Greenwald fucked this one up. That NYT article he relied on was plain wrong, something he should have been aware of given all of his critiques of the mainstream media's handling of the case and since Wired had already put out an article saying that piece was incorrect and that the specific allegations <i>were</i> in the already-released logs.<p>(Greenwald <i>does</i> get stuff right sometimes though: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XInz4i6AV8M&feature=player_embedded" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XInz4i6AV8M&feature=playe...</a> )
As someone with journalism training, I find this argument compelling. If it was a case-study in a classroom setting, the answers would be difficult and the subject of much debate.<p>Choosing to "redact" private parts of a document without otherwise information important to the public is a perfectly reasonable position. While it is easy to say "how do we know it's just private information unless they release it", that sort of reasoning would force journalists to release all of the information they have about any topic, even when they clearly violate the professional ethics of journalists.
> The excerpts we published included passages referencing both the file server and the encrypted chat room.<p>Interestingly, if you look at the link <a href="http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/12/wikileaks-conspiracy-case/" rel="nofollow">http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/12/wikileaks-conspirac...</a> nowhere does Manning say anything like 'Assange set up an FTP server just for me which I then used for the video and cables'.<p>What he actually says is that hypothetically speaking, one of the best ways to transmit hot stuff is through SFTP, but he immediately mentions that one could also transmit over HTTPS (plus Tor) to get stuff into the Wikileaks submission queue and discusses general considerations like senior sources getting looked at first.<p>The only way you could read Wired's claim into that excerpt is if you made stuff up or are making a large inference based on other non-public logs. So at least with that claim, Wired is bullshitting readers.
This sort of thing never winds up reflecting well on people involved, just getting caught up in a personal back and forth and speculating on people's motives and nonsense like that. This part seemed particularly silly to me - Greenwald emails on Christmas and when they don't respond by the 26th, he says they're acting unprofessionally -<p>> Nonetheless, once the Times story — and our explanation — was over a week old, Greenwald sent Poulsen an e-mail inquiring about it, and giving him one day to respond to his questions. He sent that e-mail on Christmas Day.<p>> When we didn’t meet the urgent Yuletide deadline he’d imposed on himself to publish a piece about a 10-day-old newspaper article, he wrote in his column that we “ignored the inquiries,” adding: “This is not the behavior of a journalist seeking to inform the public, but of someone eager, for whatever reasons, to hide the truth.”
Greenwald has posted two responses to this:<p><a href="http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/29/wired_1/index.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/29...</a><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/29/wired_response_1/index.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/29...</a><p>(They seem to be returning 404s occasionally for some reason.)
Wired doesn't need to publish <i>all</i> of the logs -- just the bits that confirm some key assertions that Lamo made. The idea that they are restricted to publishing the whole thing, or nothing more than they already have is a false dichotomy.
You don't get to the point of admitting leaking massive amounts of secret information via chat in a single step. Trust has to be built, and is built by slowly revealing more and more about ourselves: issues with significant others, problems with the neighbors, pains of serving with Don't Ask, Don't Tell, etc (I have no idea what the actual list might look like, I'm just giving examples.).<p>These are things that are highly personal and extremely private. These are the things Wired is saying they aren't releasing right now, and I, for one, appreciate it. Releasing them <i>would</i> just be pandering to the masses.<p>You can argue that Wired is withholding more than that, but I think it fails Occam's Razor. Unfortunately, the more complex the "complex" solution, the more likely it seems that people will gravitate to it:<p>"Wired has released all the relevant pieces and is trying to protect an individual's privacy" - simple.<p>"Wired is withholding relevant information because it is part of some conspiracy involving hackers prosecuted in the 80s" - complex (but, too be honest, who didn't love Angelina in leathers on the back of a motorcycle?).
I'm not sure what to think of these articles from Salon and Wired. Greenwald did have one question, that remains unanswered as far as I know. Why did Manning contact Lamo?
Greenwald's point is not so much that Wired has committed journalistic errors, but that its decision not to disclose the rest of the chat logs leaves aspects of the case open to wild conjecture.<p>So Greenwald, for emphasis, goes on to do some wild conjecture of his own. Clearly the people at Wired failed to recognize the irony of this and quote Greenwald extensively in their refutations, something Assange cannot do since the full logs have not been released.
There's one thing missing in this response: do the non-public portions of the chat logs support the public statements that Lamo has been making or not?
It's a pity they didn't clarify some of the contradictions of Lamo's statements. It would be nice to know for example whether Manning did claim to use a dedicated server or not. And Poulsen actually confirmed he was talking to Lamo even before Manning arrest.<p>On the other hand it is quite surprising indeed that Greenwald didn't check the basic facts about Rausch and Poulsen
> his computer hard drive was confiscated, and he no longer has has a copy<p>That's a bit surprising. I have multiple copies (one offsite) of family pictures, code and documents. I don't think I would have only one copy of the log if I was the hacker guy.
Wired: How about you just post the fucking chat logs and let the tubes decide right and wrong.<p>Edit (added): Wired just sounds like that a-hole kid on the playground that you just want to punch in the freakin' nose.