Important Update on Wired and Lamo Chat Logs: No Unpub Material on Assange

[Hissyspit]

Source: Greg Mitchell @ The Nation

11:55 Seemingly important updates by the Wired folks tonight saying they reviewed the chat logs and found NO unpublished Manning references to Assange.  This leads BoingBoing to suggest in a new piece (see earlier one just below) that this undermines some of Lamo's claims and will make it harder to go after Assange in this matter.

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

---

http://m.boingboing.net/2010/12/29/lamomanning-wikileak.html

Wired.com: Lamo/Manning Wikileaks chat logs contain no unpublished references to Assange or private servers
Sean Bonner at 8:39 PM Wednesday, Dec 29, 2010 

Sean Bonner has been involved with blogs and hackerspaces and art galleries and record labels of the punk rock variety. Now he's on Twitter.

Above, a screenshot of an exchange I had over Twitter today with Wired Senior Editor Kevin Poulsen. If you find the last 72 hours of Wikileaks/Wired/Greenwald/Poulsen back-and-forth confusing, you aren't alone. Both sides have published lengthy attacks on the other which, while presumably intending to answer questions, have left many bystanders scratching their heads. Rob Beschizza summed up a lot of it earlier today, but here's my short summary:

• There has been wide speculation that the United States will attempt to prosecute Julian Assange by claiming he somehow coerced or convinced Bradley Manning to give him the classified US documents Wikileaks has been publishing. At the very least, the US may try to prove that Manning received some kind of special treatment from Wikileaks/Assange.

• Adrian Lamo has made statements to various news agencies in which he suggests that Manning told him Assange set up some kind of private or "special" FTP servers for his use. Obviously, a private server could be considered special treatment.

MORE

[tekisui]

1. Good. The conspiracy conspiracy is falling apart.

[EFerrari]

2. Or as we used to call it, journalism.

:)

[hlthe2b]

3. +++

I am damned glad for Glen Greenwald's efforts on this whole affair.

[EFerrari]

4. This whole thing strikes me a false premise -y

Journalists take steps to helps their sources get their material out all the time. That's why they have budgets, isn't it?

[Pavulon]

6. Cant conspire. You can write a story on coke but cant sell it..

if he was in on the crime he will be indicted.

[leveymg]

51. Look at the underlying statutes. 18 USC Sec. 641 and Sec. 793 of the Espionage Act

To make a case of conspiracy, the gov't will have to prove that Assange violated one or both of the following laws related to 1) conversion of government property and/or 2) receipt of classified materials with intent to commit Espionage:

The theory of potential prosecution for theft hinges on a 1988 Denial of Cert in the Morison case.

In 1988, Samuel Morison, an employee of the US Dept. of the Navy, unsuccessfully filed cert to remain free on bond after he was convicted of stealing classified U.S. satellite photos of a Soviet aircraft carrier under construction and selling the photos to Jane's Defense Weekly as part of consulting fees amounting to more than $300. The magazine and its editors were not prosecuted. Morison was convicted of two charges, one related to conversion of gov't property and the second under Sec. 793 of the Espionage Act. See, http://supreme.justia.com/us/486/1306/case.html

The government's argument in that case was laid out in the brief, below: http://www.justice.gov/osg/briefs/1988/sg880401.txt

SAMUEL LORING MORISON, PETITIONER V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

No. 88-169

In The Supreme Court Of The United States

October Term, 1988

On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of
Appeals For The Fourth Circuit

(SNIP)

STATUTES INVOLVED

Section 641 (18 U.S.C.) provides:

Whoever embezzles, steals, purloins, or knowingly converts to his
use or the use of another, or without authority, sells, conveys or
disposes of any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the
United States or of any department or agency thereof, or any property
made or being made under contract for the United States or any
department or agency thereof; or

Whoever receives, conceals, or retains the same with intent to
convert it to his use or gain, knowing it to have been embezzled,
stolen, purloined or converted --

Shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than
ten years, or both; but if the value of such property does not exceed
the sum of $100, he shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned
not more than one year, or both.

The word "value" means face, par, or market value, or cost price,
either wholesale or retail, whichever is greater.

Section 793 (18 U.S.C.) provides in pertinent part:

* * * * *

(d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control
over, or being entrusted with any * * * photograph * * * relating to
the national defense * * *, willfully communicates, delivers,
transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered or transmitted * * *
the same to any person not entitled to receive it * * *; or

(e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or
control over any document, writing, * * * or note relating to the
national defense, or information relating to the national defense
which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to
the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign
nation, * * * willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to
the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it;

* * * * *

Shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than
ten years, or both.

* * * * *


(SNIP)

To prosecute Assange under the Espionage Act, they would have to prove that he published the cables with the knowledge that it would do actual harm to the U.S. to the benefit of a foreign power, which is essentially the same thing as intent to commit espionage.

I haven't seen proof of that.

The conversion of government property statute, Sec. 641, (theft of classified materials) has never been successfully applied to the recipient of leaked classified information. The only case of a successful prosecution for leaking is Morison, who was a Navy Dept. employee at the time he came into possession of the photos. There's also the element of personal gain that would have to be proven against Assange. Furthermore, under the Pentagon Papers precedent, there is a strong First Amendment presumption and defense.

It's clear that Manning can be prosecuted under both statutes. The question is, will DOJ now try to make the stretch and indict Assange? I hope not. Anyway, unless and until someone comes up with proof that Assange was acting on behalf of a foreign power with intent to harm the U.S., I don't think DOJ has much of a case against him under the Espionage Act. Prosecution under Sec. 641 for publishing leaked documents would be unprecedented, and they would have to show it was for some gain or benefit to the leaker for a felony count to apply. Otherwise, it's a misdemeanor, and hardly worth prosecuting.

I think it's more likely that Assange will be prosecuted in the UK under that country's Official Secrets Act.

[Pavulon]

58. Any prosecution other than conspiracy and espionage have real legal risks.

I dislike what assange is doing. I dislike Fred Phelps, both are spinning to make a buck. Assange may be using info he conspired with manning to steal. I do not want to see either one prosecuted using laws that could impact real free speech.

Conspiracy is a felony and carries 25 years, its plenty enough.

[Pavulon]

5. Lets see if manning testifies against assange and if this blog

turns out to be true. Manning is the key. Lets see if he flips.

[hlthe2b]

20. may I play devil's advocaate?

It seems to me that it would make no sense for Assange not to have set up systems to avoid any direct contact with those submitting "leaked" files. He claims that is the case. It also seems like it would be a really naive person who would have reached out to Manning to "coach" him in any way that would constitute collaboration, collusion, conspiracy.

Whatever the conclusion on Assange (and I have not come to one), I don't think he is either naive or unintelligent.

Again, I haven't read all the myriad materials out there, but why do you seem to believe Assange did conspire with Manning?

[Pavulon]

23. It human nature. Up til then he had fraternity handshakes

and then gets a golden opportunity. If he did not communicate with manning he is in the clear. Completely legal.

However if could not resist the urge to exploit the source then he has problems.

[joshcryer]

27. Even if he does that's not enough.

[Pavulon]

29. Conspiracy is pretty easy

and carries a very long sentence.

[joshcryer]

30. Manning's word is not enough.

[Pavulon]

32. Logs and ANY other evidence (logs, intercepts) backing it seals the deal.

Two sources, all they need.

[joshcryer]

35. I'll agree with that. But it can't be third party hearsay between Manning and Lamo.

Has to be Manning and Assange. Direct connection.

[Pavulon]

37. Wonder if they ever got that echelon thingy working..

I wonder how much of the global phone system is on disk or tape and searchable. All it takes is one recorded call and assange will do 25 years, IF he committed a crime.

[JDPriestly]

48. Assange does not seem to think there is a call.

I have no idea, of course, but I would guess that it is possible that Assange is not the whole of Wikileaks. I think he described himself as a sort of spokesman, the person out front. I don't know, but that is how he presented himself, I believe.

Curiouser and curiouser.

[Pavulon]

60. It works like enron or any criminal enterprise

if he was not personally involved the people who were are nabbed. They are like manning told they are looking at decades in prison or the death penalty. Like Andrew Fastow people flip and up the food chain it goes.

Plausible deniability only goes so far.

[boppers]

54. "disk or tape"

Dayum, really?

If he committed a crime on phonograph?

Well, at least it's funny.

[Pavulon]

56. EMC sells what again? What type of array?

I believe that is DISK and I believe SATA drives are getting really big. Like you could fit petabytes in your garage in 42U racks. Makes sense data comes off a source onto spinning disk (ever wonder why NSA consumes so much power) and then to LTO. They have really large datacenters, so they say.

But hey, thats really funny right.

[hlthe2b]

7. Can someone explain to me exactly what Lamo's relationship is...

to both Manning and (to the extent we know), the Wired crew? This whole story becomes more and more complex to follow....

[Pavulon]

10. Manning confessed to lamo. Lamo recorded the conversation..

when lamo realized he could be charged with something that would have him in prison for 25 years he contacted the FBI. The Wired Danger Room is a good place to start.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EFerrari]

15. Remember DU has features that you can use

to make your experience here more pleasant.

[PufPuf23]

17. Thank you Dear.

I don't use ignore and probably it is healthy to blow off some steam becaue online and in real life I generally have good manners.

I don't think I am that bad a citizen of the USA or DU. Hope so anyway lol.

[Pavulon]

16. I dont care if your post is deleted. Ignore and alert are generally misused.

you have your opinion, I have mine. Manning signed for security clearance and then when he decided he hated the army stole. What he did is illegal. he can be a fucking man and serve his time.

250,000 Random cables that have NOTHING to do with war crimes do not serve anyone but Assange. He has his million.5 and got the lulz manning was grasping for.

Now you could go on and actually list WHAT morals or honor is broken by calling out people calling for the elected POTUS to resign. They are anarchist scum, no one voted assange to calling the POTUS to leave office.

So fuck him. This is not assange underground, no one here worked to elect these assholes to any office. Some of us did work to elect the President.

[boppers]

11. Lamo's a well known hacker.

Manning found him out of the blue, but Lamo's been on the scene for years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Lamo

[girl gone mad]

22. Lamo is not a well known hacker.

He's a loser with no skills who turned FBI informant many years ago after getting busted using script kiddie style exploitation tactics.

I doubt he even knows a single computer language.

Manning supposedly came across Lamo while Googling for people who were friendly toward or associated with WikiLeaks. Lamo falsely represented himself to Manning as a journalist.

[Pavulon]

24. hackers are generally not well known, at least

those not serving federal time. manning posted enough in the logs to ensure he never leaves custody, at a minimum.

[joshcryer]

36. Those logs won't be used in court, it'll likely be casual connections.

Possibly a disc in Manning's possession of the actual data (that itself would be enough).

[Pavulon]

41. I hope he kept the gaga cd. That would be epic

to enter that into evidence.

[boppers]

46. He often zero-filled the data blocks after transmission.

Chances are that the data was not in his possession.

For the very reason you cite.

[boppers]

44. They generally become known because of either serving time, or making something great.

Stallman hasn't served time, neither has Torvalds, or Lerdorf... but those who do serve time generally get 2-10 years.

edit: typo

[boppers]

43. A list:

http://www.itsecurity.com/features/top-10-famous-hackers-042407/

A google:
http://www.google.com/search?q=Homeless+Hacker

As far as his skill set goes, I don't know... and I believe Lamo offered cover as both a journalist, and a priest, IIRC.

[Downwinder]

45. Isn't conversation with a Priest protected?

[boppers]

47. There are some legal protections there, yes.

One more twist and turn in the case.

[TorchTheWitch]

70. depends

Had he confessed to Lamo with the understanding that he was doing so in Lamo's capacity as clergy and did so only after Lamo offered to listen in his capacity as clergy and this offer was accepted, then yes, the information Manning gave him would then be protected. However, if he confessed the information either without knowing that Lamo was clergy or didn't accept Lamo's offer to listen in his capacity as clergy or Lamo's offer was made only after the information was already confessed, then no, there is no clergy/parisioner priviledge.

Same with doctors or attorneys or other professionals with such priviledge. The priviledge is only available with the understanding that whatever is confessed is done so to that person in their professional capacity. For example, say my friend is an attorney and while in conversation with him in his capacity as my friend - not as my attorney - I admit that I committed a crime. Even though he is an attorney neither he nor I can claim attorney/client priviledge because I didn't make the confession to him in his professional capacity. He also can't offer that protection after I already confessed since at that point it's too late - I already made the confession to him in his capacity as my friend, not my attorney. If my friend senses that I'm about to say something that I would benefit from saying under the protection of attorney/client priviledge he can offer to listen in his capacity as my attorney instead of as my friend, but I also have to accept it before confessing. If he makes that offer and I tell him no, I'm telling you as my friend and then go ahead and tell him, neither of us can claim attorney/client priviledge even though he offered it before I confessed because I didn't accept that offer.

[girl gone mad]

73. If you want to know what the real "hacker" community thinks of Adrian Lamo..

he's a media whore. A fraud obsessed with self-promotion. Nothing more.

A lot of the the hype around his script kiddie exploits came directly from his association with Poulson and what is now coming out is that these two are/were working for the government trying to entrap a whistle blower or set up a false flag operation. Either way, they are not trustworthy individuals.

Mitnick was also a person of limited talent, but a habit of getting caught going after high profile targets. The government wanted to make an example out of him. I was a little young when he was in the spotlight, but I remember that no one took him seriously. He wasn't breaking any new ground or creating anything useful and he was a joke to the ones who were. You generally can't believe what you read about "hackers" in the press. Journalists created a world that wasn't real, populated by semi-fictional characters who played along because they loved the attention. It sold magazines. A friend of mine was interviewed by Rolling Stone once. He made up a lot of stuff about what "hackers" do and how they live and it was printed as truth, but only a tiny sliver of what he said was real. New Republic reporter Stephen Glass also fabricated stories about the "hacker" community, which his editors and the general public bought whole cloth.

[boppers]

8. Well, that's less evidence than Lamo implied, then.

Either that, or Wired is lying.

[Pavulon]

9. Ever hear of a federal gag order..

no more national security orders but the same can be accomplished with other means.

[boppers]

12. Constitution says no.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States

[Pavulon]

13. Does not apply to material witness or others who can be gagged by judge

the national security letter lived quite a while in secrecy before being struck down.

[Downwinder]

18. Thank you. It is good to get the talking points.

[Pavulon]

19. Just listen to Holder or see the cases of former NSA employee

who leaked under this administration. It illegal, they prosecute it. Comes from the executive branch.

[Downwinder]

21. How did Chavez know, ahead of time that the Ambassador's visa

would be pulled? Washington leaks like a sieve.

[JDPriestly]

49. But not to the American people -- no leaks to ordinary Americans.

Mustn't let the children hear this dear. Hush, hush, hush. We wouldn't want to frighten them now would we. There is a very paternalistic attitude behind some (but not all) of the secrecy, a paternalistic attitude that does not want Americans to know what people in other countries already know.

[Pavulon]

59. Its on the page of the NY Times?

its not the locations of people observing myanmars nuclear program.

[joshcryer]

26. Wired could say "there is something in there" without violating a gag order.

But no such order exists because they would have said as much.

[Pavulon]

28. It will be interesting to see this play out in court.

beyond that is speculation.

[joshcryer]

31. Agreed, I look forward to see what happens with this.

Possibly the most important case of our times. Whistle-blowers must be allowed to act.

[Pavulon]

33. If assange did not pimp manning he is set

however manning is done. Seems that a pollard or hannssen or a manning comes around every 10 years or so. Hope he can stretch those cables out until someone else decides to commit treason to source him.

[joshcryer]

34. I think Manning is one of those pardonable scenarios though.

Stupid idealist, low rank, access to material he shouldn't have had access to, etc.

[Pavulon]

38. NO he is a rosenberg. Different idea he stole for

he will die in federal custody. His ethos like communism looks great on paper. He will never be pardoned by a member of a political party who hopes to elect another person to office.

[Downwinder]

39. At least in that case, we will be able to see all of the cables

without redactions. Probably a lot more stuff.

[Pavulon]

40. Thats the beauty of it. Data is in the clear now at NYT and others

let them dump it. Manning will get a death penalty conviction. Thats what kept Hannssen and filth that preceded him alive.

My bet is that the govt will take the one time dump and clean house in reaction or just ignore others settling their tabs.

[Downwinder]

42. They will have to shut the NYT down. No loss.

[boppers]

53. Enjoy your time here.

Hops you have fun.

[Downwinder]

55. Excellent therapy. As good as the Einstein puzzle.

As many twists and turns.

[JDPriestly]

50. Nor will he be traded for some spy from another country.

His is an interesting case. Was it despair? Hard to say. It was a rather desperate, suicidal act on Manning's part.

I think that his character will inspire many interesting novels. Was he following his conscience? Or was he seeking revenge? He certainly did not do it for the money.

I'm assuming he did what he is accused of. I remind myself that Manning is innocent until found guilty. But even if everything we are reading and thinking fails to bear the burden of proof in a courtroom, Manning will inspire many novels. What an interesting character.

[boppers]

52. DADT.

Maybe the last, and biggest, victim.... and victor.

[Pavulon]

57. His defense will claim mood disorder.

there was much drama when he was forced to take his meds by the army. I would bet, if he goes to trial, that the claim of bipolar manic episode is used.

He did it for lulz and assange got them all. That is the biggest irony of all.

[Luminous Animal]

66. And why would Wired be under a gag order and not Lamo?

[Poll_Blind]

67. This was just speculation, but not unreasonable speculation given the circumstance, in an...

...attempt to explain Wired's behavior up until something like last night or this morning. The piece at BoingBoing doesn't entirely change that possibility- that they're under a gag order of some sort- but their response about not finding any other references to Assange from Manning in the alleged chat logs provided by Lamo almost makes the "gag order" possibility a moot point.

They could be parsing words but if Evan Hansen was doing that in his responses then he's jeopardizing Wired's credibility even more.

If he is telling the truth, then all of this starts to fall on Lamo's shoulders. It also greatly jeopardizes the U.S. government's already-bullshit case against Assange, seems to destroy Lamo's credibility and opens up a very fucking worth-looking-at can of worms about just what kind of people compose Project Vigilant and how credible is the information it feeds the U.S. government.

All from a single twitter response from Evan Hansen.

PB

[Luminous Animal]

71. Thank you for the great response!

[kgnu_fan]

72. Time tables has been provided at FDL, useful, too

[joshcryer]

25. Wired has the entire logs, they have no reason to lie.

[kgnu_fan]

61. Lamo is a tool

[kgnu_fan]

62. Assange: Wired, a single source of misinformation about Wikileaks

[kgnu_fan]

63. kick

[Hissyspit]

64. kick nt

[Poll_Blind]

65. This is a huge catch, Hissyspit! Thank you! Wired doesn't want Greenwald on their ass anymore...

...and so after poo-flinging at him they arrange to actually address the issue indirectly via BoingBoing. Fine by me!

The tweets from Hansen to BoingBoing are just making it clearer there is a tractor trailer of do not want when it comes to Greenwald's attention. And that's natural, because Greenwald is like Noam Chomsky on meth: He will fisk you to pieces and every single swipe will be meticulously documented while he does it.

So what's next then? The spotlights are on both Lamo and Poulsen and I have a feeling Poulsen's going to be the next one to ditch Lamo which leaves Lamo and all of his apparent lies and embellishments twisting in the wind.

What does a person with a huge ego and questionable mental integrity do when they've been caught in an equally big lie?

:shrug:

PB

[Poll_Blind]

68. The editor-in-chief of Wired (Hansen) is appearing to throw Lamo under the bus live on Twitter.

evanatwired
And check out Greenwald as well:
ggreenwald

They're both pushing this BoingBoing story which is also linked to in HissySpit's OP.

Good for Wired's credibility! Good for Greenwald's investigative skills and tenaciousness!

Bad, very, very bad for Lamo's apparent lies. Can you say...Under the Bus?

At least at the moment, it sure as shit looks like Wired and Greenwald are on the same page- or as close as they're going to get given the situation. And that's very very bad news for Lamo, because the questions that are going to follow are gonna be a hard rain.

As of right now, with this new development, I think Lamo is the one who should be on suicide watch, not Manning. Actually, the prosecutor evaluating the case against Assange is probably in not-such-hot-shape themselves at the moment!

PB

[Uncle Joe]

69. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Hissyspit.