
Snitching Hacker Adrian Lamo vs. Hostile Crowd at Hacker Convention - fiaz
http://catastrophist.wordpress.com/2010/08/05/adrian-lamo-hope-8-hackers-conference-video/
======
Alex63
This is depressing, but I'll hope it's just a knee-jerk reaction, and that
people will reconsider after they have a chance to think about it. Presumably
the audience does not support informing because it believes that cracking and
leaking are not a crime on the same level as , for example, child abuse or
murder. Of course, people who participate in illegal activities often have no
trouble rationalizing or excusing their actions. And for those who will wave
the flag for "civil disobedience", I'll say right now that I have no problem
supporting the idea of civil disobedience, as long as you realize the
consequences of civil disobedience have typically been conviction and
punishment. It's the conviction and punishment that drives public opinion to
change the law, not whining.

~~~
mcantelon
Cracker culture has been traditionally marginalized by the state and law
enforcement. It's unlikely that it will grow a sudden fondness for those who
work with the state. Lamo, in addition to selling out Manning after telling
him he was a journalist, is also involved with Project Vigilant, an
organization that claims to use ISP EULA loopholes to spy on private citizens:
<http://bit.ly/dsS60a>.

------
sofuture
I was at HOPE and saw this talk. The irony of "Stop Snitching" shirts
appearing on crowds of people who have almost undoubtedly spent zero minutes
being interrogated by even local police was not lost on me.

It's a well-worn topic, but I was disheartened to see so many people launch
into tangential rants that really skirted (avoided, even) the reality of the
situation.

~~~
aw3c2
From what I know about this, Adrian Lamo initiated the contact. It has nothing
to do with being interrogated by anyone. He himself decided to rat on the
whistleblower.

~~~
Alex63
Whistleblower? Which US law is the "whistleblower" accusing the government of
breaking?

~~~
mcantelon
US law may permit killing non-American civilians (as shown in the "Collateral
Murder" video), but international law frowns upon it.

~~~
confuzatron
International law does cover treatment of civilians during conflicts, but I'm
afraid you are wrong - international law doesn't automatically class any and
all civilian deaths as war crimes. This is pretty basic stuff.

~~~
mcantelon
During "Collateral Murder", an Apache gunship shot up, with no warning, a
civilian van that exhibited no aggression. Would this be legal under
international law?

~~~
fdschoeneman
I'm not sure what you mean by a "civilian van." As if there are or were at the
time insurgent vehicles that were clearly marked as "non-civilian." And if you
actually watched the video you'll see that the US personnel believed the
occupants of the van were removing weapons from the site. After action footage
redeemed this view, and showed the presence of RPG's.

Also, ask yourself, why was that van tooling around in the middle of a warzone
with kids inside? If the driver was a "civilian" then he demonstrated very
poor judgement at the least, and a willingness to use children as human
shields at the worst. I'm inclined to believe it was the worst.

~~~
mcantelon
>if you actually watched the video you'll see that the US personnel believed
the occupants of the van were removing weapons from the site.

They can believe that the occupants are also Martians, but that doesn't
qualify as a belief based on reason.

>After action footage redeemed this view, and showed the presence of RPG's.

The van was a civilian vehicle. There were no RPGs found originating from the
van.

>Also, ask yourself, why was that van tooling around in the middle of a
warzone with kids inside?

My guess is the citizens in the van were Iraqi, hence their proximity to the
country.

>If the driver was a "civilian" then he demonstrated very poor judgement at
the least, and a willingness to use children as human shields at the worst.

I'm open to evidence that the van was 1) an insurgent van and 2) using the
children as human shields, but a belief without evidence isn't reasonable.

~~~
fdschoeneman
I'm glad you're open and reasonable. Now ask yourself some questions:

1) Did you see any other "civilian" vehicles or civilians on the street in the
footage? No. Where do you think the "civilians" and their vehicles were? The
answer is, they were at home, hunkered down, because they knew there was
fighting going on. There had been fighting going on in this neighborhood for
weeks.

That's a "reasonable" reaction to living in a fucking war zone. That's what
I'd do. That's probably what you'd do. And if I had kids, it sure as fuck is
what I would do. The last thing I would do is put my kids in a car and drive
around in it as some kind of a mobile aid station. Even if my best friend was
sitting their in the street, bleeding out, I wouldn't risk my kids lives to
pick him up in a war zone.

Furthermore, if you watched the entire video, and I suspect you didn't, you'd
find that the same Apache crew was tracking another black and unmarked
"civilian" vehicle just a few minutes before they fired on the Reuters
journalists and guess what? That other vehicile (which may have been the same
one) dropped off armed insurgents into a firefight.

So yes, Apache crew belief may have been incorrect -- though there is ample
evidence to support that it was correct -- but it wasn't "unreasonable."

Listen, I think you're angry about war. War sucks. It's terrible. And I'm glad
most of the fighting seems to be over in Iraq and that we'll get the hell out
of there soon. But Assange edited that video to make US forces look like
murders, which isn't the truth. They are just normal guys doing a very, very
difficult job, and who sometimes make mistakes.

You want to be angry, get angry at Bush and Obama.

Wikileaks got it wrong, intentionally.

~~~
mcantelon
I don't recall any radio talk about suspecting the van of being insurgent, but
I'll rewatch the unedited version of "Collateral Murder" for the reference.

Absolutely, I'm angry about the war. And, yes, Bush and Obama are to blame.
But popular opposition to the war won't materialize unless people see the
results of it, which is what Assange realizes. Media had much more freedom to
operate during Viet Nam than in Iraq or Afghanistan (and, additionally, there
have been cases where the US military appears to have deliberately killed
journalists, such as Al jazeera's Tariq Ayoub). Assange's case would be much
harder to make if real journalism in those theatres was possible (in which
case information, such as the fact that the US military killed hundreds during
demonstrations in Afghanistan [<http://bit.ly/daeWlg>], might otherwise see
the light of day).

~~~
fdschoeneman
Please do watch the unedited video. Respectfully, there is much popular
opposition to the war, it has materialized, and there is plenty of
photographic and video evidence of exactly how much war sucks.

If you have evidence that the military deliberately killed a journalist,
please share it with me.

And respectfully, the military has done a good job of helping journalists do
their job. Mike Yon, who was openly critical of General McChrystal (and
frankly kind of unprofessional in how he did it) has spent a long time in both
Iraq and Afghanistan, and is apparently now on his way back for yet another
embed.

Also, I think it might be worth pointing out that while the US military often
does get it wrong -- causing collateral damage that is sometimes
disproportionate to the tactical objective, and does kill innocent civilians,
I have yet to see a case where killing innocent civilians was their actual
goal. This is in stark contrast to the people the US military is fighting
against -- Al Quaeda remnants and some elements of the Taliban -- who target
civilians intentionally.

Personally I don't think the amount of effort we're expending in Afghanistan
is justified based on the expected future benefit, and after a long time
supporting our mission there I'm ready to pull our forces out. But Julian
Assange is doing his best to make sure a) America looks worse than it is, b)
that American soldiers have a harder job to do and c) anyone Afghans who have
reached out to us in the past are more likely to pay a price for it in the
future.

If Assange had taken the time to sanitize the documents he released of any
information regarding names and villages of sources, I'd have more sympathy
for him. Instead he stupidly and needlessly put their lives in danger, and now
wants to blame the US military for their deaths. He's a piece of shit.

------
dkarl
Apparently, for many of the hackers present, it was an issue of snitching.
That's pretty stupid. I don't think there's any "no snitching" ethic that
would obligate a gun enthusiast to keep his mouth shut when he sees somebody
killed with a gun. I don't see why hacking should be any different. I question
Lamo's motives, and I disagree with what he did (because I think the U.S.
government dishonestly sweeps its mistakes under the rug of "classified for
reasons of national security,") but he _could_ have done what he did from a
pure motive to protect civilians, soldiers, and U.S. interests.

------
ambiate
Let's assume for a moment that his choice was neither right or wrong: A crowd
of people attacking an informant without being placed in his shoes. This group
mentality leads to ignorance leads to violence.

Suppose for a moment, some korean spy was bragging about all the US documents
they were funneling back to their government. These documents consisted of
building names, employee's names, and a few other misc trails. Do we worry
that the spy might obtain even more sensitive information and release it or
ignore the spy completely and continue on with our daily lives?

What if there was a man working at your mom's bakery leaking all of your mom's
baking secrets/employee information and boasting about it on his facebook
page. Would you let your mom know that this employee is letting everyone in
the world know her address and she makes an excellent strawberry muffin?

Hacker, civilian, crackhead, secretary, garbage man; whatever title, if you
believe a person might be endangering your government, people, or rights(or
baking secrets)... is it so wrong to alert an authority of the situation
before it gets out of hand? Could he have stumbled upon some new nuclear
weapon schematics that wiped out an entire continent and went "OH LOOK WHAT
THE US IS DOING, MUST SHARE THIS?!"

(BTW: I don't really understand why we push democracy on other countries. The
best way to spread democracy is by example and let other countries adapt on
their own, in their own way... rebellion, civil war, or civil disobedience or
whatever new method springs up. Democracies don't just spring up over night,
the US just got extremely lucky in forming its republic. Many lives were lost,
rights were nonexistent, and somehow we still ended up at this point.)

(Also, that soldier knew the risk of leaking documents in a time of 'war,' so,
I feel no pity for his capture.)

(I should also note that I know nothing of Lamo or bradass other than what I
saw on the daily show. This video is just group stupidity.)

~~~
sophacles
Wow your strawman is made of many little strawmen. My mom's baking recipe
being leaked or not will not result in someone's death, nor will snitching on
the leaker.

Nuclear secrets likewise are a completely different story than outdated opsec.

On the other side, not all instances of Authority are the same. Some should
never be notified, others more often.

Of course, you are basing all of this on the assumption that someone leaking X
must necessarily possess NO ability to reason and choose wisely about what to
leak next (if anything) -- an assumption that is in no circumstances
warranted.

~~~
fdschoeneman
Outdated opsec? No. The documents Assange published via Wikileaks exposed
innocent Afghan sources by name and by village. These people are now in danger
and I've seen a report that at least one of them has now been killed.
Personally I con't see any real sunshine value in leaking these particular
documents but I'm amazed that Assange didn't take the time to sanitize them
using plain old common sense. And I'm surprised that people don't see him for
the thoughtless prick that he is. And for that, I'm afraid, he becomes the
collateral murderer.

~~~
sophacles
You are correct, names of sources is different than both nuclear secrets and
outdated opsec. Congrats, you understand one of my points. Amusingly, at the
same time you commit the exact same error I was pointing out: The strawman
attack. I was not stating a position on the nature of the original leak, but
instead pointing out how there are situations with different ramifications and
consequences.

The most you can infer from my statements, without making assumptions, is that
I am not fond of strawman arguments.

~~~
fdschoeneman
Thank you for the lecture on straw man. If you did not mean to imply that
Assange's recent document dump was composed of nothing more than "outdated
opsec" then please disregard my last comment. However on re-reading your
comment I still think my assumption a reasonable one.

------
maukdaddy
Using the word "snitch" makes you sound like a 12 year-old.

~~~
Tycho
Plus I thought snitching was ratting out your partners in crime to save your
own skin, not simply informing on a criminal.

~~~
sophacles
In older senses, yes you are correct. This is not really the case in the last
30 or so years -- a snitch is anyone within a group (hacker community, black
community, drug underworld for common examples) who informs to the police
about someone within that group. It has less to do with the informants
involvement in a specific action(s) than his/her group membership.

------
mcelrath
Federal offense. I'd have turned his ass in too. Hackers know they are
breaking the law, and shouldn't be squawking too loudly when they get
prosecuted for it.

