Wired's Response to Glenn Greenwald (re:Lamo-Manning Chat Logs)

Re:Wired's Response to Glenn Greenwald (re:Lamo-Manning Chat... by cma on Wednesday December 29, 2010 @12:12AM (#2047993)

We don't; how do I know you aren't payed by the government to say this unless right now you disclose all of your bank account credentials so I can check? (/sarcasm)

Greenwald's piece was predicated on new information coming to light (Lamo's recent allegations) that showed there was missing details in the chat logs that were material to the case. Wired refuted this; I just looked at the logs again and their refutation makes sense to me.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Wired's Response to Glenn Greenwald (re:Lamo-Manning Chat... by grandalf on Wednesday December 29, 2010 @12:29AM (#2048020)

Ok, so if the chat logs are eventually revealed and they contain information relevant to the accusations against Assange, then you will reverse your opinion?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Wired's Response to Glenn Greenwald (re:Lamo-Manning Chat... by cma on Wednesday December 29, 2010 @12:59AM (#2048082)

I'd gladly reverse my view on Wired in that case; I won't reverse my view on Greenwald's article; the information he used to back his argument doesn't make sense. If the conclusion ends up being correct, the argument still will have been bogus.

[ Parent | on HN ]