Putting the Record Straight on the Lamo-Manning Chat Logs (Wired responds)

[Ellipsis]

* By Evan Hansen and Kevin Poulsen
* December 28, 2010 |
* 9:18 pm


<Snip>

We have already published substantial excerpts from the logs, but critics continue to challenge us to reveal all, ostensibly to fact-check some statements that Lamo has made in the press summarizing portions of the logs from memory (his computer hard drive was confiscated, and he no longer has has a copy).

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.

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.




http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/12/greenwald/







<Snip>

[Cassandra]

1. Carrying water for someone?

Journalists are supposed to publish, not hand feed us what they think we can handle.

[Luminous Animal]

2. Wired idiots.They maybe have the logs to support Lamo's accusations and nobody asked them to release

everything. Only those logs that might expose Lamo has a liar or a truth teller.

[hlthe2b]

3. I am not buying..

at all.

[Luminous Animal]

4. Putting the record straight = trust us.

Honest. Lamo has made some damning claims but we are unwilling to release any evidence to support those claims.

Snort.

[EFerrari]

12. Why did the editor butt in?

Maybe he just had to go on the record defending John Burn's sleazy hit piece on Assange.

[Hissyspit]

5. delete

[Ellipsis]

6. I edited that out before you posted.

...what do you mean though?

[Hissyspit]

7. I have deleted.

I think I misread it.

[Ellipsis]

8. I respect your opinion. So I was freakin' a bit

I should have just said that no logs were posted, so no new data, just some retorts to Greenwald.


There is some other good background info though.

[Hissyspit]

9. I, too, am struck by the lack of substantive counter-argument in the article.

It seems to consist mostly of ad hominem attack on Greenwald.

No problem, btw, my opinion can be wrong!

[EFerrari]

10. That was my take, too. nt

[boppers]

11. DADT is still in effect.

"Outing" people via private chat disclosures is disrespectful.

[xchrom]

13. do the documents that support or refute lamos contain

personal information of a sensitive nature?

why not just release those?

[EFerrari]

14. Glenn has responded and all kinds of people weighing in.

Interesting discussion. All the links are in one place that I know of, Greg Mitchell's blog:

http://www.thenation.com/blog/157348/blogging-wikeleaks-news-views-wednesday-day-32

Glenn's responses here:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/29/wired_response_1/index.html