SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Morrow witnessed the exact moment when the hacker community turned on Lamo. It happened, in a stark way, at a Hackers On Planet Earth conference in New York. Hacker meetups were usually a great opportunity to party, meet new people and start new projects, but from the outset it was clear that post-Manning, this HOPE meeting would be different.
"The first day at the conference there were a lot of people yelling out 'snitch' and at least one occasion that I recall somebody spitting in his direction," Morrow recalls. "It was a rather divisive time back then. Something like this had never happened to the community. Up until that point, Adrian had been an inspiration, but that all turned. In their minds, or in the culture, the worst thing you could be was a snitch and I think that probably confused a lot of people. There was a bit of a mob mentality, people were just so taken aback that this happened."
[...] After the conference, there was no ambiguity about how the hacker community felt about Lamo.
"People hated him," said another of his friends, Andrew Blake. "He couldn't log on to any sort of interest platform under his actual name without instantly getting some sort of hate directed toward him. Even when Adrian would do something with the absolute best of intentions, as soon as anyone realized that it was Adrian Lamo who did it, they didn't want anything to do with it."
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Freeman on Friday September 20 2019, @03:06PM (20 children)
How about the, Assange is kinda iffy, Manning was a metoo, and Snowden was a stand up guy team?
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 20 2019, @03:49PM (1 child)
What do you mean "metoo"? If it was not for Manning, we would not know about the complete disregard for life as shown in the "collateral damage" video.
(Score: 1, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 20 2019, @04:33PM
Your complete disregard for life still continues, see Yemen. Manning self-inflicted victimization had no observable effect on operations.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by JNCF on Friday September 20 2019, @04:53PM (12 children)
Fair. I'm still not convinced that those allegations weren't government plants, but I'm not convinced they were either, and "iffy" seems fair.
Why do you say this? Did Chelsea Manning make any rape or sexual harrassment allegations against anyone, or are you just using "metoo" as a stand-in for "special snowflake" and trying to be transphobic without really owning it? If the latter, why are you bringing it up in this context? How is it relevant?
(Score: 3, Informative) by GeminiDomino on Friday September 20 2019, @04:58PM (10 children)
"Metoo" predates the hashtag by a few decades.
Also often expressed in the olden days as "AOL"
Nice job dragging your identity politics into things, though.
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of our culture"
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Friday September 20 2019, @05:10PM (9 children)
Please explain what "metoo" meant before the hashtag, and how it applies to Manning.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Friday September 20 2019, @05:55PM (8 children)
Oh, that's easy. It meant, and still means, to the best of my knowledge, me too... But don't take my word for it, ask your local language professor...
I think somebody was saying Manning is a copycat... But don't take my word for that either
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2, Troll) by JNCF on Friday September 20 2019, @06:24PM (6 children)
Explaining a pre-hashtag meaning of "me too" is easy, but you didn't explain how it relates to Manning. Care to explain how Manning was a copycat in a manner relevant to this discussion? Until somebody does, I'm gonna keep assuming that Freeman's comment was a transphobic dogwhistle.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Friday September 20 2019, @06:44PM (5 children)
I'm gonna keep assuming that Freeman's comment was a transphobic dogwhistle.
Yes, of course you will. Might explain why you don't see the relevance
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 3, Insightful) by JNCF on Friday September 20 2019, @06:48PM (4 children)
Can you explain the relevance? I honestly googled for #MeToo stuff related to Manning before replying to Freeman, I'm open to being wrong here. I just don't think I am, and none of you have presenting a convincing alternate explanation of the comment.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Friday September 20 2019, @07:00PM (3 children)
Assange...
Manning says, (look at) *Me* too!
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Friday September 20 2019, @07:19PM (1 child)
Really, every whistleblower but the first one is a "metoo"? Given that Snowden's leaks hit after Manning's, why isn't Snowden a "metoo" in this context?
(Score: 2, Troll) by JNCF on Friday September 20 2019, @07:24PM
Also, Manning didn't come forward until Lamo doxxed her, so claiming that it was a cry for attention seems absurd.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday September 21 2019, @11:19AM
(Score: 2) by Pav on Saturday September 21 2019, @05:13AM
Given that Snowden called himself "Citizen Four" in reference to another three whistleblowers, he's the most "me too" of the lot. And why is that a bad thing? Regarding Assanges "iffy"ness... people unpopular to the establishment have had sex weaponised against them since forever, and a documentary by a well regarded Australian investigative team who visited Sweden at the time largely absolves him. If you're interested it's called "Sex, Lies and Julian Assange".
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Monday September 23 2019, @02:13PM
As in, they saw Snowden do it and wanted to do something too, so they did something, because they wanted the attention. Then again, maybe I read that whole situation wrong.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2, Informative) by mobydisk on Friday September 20 2019, @05:35PM (4 children)
I'm glad someone was brave enough to post that. We need to call-out the phony pseudo-civil-rights philosophy where leaking any government document == automatic hero.
There's a lot of gray area around what these people did. Snowden blew the whistle on US government domestic surveillance and exposed the scam that is the US FISA court system. The US government was violating its own laws and they ignored him when he reported his concerns via appropriate channels. That makes him a whistleblower. But he also leaked information about legitimate counterintelligence operations that were legal according to US law. If he had limited his leaks to the illegal activities then he would be a hero.
Manning released random documents with no real thought into what he/she was releasing. The diplomatic cables, for example, embarrassed many nations diplomats and weakened everyone's ability to trust. That did no one any good.
Wasn't Assange was just a courier between the leakers and the press. Why is he so important?
(Score: 3, Touché) by sjames on Friday September 20 2019, @07:05PM
Arguably, the untrustworthy actions outlined in the cables weakened the illusory ability to trust, exposing the cables just let the rest of us know of the villainy so we could act accordingly.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday September 21 2019, @12:34PM (1 child)
What call out? What courage? I find it interesting how you're spinning major revelations of US wrong-doing as "leaking any government document".
So what? There's a lot of gray area around the wrong-doing that the US did too.
How?
Such interesting weaseling. I suppose it would be easy for you to reveal information about illegal aspects of counterintelligence operations without revealing information about the legal aspects, much less the legal aspects that should be legal? No gray areas for you, right?
It's interesting how these apologia go. Sure, X did a great thing, but I'm going to obsess over this particular rule X broke in the process.
Except, of course, for the people who trusted too much. It did them some good. It also provided insight into various countries's outlooks and interests.
Because he was a courier between the leakers and the press. It answers itself.
(Score: 2) by mobydisk on Monday October 07 2019, @08:36PM
My understanding is that manning released a lot of unrelated information, most of which didn't do the public any good. I think he/she was dumping random files to a CD and walking them out. It's not like he/she had a specific agenda or a specific complaint to blow the whistle against. Among the many releases was the "collateral damage" video that might have been a significant release, and if someone wants to debate that Manning is a whistle blower because of that video release, I could see that as a valid point. But overall, most of it was garbage.
I call it courage because if we call every person who released a secret government document a "whistleblower" then it degrades the meaning of a whistle blower. A whistle blower is someone who knows of an illegal activity that is being hidden, and they bravely put themselves at risk of retaliation by going over their boss's head to make sure it is known. Let us not shout "whistle blower" every time someone grabs a random directory of secret files and emails it to the press.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Monday September 23 2019, @02:17PM
Assange was/is so important, because he made poor choices and was/is a target due to facilitating publication of the leaks.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"