a co-conspirator in the theft of classified information. It is legal in the US to republish illegally obtained information, so long as the publisher was not party to the crime in any way. The quoted snippet undermines claims that Julian Assanage was party to the crime. Who has made such claims? Lamo. His claims and evidence form the motivation and basis of the Justice Department's investigation. According to Assange's lawyers, a grand jury was convened. If true, it clearly would benefit the prosecution to only enter as evidence the portions of the chat logs that best supported its case. If Wired published the entire logs, this wouldn't be possible. I would take the release of the logs as indication that the justice department has abandoned that portion of the investigation, possibly after being denied by the grand jury.
    - extension 15y ago
      possibly after being denied by the grand jury. Pardon my ignorance of the American legal system but when, if ever, would that become public knowledge?
      - jasonwatkinspdx 15y ago
        Generally it's done in public, so this would be some sort of atypical procedure I'm not familiar with. And again, this is just based on statements by Assanages attorneys, which may not be trustworthy or accurately informed.
    - rsingel 15y ago
      Where in Wired.com's reporting is there any narrative that Assange directed Manning? Your statement in the logs would somehow save Assange from a U.S. grand jury is laughable. And it's a very thin thread to try to weave a tapestry that Wired is in cahoots with the FBI. You must not read Threat Level very often.
      - jasonwatkinspdx 15y ago
        There isn't in Wired, but there is in Lamo's statements. They wouldn't save him, but they would significantly weaken the case. Other than Lamo's word, the only evidence is those logs and several encrypted emails. I don't think Wired is in "cahoots" with the FBI (It's a justice department investigation also, not FBI). I do think one particular person at Wired (Poulson) is likely acting in a way that supports Lamo. Why Lamo wants all this, I don't know or care to speculate on.

by lhnz 15y ago

lclarkmichalek 15y ago

Narrative. Salon had a good piece criticizing wired in light of the full logs: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/07/14/wired/index.html http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/07/14...

jasonwatkinspdx 15y ago

Because it undermines the narrative they wanted to publicize. Now that the narrative is well established they can release the full logs and it won't even make a dent in broad opinion.

lhnz 15y ago
Aha! Reminds me of this article [1] from a couple of days ago. Once misinformation is out there, it's almost impossible to correct it. The audience will be permanently biased towards the misinformation unless you deliberately explain that this was an attempt to mislead them and that the "continued influence effect" means that after the information is corrected it will still have an effect on their thinking. [1] http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2011/07/11/3265013.htm http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2011/07/11/3265013.ht...
rsingel 15y ago
What was this narrative you speak of? Got a link or an example to back up your insinuation?
- jasonwatkinspdx 15y ago
  The narrative is that Wikileaks acted as a co-conspirator in the theft of classified information. It is legal in the US to republish illegally obtained information, so long as the publisher was not party to the crime in any way. The quoted snippet undermines claims that Julian Assanage was party to the crime. Who has made such claims? Lamo. His claims and evidence form the motivation and basis of the Justice Department's investigation. According to Assange's lawyers, a grand jury was convened. If true, it clearly would benefit the prosecution to only enter as evidence the portions of the chat logs that best supported its case. If Wired published the entire logs, this wouldn't be possible. I would take the release of the logs as indication that the justice department has abandoned that portion of the investigation, possibly after being denied by the grand jury.
  - extension 15y ago
    possibly after being denied by the grand jury. Pardon my ignorance of the American legal system but when, if ever, would that become public knowledge?
    - jasonwatkinspdx 15y ago
      Generally it's done in public, so this would be some sort of atypical procedure I'm not familiar with. And again, this is just based on statements by Assanages attorneys, which may not be trustworthy or accurately informed.
  - rsingel 15y ago
    Where in Wired.com's reporting is there any narrative that Assange directed Manning? Your statement in the logs would somehow save Assange from a U.S. grand jury is laughable. And it's a very thin thread to try to weave a tapestry that Wired is in cahoots with the FBI. You must not read Threat Level very often.
    - jasonwatkinspdx 15y ago
      There isn't in Wired, but there is in Lamo's statements. They wouldn't save him, but they would significantly weaken the case. Other than Lamo's word, the only evidence is those logs and several encrypted emails. I don't think Wired is in "cahoots" with the FBI (It's a justice department investigation also, not FBI). I do think one particular person at Wired (Poulson) is likely acting in a way that supports Lamo. Why Lamo wants all this, I don't know or care to speculate on.