Simply put, as much as I respect manning's actions, manning should not have confided in lamo. Rookie move.
source: I... know people that know Adrian
Source: I’ve known Adrian personally for decades.
No good group of people has that rule. I've seen/heard about that rule so far from the mafia, drug dealers, and bad cops.
In on itself disclosing information is not a good or bad act. Depending on the outcome and goals of the person it can be heroic or treacherous act.
Manning was a hero. Lamo is a snitch and a traitor.
It seems that the election of Trump, in particular, has turned half of the infosec community into rabid fans of the CIA/FBI/NSA. It's really quite sickening.
One of my personal favorite public conversions has been the grugq. In 3-4 years he's gone from selling bugs (worldwide), and supporting hackers (worldwide), to a rabid Russiaphobe who uncritically accepts whatever unsubstantiated claims GCHQ and NSA make, and refuses to sell bugs to anyone but FVEY.
Summer camp probably won't be very much fun this year.
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/03/07/dems-m07.html
This seems good for democracy!
Simplistic. Kids, please be a snitch sometimes, like Manning.
It's similar to lung cancer deaths caused by smoking cigarettes. No one has ever been able to specifically name someone who died from lung cancer caused by smoking. In every single case, it is possible that the named person is one of the many people each year who die from lung cancers caused by things such radon exposure, asbestos, an unlucky mutation, or air pollution.
We do know that when the Taliban would find out that someone was aiding those who opposed the Taliban, they would go after that person (and often their family, too). So we know that the leaks would have made some people targets who would not have otherwise been targets at the time.
The best we can do is, as with lung cancer, is think about it statistically. Compare the people exposed in the leaks to similarly situated people who were not mentioned, and see if the former had a statistically significant higher death rate from Taliban attacks for themselves or their families.
I don't know if the data is available to carry out that analysis.
You seem to have forgotten that you wrote this.
> The best we can do is, as with lung cancer, is think about it statistically. Compare the people exposed in the leaks to similarly situated people who were not mentioned, and see if the former had a statistically significant higher death rate from Taliban attacks for themselves or their families.
> I don't know if the data is available to carry out that analysis.
I think you're both making valid points and the truth is somewhere in the middle. Yes, with certain kinds of leaks, there are potential risks to people that should be taken into account, by carefully selecting, and redacting when appropriate, the material to be leaked (which Manning didn't begin to do, nor allow anyone else to do). And on the other hand, with any leak of information about the military, one can count on people who object to the leak raising concerns about such risks, making it difficult to tell exactly how valid these concerns are in any particular case. That's not necessarily a good argument against leaking at all, in my opinion, though many consider it so.
I generally reject arguments of this form, because:
1. In the absence of real data, they are essentially just fear mongering.
2. It violates the general principle of innocent until proven guilty, because we are assuming Chelsea Manning is guilty of getting people killed without evidence that this is the case.
3. Accepting arguments of this form puts a strong incentive on those in charge to classify everything so that they can always rely on uncertainty to fuel fear. In some sense this incentive is the root cause of everything we are discussing.
> That's not necessarily a good argument against leaking at all, in my opinion, though many consider it so.
That's definitely not a good arguments against leaking at all. The much more interesting question in my mind is: in a situation where people might have been hurt or killed because of a leak is it right to be critical of the leaker in stead of focusing on the contents of the leak. Personally I (somewhat predictably) would say no. For the reasons above, and also because, Chelsea Manning exposed plenty of instances where people definitely were hurt and killed (in a situation where the leak contained lower stakes information, my opinion might be different).
People commonly argue that Manning's leaks were justified because they exposed some cover ups, and the leaks did not harm anyone who was not doing anything illegal. They base the second half of that on nobody being able to name any specific person who was harmed.
My point is that is an impossible standard. They want absolute proof of harm before they will consider the possibility that maybe Manning should have redacted names, or left out documents that were completely irrelevant to whatever crimes and cover ups she hoped to expose.
By that standard if someone is already in a situation where they are in danger, you could leak anything about them and disclaim any responsibility if they subsequently get killed, because it might have been due do that danger they were already in.
In that case, in 2001, a jury in the Supreme Court of New South Wales decided in favour of a plaintiff who had brought a claim against her employer based on common law negligence and breach of an employer's statutory duty. The plaintiff had worked as a bartender at the Port Kembla RSL between 1984 and 1995 and at the Port Kembla Hotel from 1973 to 1984. In 1995, the plaintiff discovered a lump on the side of her neck, and was diagnosed with cancer of the mouth, throat and neck. The plaintiff claimed that her cancer had been caused by exposure to secondhand smoke during the course of her employment at the Port Kembla RSL and the Port Kembla Hotel. The Port Kembla Hotel settled the plaintiff's claim against it out of court, for $160 000. The claim against the Port Kembla RSL proceeded to trial before a jury in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.
The jury in this case found that the employer's negligence had either caused or materially contributed to the plaintiff's cancer. This finding was based on a series of conclusions reached by the jury. On the balance of probabilities, the jury found that (i) on the information available to the Port Kembla RSL at relevant times, it had been reasonably foreseeable that the plaintiff would suffer physical injury; (ii) there had been a reasonably practicable means of eliminating the risk; (iii) in failing to ban smoking totally or partially or to constantly operate exhaust fans, the employer had by its conduct caused or materially contributed to the plaintiff's injury; and (iv) the employer had not acted reasonably.
The jury awarded the plaintiff a total of $466 048 in damages, less the amount she had already received from the earlier settlement with the Port Kembla Hotel. The damages were awarded as damages for pain, suffering and loss of enjoyment of life, and past and future medical expenses, domestic assistance and loss of earnings.
http://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au/16-3-litigation-relatin...
- https://www.buzzfeed.com/jasonleopold/secret-government-repo...
> Regarding the hundreds of thousands of Iraq-related military documents and State Department cables provided by the Army private Chelsea Manning, the report assessed “with high confidence that disclosure of the Iraq data set will have no direct personal impact on current and former U.S. leadership in Iraq.”
- http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/feb/...
> In the several years since WikiLeaks released hundreds of thousands of government documents leaked by Manning, the government has not publicly identified a single example of the Taliban killing someone because that person was named in the leaks. If someone had died as a result, it seems logical that the incident would have become public knowledge, either through Manning's trial or in media reports.
It would have been entirely reasonable at the time to assume that some of the 260k+ cables might have endangered US soldiers, allies, and others. The fact that we can't prove it did now does not change the reasonableness of that conclusion nearly a decade ago, and given the stakes at play it seems unfair to vilify someone for doing what he did.
If by 'for you' you mean Halliburton and Monsanto.
SNITCHING means going to the authorities to out one of your comrades, especially in return for some 'deal' you're offered. That makes you scum.
WHISTLEBLOWING means going to the public to out criminals for their secret crimes and lies, especially public servants and those in power. That makes you a hero.
All The People Who Betrayed Chelsea Manning - Kevin Poulsen https://www.thedailybeast.com/all-the-people-who-betrayed-ch...
I hope you don't give your kids that advice when they see someone at school with a gun in their backpack.
Statements like this are why women regularly get sexually assaulted at frat parties in front of dozens of witnesses, none of whom will even consider going to the authorities about it.
Snitching should be normalized.
Manning was a hero. Lamo is a snitch and a traitor.
Is that aimed at Chelsea, Adrian, or both?