BLOG POST: Wired takes pot shot at Wikileaks
Thu, 07/01/2010 - 13:58
Topic Source:
I've followed with great interest Wired.com's coverage of the arrest of Private Bradley Manning over his alleged leak of classified material to the Wikileaks website.
I've also watched in disbelief as Wikileaks has lashed out at Wired.com journalist Kevin Poulsen, suggesting he somehow acted unethically in his reporting of the arrest.
In my mind all he did was scoop other outlets with the news of Manning's troubles. That's not unethical, that's just good journalism.
Thu, 07/01/2010 - 15:03
#2
Hey Ryan, thanks for
Hey Ryan, thanks for posting.
"While unquestionably newsworthy, the article reads like a classic attack piece, dripping with sarcasm."
Of course it's news, but don't you think Wired should have been a little more careful about running an article with this sort of tone in light of the spat between Poulsen and Assange?
That's a serious question.
I don't know if you listen to the Risky Business podcast... my guess is you don't. I fully support critical reporting on Wikileaks and I think its attacks on Kevin's professionalism have been bizarre.
The issue here is that Wired chose to run a somewhat sarcastic and damaging piece against an organisation it's been involved in a high-profile spat with. This spat has nothing to do with you, but as you point out, Kevin was your commissioning editor.
In my view it should have been disclosed.
Thu, 07/01/2010 - 18:13
#3
Criticism of Poulsen more wise than you might think
The criticism of Poulsen by Wikileaks may be more wise than you might think. I originally thought the same thing: that it was a bit over the top to criticise Poulsen, but check out Glenn Greewald's analysis: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/06/18/wikileaks
Greenwald is a much better journalist than Poulsen and has clearly done his research.
I am curious to know why you refer to Wikileaks is "pseudo-activist". If Wikileaks is not activist, then who is? Wikileaks is the most effective activist organisation in the world, no matter what one might think about there, and have managed be so despite limited resources.
I am also suprised at the idea that media coverage of Wikileaks is "mostly-laudatory". Wikileaks has received unjust criticism not just from Wired but from The Washington Post, Fox News, FAS, The New Yorker and Mother Jones, and has received inadequate coverage most others media organisations in America.
Thu, 07/01/2010 - 18:34
#4
Thanks for your comment,
Thanks for your comment, Anon...
Greenwald says:
"And what about Wired's role in all of this? Both WikiLeaks as well as various Internet commentators have suggested that Poulsen violated journalistic ethical rules by being complicit with Lamo in informing on Manning. I don't see any evidence for that."
He seems annoyed that Poulsen won't publish all the chat logs, but really, Kevin has no obligation to release them. They're his source material to be used however he wishes and Greenwald should know that.
I doubt Greenwald himself would be particularly keen to turn over all material provided to him by all his sources. It's a ridiculous criticism, in my view.
You said it about the activism. The problem is Wikipedia calls itself a whistleblower site and media organisation, not an activist organisation.
Activists generally have stated, specific objectives. Save the whales! Hire more teachers! We want more/less guns. Wikileaks has none, other than this "information should be free" 80s hacker ethos.
Don't get me wrong, I think Wikileaks has done some tremendous work. It's been extremely effective at marketing itself as a source of material and a reliable drop point. Stuff that never would have been leaked otherwise is now seeing the light of day.
By making this sort of information disclosure it appear new (It's not. Watergate was a while ago now), Wikileaks has made leaking sexy. (My, that sounds strange.)
But it's not above criticism.
Its manipulation of the context surrounding the material released is worrying. The fact one guy seems to run it is worrying. Wikileaks should be more important than Julian Assange's politics or perspective. We shouldn't know what Assange thinks of the material he's releasing, but we always do.
In my view Wikileaks should be a politically neutral conduit for source material. It shouldn't have a head who publicly berates journalists for doing their job. It shouldn't have a head who decides to release material under loaded headlines, under its policy of going for "maximum impact" with all leaked material.
As for media criticism, it's healthy. Any new phenomenon like this is bound to be scrutinised by the press... that's actually a good thing.
You need to put any organisation with this much influence through a torture test...
Thu, 07/01/2010 - 18:36
#5
Disclosure
I should mention that I know Kevin -- I did a bit of work for him around 2004 when he was at SecurityFocus...
Fri, 07/02/2010 - 05:34
#6
Sarcasm
Patrick - I appreciate that you have kept a level head in analyzing Wikileaks' lashing out at Poulsen.
That said, I don't think the piece was sarcastic at all and it wasn't intended to be.
"Despite a surge in mostly laudatory media portraying Wikileaks as a fearless, unstoppable outlet for documents that embarrass corporations and overbearing governments" is a fair assessment of the publicity Wikileaks has gotten over the last few months.
As for including the "backstory" about Wikileak's unfounded charges, I don't think it would have added anything useful to the story.
And just to note, Wikileaks is run on Wiki software. How difficult would it be/have been for Wikileaks to update the site to note that it was in the midst of some technical changes and that the submission form was wrong?
Basic transparency seems to be in order for Wikileaks, no?
Sincerely,
Ryan Singel
P.S. Your captcha is damn hard for even a human to use.
Fri, 07/02/2010 - 11:42
#7
I read it as sarcastic. So
I read it as sarcastic. So did Lamo, tweeting:
"@riskybusiness @ThreatLevelBlog is sarcastic. I assume you've read them enough to know that. This isn't unique to this piece." (http://twitter.com/6/status/17464381123)
Then there's stuff like this:
"And on June 12, Wikileaks’ secure submission page stopped working after the site failed to renew its SSL certificate, a basic web protection that costs less than $30 a year and takes only hours to set up."
"Costs less than $30... only takes hours."
To me this doesn't read like straight news. If I submitted something like that to a broadsheet newspaper they'd cut it.
As for the backstory, one sentence linking to a reference to the shenanigans would have, in my view, been appropriate. What about "Assange, no friend to ThreatLevel editor Kevin Poulsen, declined to comment."
Nice, simple disclosure.
I think the fact that the editor of ThreatLevel has had a somewhat nasty and public disagreement with the subject of the story is of significant importance that it should have been disclosed.
It may also explain, for example, why Assange declined to comment.
Perhaps that disclosure wasn't your decision to make, but I would have thought someone at Wired would have had more sense.
FWIW, I think ThreatLevel is an excellent resource and home of some of the best information security journalism on the planet. I just think there should have been some disclosure here.
As for the CAPTCHAs, yeah, they're hard to use... they have to be otherwise my site is transformed into an online pharmacy pretty quickly.
Thanks for taking the time to write.
P
Fri, 07/02/2010 - 14:17
#8
Reply to Mr Gray: On Standards
Thanks for your erudite response.
You say that activist organisations "generally have stated, specific objectives. Save the whales! Hire more teachers! We want more/less guns". This is what makes them purile and ineffective. While an activist organisation is ideally (and ostensibly) an organisation dedicated to generating positive political reform, most activist organisations are tribalistic institutions which people sign up to in order to reinforce there current beliefs and strengthen their sense of identity, without actually achieving very much, if anything. All important political reform is driven by fresh information. Therefore, an organisation is only truly "activist" if it is journalistic. Also, journalism is only useful if it too helps to generate positive political reform. Therefore, all good journalism is activist. Assange says that the particular view of Wikileaks "on the mechanism of transparency is to selectively go after material that is concealed. Because organizations that have material and want to conceal it are giving off a signal that they believe there will be reform if that material is released". This is what makes Wikileaks both the best activist organisation and the best journalistic organisation in the world. It is absurd to criticise Wikileaks for going for "maximum impact". They would make both poor journalists and poor activists if they didn't.
It also seems to me that bloggers and the media are holding Wikileaks to a higher standard than any other activist or journalistic organisation, and then criticising Wikileaks based on these impossibly high standards. You criticise Wikileaks for their "ridiculously biased contextualising" of their source material, but because they provide the unedited source material, all of their analysis and rhetoric is verifiable. Kevin Poulsen wrote and article which was much more ridiculously biased, and is withholding much of the original source material, and yet you criticise Wikileaks, while calling what he did "good journalism". According to Lamo in his interview with Greenwald (the full audio is available on the article), there are parts of the chat-log which Poulsen has but has not released in which Lamo offered Manning journalistic protection, which would make what he did illegal, and Poulsen may also have been complicit in this, because he has a long history of working with Lamo. How do we know if he won't release the full chat logs? However, you are right at least the Wikileaks twitter page was wrong in jumping to this conclusion.
Although Wikileaks is not perfect, if you are want to great positive political reform as a blogger, your time and resources would be better spent defending Wikileaks, or at least directing your criticisms elsewhere. I would merely suggest that you hold all media institutions, activist intitutions, and (god forbid) public and corporate institutions up to the same standards that you hold Wikileaks, and then see how they measure up.
Kindly,
gregcaletta@gmail.com
Fri, 07/02/2010 - 16:24
#9
Assange and Twitter
P.S. I would just like to point that although it is likely that at least some if not all of the twitter posts are by Assange, we should not state it as if it were a fact until we have much better evidence. If the twitter feeds are written exclusively by Assange, I must say I find it strange, because the twitter comments have some times been over-the-top and immature, whereas in person, Assange seems mature, calm and reasonable, although he can argue aggressively and has his angry moments. This comment, on why Poulsen's behaviour is highly questionable, is much more in Assange's style. It is mature and reasonable, and I am almost certain it was written by him: http://www.boingboing.net/2010/06/13/video-wikileaks-foun.html#comment-8...
Another point on the inconsistency of standards in the criticism of Wikileaks is "the fact one guy seems to run it" is worrying.
For many years, Julian Assange ran Wikileaks in anonymity, and he wanted to remain so. He came forward because the media demanded a figurehead. The media demanded that Wikileaks have a face, and Julian came forward recently and reluctantly. And now that he has come forward, the media makes similar criticisms for to yours, that "Wikileaks should be more important than Julian Assange's politics or perspective. We shouldn't know what Assange thinks of the material he's releasing, but we always do". Not only does the media contradict its old criticisms with new criticisms, but the new criticism is also inconsistent applied. Don't all media organisations and activists organisations have a CEO? Why should we not know what Assange thinks about the material? Doesn't Rupert Murdoch also have opinions and make them public, and don't these opinions affect the way his dozens of news channels and newpapers present their material? Don't all media organisations function is this way? The only differences I can see between Wikileaks and other media organisations are very complimentary to the former. The main differences being that Wikileaks publish full source material, so we can check if Assange's opinions on the material are justified, and the material they release is material that was being kept classified specifically because it was material suspected create political reform if it were released.
Regards,
Greg
Fri, 07/02/2010 - 16:49
#10
Good explanation of the treachery of Poulsen
Actually, an even better explanation of the aggression of the Wikileaks twitter page against Poulsen can be found in a comment by "mpineiro" here: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/wikileaks-submission/comment-pa...
This may also be written by Assange.
Regards,
Greg
Fri, 07/02/2010 - 17:03
#11
I managed to piss off the
I managed to piss off the pro-Wikileaks crowd AND Wired.
Guess I'm doing something right.. :)
Fri, 07/02/2010 - 17:38
#12
Shield Law
There's much ado in the conspiracy-minded crew about whether Lamo offered journalistic/religious protection to Manning and whether Wired is hiding it.
The only thing the truth of that matters for is how you judge Lamo.
The law protects journalists, not sources. California's shield law protects journalists -- in some cases -- from having to reveal sources or notes to investigators. It doesn't require them to keep sources confidential.
I'm not defending what Lamo did, simply stating that even if Lamo offered to invoke the shield if confronted by the law and even if he promised confidentiality, he didn't break the law by dropping a dime on Manning.
Of course, pointing that fact will simply prove I'm an enemy of Wikileaks. That's the level of debate this has devolved to.
Ryan Singel
Sat, 07/03/2010 - 11:22
#13
Re:Shield Law
Why do you feel the debate has devolved? I thought my comments were reasonable and I was hoping you would respond to some of them. Perhaps you can't respond because you haven't done your research?
If Lamo offered journalistic protection, then he is clearly obligated by law to do so. The point about the Shield Law is only relevant is Lamo did NOT offer journalistic protection. In that case, some say that the Shield Law protects Manning anyway, whether he offers protection or not. You say that this is not the case, and I would be interested to know where you get that information, because it would be legally very relevant.
It's not quite a conspiracy about "whether Lamo offered journalistic protection to Manning". Lamo himself told Greewald that he did, (audio is available at Greenwald's article) so I don't see how to believe that he might have would be "conspiracy-minded". In any case, Poulsen is hiding the parts of the transcript which would clear up the matter. Why do you call this "good journalism"?
You say "I managed to piss off the pro-Wikileaks crowd AND Wired". You should expect when you make yourself out to be above the debate. Claiming that both parties in the debate are being immature is insulting to everyone.
Mon, 07/05/2010 - 10:40
#14
I never put myself "above the
I never put myself "above the debate" -- my post was addressing what I saw as petty squabbling and immature behaviour.
It would be helpful if you could actually describe what "debate" I'm supposedly putting myself above... all I see is people from two different camps slagging each other off. What's being debated?
You also seem to be confusing my posts with Ryan Singel's.
I'll let the lawyers argue about the shield laws, but I do agree with Ryan that their *intent* is to protect sources by giving journalists the power to withhold their names. They're not designed to protect sources if the journalist double-crosses them.
(I'm not saying that's what Lamo did because I have no idea if that's what happened.)
But again, regardless of what the shield laws saw, Poulsen is under no obligation to release his source material.
I don't understand why everyone has their knickers in a twist about this -- the full transcripts will be available to the defence through discovery. If it's legally relevant the defence will mount that argument in court.
Tue, 07/06/2010 - 04:45
#15
Shield Law
Dear anonymous:
The shield law DOESN'T require a journalist to protect sources, it gives them a partial protection against having to reveal it if they don't want to.
http://www.thefirstamendment.org/shieldlaw.html
The Shield Law protects a "publisher, editor, reporter, or other person connected with or employed unpon a newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication, or by a press association or wire service" and a "radio or television news reporter or other person connected with or employed by a radio or television station."
Here's the letter of the law:
http://www.citmedialaw.org/california-evidence-code-sec-1070
In short, Lamo may have violated a promise, but either way, did not violate the law.
The same holds true for the shield for religious confessions.
It's a bunk argument.
Ryan Singel
Tue, 07/06/2010 - 19:06
#16
Oops
Yeah, sorry Patrick, I confused your comments with Ryan's.
However, I would still appreciate if you could respond to some of my points. In particular, how can you call what Pouslen did "good journalism" when he is withholding huge amounts of relevant source material, and then criticise Wikileaks for being "biased" when Wikileaks release all of their source material, so that you can interpret the material for yourself? Also, it has been suggested that Poulsen may have been involved in manipulating Manning with Lamo from the start, which would be seriously illegal. Releasing the full chat logs would clear up this matter, but he still does not do so. Do you stand by your statement that his work "good journalism"?
Greg
Tue, 07/06/2010 - 20:54
#17
To Ryan
The above is partially directed at Ryan also, so I will partially repeat myself.
Ryan, you may be right that the Shield Law does not protect Manning if Lamo did not offer him protection, but if Lamo DID explicitly offer journalistic protection to Manning, as he claims he did, then he broke federal the law; that is entrapment. Also, Poulsen may have been involved in manipulating Manning with Lamo from the start, which would be seriously illegal. Releasing the full chat logs would clear up this matter, but he still does not do so. On the other hand, Wikileaks, the greatest institution for creating positive legal reform in the in the world, always releases its full source material, despite the fact that they are not under a legal obligation to do so, just as Poulsen isn't. Why do say the debate has has "devolved", just because some people criticism Poulsen's behaviour on moral rather than legal grounds and defend Wikileaks against criticism?
Wed, 07/07/2010 - 10:20
#18
As a journalist you are not
As a journalist you are not required to release your source material. You might withhold such material because it's damaging to a source, it's peripheral to the story or it violates someone's privacy.
If, hypothetically, a regular source of high-quality information provides you with some material that may damage them if released, you work your hardest to protect them.
That way they're more likely to keep feeding you good information. This is how good journalist works, so I stand by my statement that Poulsen's work was good journalism.
The story was about Manning's arrest, not the affect of shield laws on the legality of the arrest.
As I mentioned earlier the lawyers will argue about this one in court and the chat logs will be available to Manning's legal defence. Poulsen's refusal to hand over the logs to the public is of zero consequence to Manning.
P
Wed, 07/07/2010 - 15:49
#19
Your "Legal" Theories
Anonymous:
No, the shield law would never offer Manning protection, it might have offered Lamo some protection from the feds -- if he were working as a journalist. It wouldn't matter one bit if Lamo offered protection or not, what would matter is what Lamo might have argued in court and whether a court would actually rule he's a journalist and that the shield applied.
And not to be rude, but I'm glad you aren't my lawyer or Manning's. Entrapment doesn't apply to civilians. And even if it did apply, Lamo didn't ask Manning to steal the documents or share them. He simply asked what he did. If anyone would be guilty of "entrapment," under your pseudo-legal theory, it would be Wikileaks, no?
Moreover, there's no evidence -- not a shred -- not even any that Greenwald could come up with -- that Poulsen worked with Lamo to turn Manning in. What proof do you have to back up your slimy accusations and insinuations?
Wikileaks greatest institution for creating positive legal reforms? Seriously? I mean Wikileaks is a good idea and has released some good stuff, but can you point to a single legal reform that Wikileaks has caused? (And no, Iceland's resolution to pass resolutions doesn't count.) The ACLU or the NAACP or the NRA has had more effect on the legal system than Wikileaks.
No, I say the debate has devolved because of the conspiracy that Wired conspired secretly to turn Manning in. And as for the chat logs, did you notice what happened when more of them were released on BoingBoing?
Certainly Manning's lawyer will have them all. That's how discovery works. What good do you actually think will happen from publishing the logs in full? If Manning's attorney wants to release them, he certainly can.
Or is the campaign about the logs more about finding a scapegoat for Manning's stupid decision to talk to an egotistical, paranoid and attention seeking former hacker?
Sincerely,
Ryan Singel
Wed, 07/07/2010 - 22:44
#20
Chatlogs
There is indeed some need for clarification on the chatlogs. On May 25 there is an odd jump between “(03:12:16 PM) Manning: im almost certain he had a copy” and the following part: “(01:52:30 PM) Manning: funny thing is… we transffered so much data on unmarked CDs…”
I used to think, that it was kind of editing for the drama, because that way it ends with Lamo’s insinuation, that Wikileaks could be a spy organziation. On the other hand there are no logs for May 24, so maybe it was from this day actually.
Here we see a questionable way of editing, since the date of this last part is not given and it appears that the intention was to end with a punch against Wikileak’s credibility.
During the last weeks there were many articles, blogs and mails, that attacked WL. Compared to those, I found Wired one of the more level-headed, though opposing WL. But the example above looks manipulative.
And Ryan, your article simply was no news, unless you think, Wikileaks is the most important website on this world and every up and down must be reported. And, of course, in the context of the latest events, it looks a little bit, as if you wanted to join the beating.
Horst Wilden
Thu, 07/08/2010 - 04:30
#21
Horst -
Wikileaks holds
Horst -
Wikileaks holds itself out as the premiere site for whistleblowers to leak documents.
It is now closing on a month since its upload system doesn't work. There is no notice on the site that it is broken.
That's hardly reporting every up and down.
I find it odd that Wikileaks supporters don't actually want to know what is going on.
As for the line in the chat logs, it seems like you are grasping at straws. How hard is it to see the obvious truth? Manning was carrying a great burden, thought he found a kindred spirit to share with and instead ended up talking to a paranoid attention-seeker who dropped a dime on him?
Sincerely,
RS
Thu, 07/08/2010 - 07:27
#22
Wired
Sorry Ryan,
I am not a Wikileaks supporter at all.
Obviously you even did not understand my post.
Go back and read it again and give it a second try, if you really want to answer.
Your reply here only shows, that you don't even know what wired. com wrote, before you joined and you don't like the idea to read former wired.com articles at all.
Horst Wilden
Thu, 07/08/2010 - 08:52
#23
Chat log editing
Horst,
As for ending with an insinuation that Wikileaks was a CIA front I think you are reading a lot into not very much. While there's been speculation about that possibility for a long time, but it seems pretty clear from its behavior and Assange's past that it is not. I don't know anyone whose intellect I respect who actually believes that. Do you?
Otherwise, you are right. I don't think I understand what your original point was.
Sincerely,
RS
Thu, 07/08/2010 - 09:05
#24
A quick reminder
PFC Manning has been charged, and will be tried, under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Whatever "rules" you think you know about US Federal criminal justice may (or, more likely, may not) apply here. Manning, as I understand it, is being charged for the moment with mishandling classified information. No "shield" law (presuming that one exists which I do not believe exists in this case) is going to save a soldier from serious punishment if convicted of an offense like that.
I have personally seen courts-martial convict with much less direct evidence than seems to exist in this case. Manning will most likely be spending significant amounts of time contemplating his mistakes from PMITA prison.
Thu, 07/08/2010 - 09:24
#25
Chat log editing
Okay Ryan,
as it seems, we are not so far away from each other, and as I said in my first post, I found wired not reporting as worse as others did.
According to the timeline of the chatlogs I still don't see any reason, to publish them like this - not your fault at all, as I know. Since you appear reasonable here, maybe we should get to a point, where we both can agree.
It is absolutely stupid, to suggest, that Wikileaks is a spy organisation, as Lamo did in the chatlogs, and as the chatlogs ended in the wired-report.
- Only John Young would suggest that at Cryptome, who also does not like to make contacts to international journalists, because he does not trust anybody at all. -
But than we also should agree, that it was not "objective" to give Lamo the last word in those chatlogs, saying Wikileaks could be a spy organization. Especially - you never tried to answer to this - since the timeline is obviously wrong.
It was intentionally changed to attack Wikileaks.
But I rely on you, that you don't leave any room for critics any more in your next one, since you listen to these things. I am sure, you will make it better.
Horst Wilden
Thu, 07/08/2010 - 10:04
#26
Funny that you're not a fan
Funny that you're not a fan of Wikileaks, Horst. Someone with the exact same name as you has been posting to forums in defence of the WL!
http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2010/06/wikileaks_review.html
Quite funny that you're the one preaching objectivity... ;)
Thu, 07/08/2010 - 10:14
#27
I also
I also was the one, who aksed you about Lamo's contradiction, telling you, that he gave the chat logs to wikileaks on June 10 and telling wired, he would not give them to Assange on June 11.
And I also was the one, who twittered lately, that wikileaks at twitter - whoever that is - does not provide answers.
So what?
It's you and me, Patrick, who ask the questions. And we should not start to take part in this "pissing contest" - Wasn't that, how you called it? - but keep asking questions!
Horst Wilden
Thu, 07/08/2010 - 10:34
#28
Before we start anything wrong here
This was my last post over there:
"But this is also a message to Wikileaks and Julian Assange: You simply MUST take the time to answer to the critiques! It is not enough, to leave them just there, thinking they sound redicilous anyways.
And you MUST answer adequitely, as you did here, to show, where the critique is a total fail.
Don’t let yourself overrun by such articles, as we read here. Your answers can change things as well as your leaked documents. Maybe even more."
Does this sound like an uncritical Wikileaks fan?
Horst Wilden
Thu, 07/08/2010 - 10:44
#29
And if you can read German
than you know, where I am coming from:
http://oben.blogger.de/stories/1650412/
and
http://oben.blogger.de/stories/1654815/
Next one will be in English. I promise. But don't watch too much at my grammar. People use to say, it is "odd".
Horst Wilden
Thu, 07/08/2010 - 11:12
#30
All of your other posts on
All of your other posts on that site (I think there's another three) attack criticism of WL. As for letting me know about the chat logs, Adrian himself was in touch with me complaining about being "outed" as the source of the logs.
I reminded him that he outed himself on the podcast, but he said that didn't matter -- the fact WL had sent the logs to BoingBoing and outed Lamo as the source meant they were hypocrites. Or something.
I still have the audio of him 'outing himself', but it was a bit broken up over VoIP so I cut it and read out what he said at the end of the interview.
I don't think I'm getting involved in any pissing contest here. I don't really have much emotional investment one way or another... but I feel for Manning.
That video he sent to Wikileaks should never have been denied via a FOI request, so I don't think he should be charged with leaking it. It was shot from a US camera on a US military machine during a US led war. The American people have a right to see it. This isn't some sort of ideal. This is a basic principle of government... it's the law FFS.
You know the US military actually cited national security concerns when they denied the release of the footage? How could that video possibly compromise the security of the USA? Why aren't the people who made the decision to withhold the video up on charges? It's scandalous.
Without people like Manning to leak this sort of stuff -- whether to Wikileaks or the mainstream media -- we're fucked. I think that's what people are forgetting. It's not Wikileaks that did anything special here, it was Manning... back in the Watergate days it was Mark Felt who blew the lid off Watergate, not Woodward and Bernstein. Behind every scandal is a source... a leak.
Thu, 07/08/2010 - 11:53
#31
So we
So we have no problems with each other at all. - As I thought before.
Is that attack real? Difficult to say. I say Manning is real, his problems with manhood are real, I don't know, if anything else is real.
But the attack on wikileaks is real. Maybe this is why you thought, I am defending wikileaks, because this is the only party, which exists in real life. I am not. I want questiones answered and they say, they don't have the time. I say, they must take that time. As I said before.
Horst Wilden
Fri, 07/09/2010 - 00:33
#32
WIRED: Shut up already! I'm embarrassed for you.
Ryan - stop a second and take a look around you.
See #wikileaks on twitter. Up and down the beltway, Pentagon leakers are letting people know that they are mobilizing every spook, diplomat and soldier of fortune to go after Wikileaks.
Meanwhile, Ryan sits in SF entertaining himself with grade school level flame attacks against an organization that's been on every major media network for the past 6 weeks, has put fear in the heart of the world's worst war mongers and has everyone from Ellsberg to Ted Turner wondering if they are the future of journalism.
Wikileaks has tweeted some off-the-cuff statements, that's true. But, honestly, the integrity of both Kevin and Ryan could not be more in question at the moment and they have themselves to blame, for the most part. Seriously, the "form is broken" story? Did you really think that wouldn't be perceived as a revenge piece? Come on.
Take a look at your comment pages. Everyone is telling you how absurd it is. I just read on Twitter something like "Pentagon declares war on Wikileaks; Wired Exclusive - The Form Ultimatum"
I almost died of laughter. Is that what you want to be, Ryan? A laughing-stock? Because ... you are. And, FWIW, I don't think the questions raised about the Lamo/Poulsen journalism duo are that far-fetched. Lamo is at the Pentagon right now, helping put a kid away FOR LIFE. Can you even comprehend that? Can you understand how these issues are mountains and your petty form story is a tiny speck of dust?
Ryan - my advice? Stop now. Every time you publish something new, you look more and more like a child. Write about something else. Just ... stop. It's absolutely ridiculous.
Sorry for the rant but COME ON. Seriously, I'm done with Wired and I see I'm not the only one. And it's not entirely because of this issue but this is the one that takes it too far. I'll be cc:'ing this along to anyone and everyone at Wired.
Have a great day at the office conspiring your mis-allocation of Wired resources while authentic people are out there risking their necks for something important.
Pfft.
Fri, 07/09/2010 - 06:11
#33
Wikileaks and Black Ops
Oh, I didn't realize that Wikileaks was in such hot water and Julian in hiding given they haven't even violated U.S. law, even if they were subject to it.
I hope I don't give anything away to the "manhunters" by saying that Assange is scheduled to speak at the City University in London on the 9th of July at 5:50pm. Spooks need only pay five pounds to hear him.
And again, it's perplexing to me that supporters don't even want to know why Wikileaks submission system has been broken for nearly a month now and there's no notice on the web site about it.
Also what's the name of the lawyer that Wikileaks hired to defend Manning and who was supposedly rebuffed by the military?
Isn't odd that Assange has time to give speeches and interviews but doesn't find the time to update his own web site?
Get back to me when you have some proof -- anything -- that Wired did anything other than report on the actions of Lamo.
Otherwise, you are just another anonymous troll so enthralled with Wikileaks that you can't stand the slightest criticism of it.
Manning is facing 52 years because he fucked up and trusted an attention-seeker who decided to drop a dime on him for reasons that aren't particularly clear, other than self-aggrandizement.
Peddling conspiracy theories and throwing hissy fits whenever Wikileaks is criticised won't fix that.
Sincerely,
Ryan Singel
Fri, 07/09/2010 - 09:53
#34
Proof
Ryan said:
"Get back to me when you have some proof -- anything -- that Wired did anything other than report on the actions of Lamo."
And than he gives the proof himself in the next sentence:
"Otherwise, you are just another anonymous troll so enthralled with Wikileaks that you can't stand the slightest criticism of it."
Critics are not only "Wikileaks supporters", but this also equals with "anonymous trolls".
Since this would be true to most of the wired.com readers, who posted critical comments, I wonder how you look at your own readers, Ryan.
Btw, I only had heard the name Wikileaks here and there, before this drama started, and never had any interest to look at their site. I also did not hear of wired.com before.
I get my opinion from what I read from both sides. Wikileaks says not much at all, maybe following the rule: "If you had not spoken, everybody would have thought, you are wise."
You prefer to call your own critical readers Wikileaks supporters (as if this was something negative at all) and anonymous trolls.
Horst Wilden
How is it that reporting on Wikileaks with a critical eye is a "potshot"?
Google my history with Wikileaks "site:wired.com singel wikileaks", I've reported on them many times.
The premier whistleblowing site on the net has no way to submit documents and let its SSL cert expired.
That's not news?
It's own security advisor doesn't know what's going on?
You don't think that's newsworthy?
I sure do, that's why I wrote the post, which I pitched to Kevin after noticing comments around the net asking questions about Wikileaks.
Ryan Singel
@rsingel