Adrian had a passing romance with a friend of mine, and thus ended up traveling through the city I grew up in. This was long before Chelsea Manning, etc.
I was a super shy, rather awkward teenage girl. I suppose the teenage part has changed.. but I digress. I loved the idea of mischief, but at the same time, I was a habitual rule-follower. I get nervous walking through the retail store detectors placed at entrances.. even though I've never stolen anything in my life. I remember listening to social engineering phone pranks -- the sort where people would talk their way into being put on the store-wide intercom at Walmart. At the time, I think I really wanted to be so confident that I could do such a thing, versus the reality, which was mild anxiety over something so simple as placing a legit pizza order over the phone.
I knew who Adrian was in a peripheral sense. I was a community leader and eventual employee on AOL in years prior, and I had an interest in how to break things as an inverse of being curious how they're built.
I had a car, while my friend did not, and Adrian had traveled via transit, so I spent the day with them hopping around town. At one point, we were downtown grabbing food in one of the larger complexes -- Adrian breaks off for a second and asks a retail store employee a bunch of questions about working there, saying he was just hired at the cafe. We then ended up going into what was clearly an employee-only area -- GUYS WE AREN'T SUPPOSED TO BE HERE WHAT IF WE GET IN TROUBLE OH GOD -- we duck into a fire escape, hike up to the upper level where he picks the lock to the door with roof access, and there we are, highest point in the city. After a few minutes of me suggesting that MAYBE we go back down since this was cool BUT REALLY WE SHOULD GO, Adrian told me I'd miss the sunset if I kept worrying.
It was dumb. I'm sure I could've been arrested. But watching the sunset with the two of them from the top of that building remains one of my favorite memories. It was the first time I'd taken a step out of my shell, I suppose. Adrian was a troubled guy, and I don't forgive what he did to Manning, but I appreciated him for that moment in time.
I think hackers reveal the unexamined difference between how people use something and what it does. E.g., people used copyright to give exclusivity to a particular publisher. But copyright itself doesn't "do" exclusivity. It instead gives the author the power to license the work as they see fit. So even if the license is a legal restatement of the golden rule, it is still backed by the full force of U.S. copyright law.
This is probably how myths, if not entire religions, get started. A grain of truth wrapped in a larger web of deceit, spun by an insignificant spider who doesn't even know, herself, how far it will ultimately reach.
(That aside, the site guidelines encourage its users to presume good faith, so I'm inclined to do so unless there's some actual evidence that whichwalrus's story isn't on the level.)
(tbf, I wouldn't believe a random story on the internet from an account created that day either.. ah well.)
I've turned off flags on this story because if we don't, the story will be reposted until we do. In return, here's a request: if you comment here, try to bring your heart with you a bit more than you usually would.
If we don't do that, a sort of tragedy of the commons kicks in where we each add a piece that's defensible in itself, but the picture of us that the pieces add up to is ugly.
Adrian and I became friends when we were both about 12. We met at 2600 meetings in the embarcadero in SF. We soon were buddies, going “trashing” downtown finding all kinds of crazy things corporate SF left out for trash: working DAT backup drives, 17” view sonics (prized at the time), blueprints for a bank (!), entire trash bags full of credit card receipts with nothing redacted, etc.
He was always a mysterious one, and beat to his own drum. I admired his spirit, and our paths crossed many times including when we both volunteered at the same queer youth center in SF.
Years later he stayed with me in grad school in Cambridge looking not the healthiest. I tried to provide food and shelter, not able to figure out why a guy so talented refused to do anything conventional that would make him good money. But he didn’t care about such things.
He had his own sense of right and wrong, and was principaled within his own philosophy — but I never fully understood what philosophy that was. When I recently was chatting with him, I asked why did was doing something currently to which he said “why do I ever do anything?”
I’ll deeply miss Adrian.. he was a kind and unique spirit. Some may disagree with me on that only because they only know him through Manning, but that was a small sliver of his life (and one I happen to agree with him on, with additional perspectives I can’t share publicly).
I met Adrian in about 98 in SF and shared many of the same kinds of adventures with him. He shared a lot of his physical and electronic intrusions with me and he never did any harm or anything malicious. It was all simple exploration in the best hacker ethos. He'd usually inform the 'victim' taking nothing for his services except a Coke while he told them his story.
I'm also curious what happened, morbidly. I haven't heard from him at all in a few years. An unfortunate addition to the list of young, talented but troubled hackers I've known who've left us too soon. :(
> Lamo first gained media attention for breaking into several high-profile computer networks, including those of The New York Times, Yahoo!, and Microsoft, culminating in his 2003 arrest.
> In 2010, Lamo indirectly reported U.S. soldier Chelsea Manning to the Army's Criminal Investigation Command, claiming that Manning had leaked hundreds of thousands of sensitive U.S. government documents to WikiLeaks.
Wikipedia was different in those days. A few hours after it was posted, Larry Sanger himself added a comment to the end saying "Um, can we clean up the above puff job, please?"
Url changed from https://www.facebook.com/groups/majordomo/permalink/10156204....
Edit: We'll try turning off the flags and seeing if the discussion can do better.
Meanwhile thanks for popping up. I've applied my flags :)
I think I understand why you wrote that, but I don't agree. Posts here should be thoughtful and respectful, certainly. But it is not Facebook. I am not an expert about this person who has died, but it appears his story has a public interest dimension. HN is an appropriate place for such discussion. Furthermore, I think you need to remember that this is a global community, containing many people far away from events in the USA. In the event of any death, the vast majority of HN readers are not members of the in-crowd who had some personal connection to that person. This site has a large global readership; it isn't and cannot be a "community" in the local sense that you and dang seem to be portraying it as. (Also, friendly reminder, dang is the moderator but AFAIK you aren't).
I didn't know him, but I've known plenty of others with questionable reputations who've died as a result of mental duress. Before you comment, I'll ask as a bystander for you to think about whether everyone benefits from knowing what you wish to share. Otherwise, you'll just out yourself as an asshole.
Rest in peace, Adrian. Regardless of what you did, beneficial or otherwise, no one deserves the mind-shackles you had to live with.
It is now, though.
Since "flagged" isn't a binary state that's the only easy way to do it, but it does mean that a story's rank is sometimes affected by user flags without that being visually displayed yet. Usually it shows up after a while.
Simply put, as much as I respect manning's actions, manning should not have confided in lamo. Rookie move.
source: I... know people that know Adrian
Source: I’ve known Adrian personally for decades.
No good group of people has that rule. I've seen/heard about that rule so far from the mafia, drug dealers, and bad cops.
In on itself disclosing information is not a good or bad act. Depending on the outcome and goals of the person it can be heroic or treacherous act.
Manning was a hero. Lamo is a snitch and a traitor.
It seems that the election of Trump, in particular, has turned half of the infosec community into rabid fans of the CIA/FBI/NSA. It's really quite sickening.
One of my personal favorite public conversions has been the grugq. In 3-4 years he's gone from selling bugs (worldwide), and supporting hackers (worldwide), to a rabid Russiaphobe who uncritically accepts whatever unsubstantiated claims GCHQ and NSA make, and refuses to sell bugs to anyone but FVEY.
Summer camp probably won't be very much fun this year.
This seems good for democracy!
Simplistic. Kids, please be a snitch sometimes, like Manning.
It's similar to lung cancer deaths caused by smoking cigarettes. No one has ever been able to specifically name someone who died from lung cancer caused by smoking. In every single case, it is possible that the named person is one of the many people each year who die from lung cancers caused by things such radon exposure, asbestos, an unlucky mutation, or air pollution.
We do know that when the Taliban would find out that someone was aiding those who opposed the Taliban, they would go after that person (and often their family, too). So we know that the leaks would have made some people targets who would not have otherwise been targets at the time.
The best we can do is, as with lung cancer, is think about it statistically. Compare the people exposed in the leaks to similarly situated people who were not mentioned, and see if the former had a statistically significant higher death rate from Taliban attacks for themselves or their families.
I don't know if the data is available to carry out that analysis.
You seem to have forgotten that you wrote this.
> The best we can do is, as with lung cancer, is think about it statistically. Compare the people exposed in the leaks to similarly situated people who were not mentioned, and see if the former had a statistically significant higher death rate from Taliban attacks for themselves or their families.
> I don't know if the data is available to carry out that analysis.
I think you're both making valid points and the truth is somewhere in the middle. Yes, with certain kinds of leaks, there are potential risks to people that should be taken into account, by carefully selecting, and redacting when appropriate, the material to be leaked (which Manning didn't begin to do, nor allow anyone else to do). And on the other hand, with any leak of information about the military, one can count on people who object to the leak raising concerns about such risks, making it difficult to tell exactly how valid these concerns are in any particular case. That's not necessarily a good argument against leaking at all, in my opinion, though many consider it so.
I generally reject arguments of this form, because:
1. In the absence of real data, they are essentially just fear mongering.
2. It violates the general principle of innocent until proven guilty, because we are assuming Chelsea Manning is guilty of getting people killed without evidence that this is the case.
3. Accepting arguments of this form puts a strong incentive on those in charge to classify everything so that they can always rely on uncertainty to fuel fear. In some sense this incentive is the root cause of everything we are discussing.
> That's not necessarily a good argument against leaking at all, in my opinion, though many consider it so.
That's definitely not a good arguments against leaking at all. The much more interesting question in my mind is: in a situation where people might have been hurt or killed because of a leak is it right to be critical of the leaker in stead of focusing on the contents of the leak. Personally I (somewhat predictably) would say no. For the reasons above, and also because, Chelsea Manning exposed plenty of instances where people definitely were hurt and killed (in a situation where the leak contained lower stakes information, my opinion might be different).
People commonly argue that Manning's leaks were justified because they exposed some cover ups, and the leaks did not harm anyone who was not doing anything illegal. They base the second half of that on nobody being able to name any specific person who was harmed.
My point is that is an impossible standard. They want absolute proof of harm before they will consider the possibility that maybe Manning should have redacted names, or left out documents that were completely irrelevant to whatever crimes and cover ups she hoped to expose.
By that standard if someone is already in a situation where they are in danger, you could leak anything about them and disclaim any responsibility if they subsequently get killed, because it might have been due do that danger they were already in.
In that case, in 2001, a jury in the Supreme Court of New South Wales decided in favour of a plaintiff who had brought a claim against her employer based on common law negligence and breach of an employer's statutory duty. The plaintiff had worked as a bartender at the Port Kembla RSL between 1984 and 1995 and at the Port Kembla Hotel from 1973 to 1984. In 1995, the plaintiff discovered a lump on the side of her neck, and was diagnosed with cancer of the mouth, throat and neck. The plaintiff claimed that her cancer had been caused by exposure to secondhand smoke during the course of her employment at the Port Kembla RSL and the Port Kembla Hotel. The Port Kembla Hotel settled the plaintiff's claim against it out of court, for $160 000. The claim against the Port Kembla RSL proceeded to trial before a jury in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.
The jury in this case found that the employer's negligence had either caused or materially contributed to the plaintiff's cancer. This finding was based on a series of conclusions reached by the jury. On the balance of probabilities, the jury found that (i) on the information available to the Port Kembla RSL at relevant times, it had been reasonably foreseeable that the plaintiff would suffer physical injury; (ii) there had been a reasonably practicable means of eliminating the risk; (iii) in failing to ban smoking totally or partially or to constantly operate exhaust fans, the employer had by its conduct caused or materially contributed to the plaintiff's injury; and (iv) the employer had not acted reasonably.
The jury awarded the plaintiff a total of $466 048 in damages, less the amount she had already received from the earlier settlement with the Port Kembla Hotel. The damages were awarded as damages for pain, suffering and loss of enjoyment of life, and past and future medical expenses, domestic assistance and loss of earnings.
> Regarding the hundreds of thousands of Iraq-related military documents and State Department cables provided by the Army private Chelsea Manning, the report assessed “with high confidence that disclosure of the Iraq data set will have no direct personal impact on current and former U.S. leadership in Iraq.”
> In the several years since WikiLeaks released hundreds of thousands of government documents leaked by Manning, the government has not publicly identified a single example of the Taliban killing someone because that person was named in the leaks. If someone had died as a result, it seems logical that the incident would have become public knowledge, either through Manning's trial or in media reports.
It would have been entirely reasonable at the time to assume that some of the 260k+ cables might have endangered US soldiers, allies, and others. The fact that we can't prove it did now does not change the reasonableness of that conclusion nearly a decade ago, and given the stakes at play it seems unfair to vilify someone for doing what he did.
If by 'for you' you mean Halliburton and Monsanto.
SNITCHING means going to the authorities to out one of your comrades, especially in return for some 'deal' you're offered. That makes you scum.
WHISTLEBLOWING means going to the public to out criminals for their secret crimes and lies, especially public servants and those in power. That makes you a hero.
All The People Who Betrayed Chelsea Manning - Kevin Poulsen
I hope you don't give your kids that advice when they see someone at school with a gun in their backpack.
Statements like this are why women regularly get sexually assaulted at frat parties in front of dozens of witnesses, none of whom will even consider going to the authorities about it.
Snitching should be normalized.
Is that aimed at Chelsea, Adrian, or both?
I used to agree with this but honestly, the second Manning contacted him, he was complicit with the crime being committed and would have been sent to the same horrible hole Manning was sent to. It was irresponsible of Manning to put Lamo in this situation, as an ex-convict he would have gotten life in prison, probably solitary confinement if not worse. I don't think I can blame Lamo for doing what he did. It was a horrible situation for both of them. When you're about to commit a crime as severe as treason or murder, you don't call a friend or let alone a stranger and tell him "I'm about to commit the most severely punished crime in the country, could you advise me please?" and expect that person to be complicit.
Are you sure this is true? You don't have a duty to report anything just because you become knowledgeable of it. Mere knowledge doesn't make you complicit.
In not all cases will knowledge alone necessarily be enough to convict you, but that doesn't mean a prosecutor might not try. An ex-con should probably not take the chance that a prosecutor will ignore prior knowledge of a criminal act.
Edit: I shouldn't say "knowledge alone." I should rather say that knowledge alone plus a zealous prosecutor. And then throw in prior conviction... Just a risky proposition. Knowledge alone with no other factors to tempt a prosecutor will probably not put you at any greater risk.
> MANNING: uhm, trying to keep a low profile for now though, just a warning
> LAMO: I'm a journalist and a minister. You can pick either, and treat this as a confession or an interview (never to be published) & enjoy a modicum of legal protection.
Lamo didn't stumble upon evidence of a crime. He got it by claiming to be a journalist. And as a journalist, he would've had plenty of leeway in not revealing a source, even a source that admits to a crime.
This is incorrect. Being an accomplice generally requires active counsel or assistance to a crime before it happens (the usual “accomplice before the fact”, or “aiding and abetting”) or active concealment (which goes by a number of terms, including “accomplice after the fact”.).
There are a few special cases where particular people have special duties to report specific crimes, but that is not the norm in general.
I said generally. You said generally. I made edits before you quoted that to clarify that knowledge alone isn't likely going to make you a target of prosecution in the majority of cases. Maybe not even in 1 in a million cases.
I've had clients be targeted for prosecution on weak facts plenty of times.
If I were a lawyer for the ex-con, and he came to ask me whether to contact the FBI given the facts that seem to be stipulated, I certainly would not recommend not contacting the FBI.
Who does and does not have a duty to report is not really relevant in a whole lot of real world cases, unless you think that no ex-con has ever been railroaded on flimsy or fabricated charges.
I've had clients plead guilty when they probably could have fought it just because they can't risk doing long-term jail time, and I'm not even a dedicated criminal defense lawyer.
I've heard about, and read about, much worse. Surely, you have as well.
Edit: Just for example, say Lamo doesn't contact the FBI, and after Manning is prosecuted, they come after Lamo claiming that he advised Manning on how not to get caught, given Lamo's previous experience. Does Lamo beat the charges or go to prison? The system is not rigged in favor of ex-cons. Given the risk, I'd contact the FBI, too.
On its face, the federal misprision statute might appear to require exactly that, but it requires active concealment, not mere failure to report.
Snowden is a better example of how to handle responsible disclosure than Manning, however.
> Private Manning said he first called The Washington Post and spoke to an unidentified reporter for about five minutes. He decided that the reporter did not seem particularly interested because she said The Post would have to review the material before making any commitment.
> He said he then tried to reach out to The New York Times by calling a phone number for the newspaper’s public editor — an ombudsman who is not part of the newsroom — and leaving a voice mail message that was not returned.
You should provide your argument rather than waving your hands non-specifically at federal criminal law.
¹ Whether it should be a serious crime or not is irrelevant here.
Accomplice liability only comes into play when a person intentionally, actively aids a person to commit, conceal or profit from a crime, or to escape prosecution. Inaction doesn't count.
Like, discovering that a friend of yours committed a serious crime and then keeping it a secret is the very definition of corruption. If we, as a society, are going to move past corruption and cronyism, then we have to accept this kind of snitching, because it's the only way to defeat corruption.
For that matter, do you want to end a culture of people being sexually assaulted at frat parties in full view of dozens of people because none of the witnesses will go to the authorities? Then normalize snitching.
It was a fun story to tell until the news came out, at which point I stopped.
So by sticking her neck out and releasing the Collateral Murder videos, she is most definitely my hero.
(EDIT: s/Damage/Murder/ - this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0)
If she's a hero "if someone says she is", the same logic canonizes Lamo.
You can be a hero to some and a villain to others.
I don't know. I have a hard time with calling Chelsea Manning a true hero. While some of the information that she leaked was useful in exposing war crimes, there was a lot more that wasn't particularly relevant exposing military abuses, but was used by enemies to track down and kill those who were collaborating with the US.
> in order to put more unaccountable government power in the hands of people like Donald Trump
I'm not sure how what Adrian Lamo did would have given more power to Donald Trump. In fact, it's Wikileaks that ultimately wound up being critical in the election of Donald Trump; by dumping a lot of not particularly noteworthy private campaign emails, but which could be picked through and made to extend some controversies and conspiracy theories around Hillary Clinton, it was one of the key factors in getting Donald Trump elected.
While there has been some good, newsworthy information released on Wikileaks, it seems to have been corrupted by Russian influence, has a lot of alt-right tendencies including antisemitism (https://theintercept.com/2018/02/14/julian-assange-wikileaks... ); I think that overall, it has become a net negative on the world.
From what I can tell, Chelsea Manning meant well, did some good, but also did a lot of damage, including substantially raising Wikiseaks' profile. I think that whether to report the conversation with Manning to the authorities was likely a difficult one, but the concern about leaking significant amounts of non-newsworthy but potentially quite dangerous information was well founded.
> Did he commit suicide
I don't think that's been revealed; but his Wikipedia article reports on several past struggles with substance abuse. Based on that, and general statistics on causes of death at that age, suicide, overdose, or motor vehicle accident seem like the most likely causes (https://www.cdc.gov/injury/images/lc-charts/leading_causes_o... for the leading causes of death, https://www.cdc.gov/injury/images/lc-charts/leading_causes_o... for the breakdown of the injury deaths by cause).
I like freedom of information, but what Manning did was simply irresponsible. There was no filter on the documents released. Release all the reports of us torturing and murdering, sure. But don't go around telling the Taliban exactly which families risked their lives to help the counterinsurgency.
Its precisely because arguments against American military crimes are couched as 'ideological attacks' that they continue, unimpeded, around the world.
One can argue that atrocities demand intense responses and I agree with that. But I also know that on internet forums this has long degraded into garden-variety flamebait, that the discussions it produces are tedious, predictable, and worthless, and that the end state they lead to is heat death. It's for those reasons we moderate discussion this way, not because we're secret atrocity sympathizers.
Edit: I think it can be helpful to understand how this is really a question of the medium you're posting to. Heated rhetoric that might make sense in a different medium doesn't work the same way in an online forum. No awareness is raised. All it does is provoke opposite flames, and then people try to destroy each other verbally and wreck the container in the process.
If your concern is to make points about reality in the hope that someone else will shift their view a bit, the only way to do that here is neutrally, because if you can't be neutral, the state machine simply advances to state Flamewar. If your concern is to vent rage about evil, that may well be justified, but it doesn't make sense here because the destruction it causes outweighs the limited relief it brings and the zero other good it does. This isn't personal or specific to your views. It's a way of tending to the container for everybody.
He has been incarcerated. He might have faced further incarceration by not disclosing. He was also hardly alone in his view.
Chelsea, meanwhile, knew that what she was doing had risks. She ended up having to face the consequences of her actions.
I'm glad she's released. But ultimately she is responsible for her actions and the outcome of her actions.
That said, I think it's inappropriate to speculate, particularly when the circumstances likely involve mental health. We should really just celebrate Adrian and send our best to those who survive him, as well as take the opportunity to mention that mental health is extremely important in our line of work (and not!) and you should never feel bad for seeking help or fall victim to the stigma. Code can wait; you and your brain can't.
Tragic loss, way too young.
> He told the audience that he, like Manning and WikiLeaks' founder Julian Assange, had acted out of conscience. Lamo believed the cables were dangerous. "Holy fracken crap, there's 260,000 documents," he said, "Do you think you could look through those and make sure they wouldn't cause anybody's life to be lost?"
That you didn't recognize the person based on the preferred name only indicates that you've paid less attention to the news than you thought you had.
If you have any interest in artificial intelligence and automation or their effects on society at large, I strongly recommend her Op-Ed in the Times last September .
Like her or not, she's a big figure in cybersecurity, freedom of information, and international politics. I thoroughly enjoy and benefit from what she has to say.
The polite thing to do, regardless of personal politics, is to simply reassociate the person with the name Chelsea Manning and move on with your life.
We're not rewriting history. Allowing a transgendered person to choose a new name doesn't change the basic facts about what happened. It's just an act of compassion towards someone who would otherwise be suffering from feelings neither you nor I personally experience, but are well documented by scientists.
> Shouldn't it be "Bradley Manning (now called Chelsea)"?
You could say "Chelsea Manning (at the time, 'Bradley')" if you really wanted to refresh people's memories, so long as you consistently refer to her as Chelsea through the rest of the comment/essay/etc.
> I prefer objective to polite.
This is a false dichotomy. You can be both.
Someone changing their name and identifying as the opposite sex after being arrested (the next day I think?) in a major political scandal makes that pertinent to the history of the situation. Hiding that by pretending the person always was identified as they currently are hides facts about the situation -- are they pertinent, maybe not to the primary issue, but the contemporaneous nature suggests something of interest (in social history if nothing else).
Are you asking in your position as moderator?
It's not about that. I'm not gonna tell you what to do, but I will absolutely tell you something about what it means.
Maybe you don't know.
Frankly, your preferences are toxic. The toxicity is rooted in lack of consideration for others.
Nobody is objective. Even you.
And that lack of consideration actually undermines your stated goal of objectivity. It's not really viable to attempt objectivity without actually considering others and the social dynamics in play.
Those carry a lot of implications for everyone involved, even you.
Now, trans people simply are the gender they self identify as. Manning didn't switch.
What she did was actualize herself better, and that means being able to present as who she is better. Would you have others live lies so you, personally feel better about who they are?
I wouldn't, and for one reason: What if it were me stuck with a bad deal like she got?
What is that bad deal?
Rather than always parsing every move, interaction, expression for gender norm compliance, essentially living a lie, she now simply is and does as any of us do. Who wants to live an act, facade like that?
Nobody, and that is a basic human truth. Nobody. It's hell.
Your attempt to connect things back to an identity that is a more or less a lie, a forced construct, does nothing but reinforce the lies and severe inhibition she just escaped from.
Further, by doing that, you also inhibit acceptance and amplify severe and personal pain and for what?
I will leave that for you to answer, save to say it's self serving and this world isn't just about you.
Consideration due is consideration given. You aren't giving any, leaving yourself due very little, which should explain the frank and blunt nature of my comment, which I really should not have to write.
Maybe it helps. Hope so. The world will be just a bit better, and that is my intent here.
Give a little, and 'ye shall receive.
Oh, and no response required or expected. I don't care about that. No need. Just think, and then consider acting on the product of those thoughts.
You're literally putting words in my mouth there.
I said that was a tactic favored among abusive people. That's not an accusation, that's an observable fact about how abusive people behave.
I choose my words carefully, y'know.
Who else does what, exactly? I can't follow what "that" is supposed to refer to.
You kinda did, though. It's weaselly language.
People replicate the behaviors of terrible people either by accident or by mimicry all the time. My aim is to inform, not to condemn.
And no, it's not a "hot button issue", it's about basic respect. And you know it, too, or you wouldn't have created a throwaway account.
But troll on, merry soldier.
To me that's wrong, the President didn't, but Donald Trump did.
There's no reason to hide that Trump hasn't always been president, and it's informative to know that he wasn't president at the time he was a TV character in a "game" (?) show.
If the name is inconsequential why does anyone care if you refer to the correct historical fact that "Bradley Manning (now called Chelsea) was reported ...".
They matter, just in different ways to different people. What's that quote - naming things and off-by-one errors??
I know that most people here will probably remember him mostly for what happened between him and Chelsea Manning (and, quite frankly, I automatically like anyone who makes an enemy of Julian Assange), but I want to remember him for his early work more than anything.
Lamo screwed Manning big time, but when he did, none of us who knew him were surprised. He was never a happy person, and never friendly to anyone I knew. I think his folks threw him out of the house in his teens.
Kind of a tragic figure, but also not really someone you could ever trust or even invite to parties. When anyone dies, it's sad. But with Adrian, he had already basically removed himself from the groups who knew him long ago. He was just seemingly not comfortable being in society and making friends.
I will say, though, that being the target of social engineering by someone you know is renowned for being good at social engineering is an interesting experience. You almost can't help yourself even though you know better.
What I do know, and what the world should have thought us in the last couple of years, is that when this isn't the case it is often hiding in plain sight under layers of denial. And that the only way to uncover those things is to be able to speak about people and their actions. So while I do believe in being respectful I am not sure that we have earned the luxury to be uncomfortable when someone has a negative opinion about someone else.
> Kind of a tragic figure, but also not really someone you could ever trust or even invite to parties. When anyone dies, it's sad. But with Adrian, he had already basically removed himself from the groups who knew him long ago.
This is awfully similar to the impression of Aaron Swartz I've heard from those who knew him. All of them seem uncomfortable with the praise that was heaped on him after he died, though that's not to say that what happened to him wasn't awful. People are just very flawed, and it's hard to look at or acknowledge those flaws sometimes.
Aaron's story is by far the more tragic to me.
I completely agree, and I absolutely wasn't trying to draw a comparison between their actions.
He’d always been comfortable in our friendship.
I find your summary distasteful and not accurate. You should have enough respect for life to not take the opportunity to trash someone on their death announcement.
Now my complaint: you could have posted this tomorrow and I wouldn't have so much trouble with it, but hijacking the announcement of someone's death to air privileged /and/ gossipy bits of their private life, their sexuality, their homelife, /and/ include allegations of sexual harassment all in one swoop strikes me as utterly distasteful, and the kind of personality I would not wish present at any party I ever attend.
Imagine one of Adrian's family members sitting in a room with every person from this thread, and these comments being directed to them, in person.
Fucksake HN. You're being more classless than usual today.
Go see what happened when Ian Murdock died, if you want to know how crass this site can really be.
It's fine to constructively criticize. But it's inherently impossible to do that with someone who's died because they're dead. And with disorders which risk social impairment, public shaming isn't the solution either; it just drives people who don't understand how to address their challenges further and further into a hole.
I figure your question was intended as both maieutic and rhetorical, but please take into account what I'm sharing with you here.
People are expected in some capacity to grow on hackernews. This comment contributed no growth value to anyone.