Adrien Chen, that secret-sharer and golf-clapper if not cheerleader of Anonymous hackers, has a piece dumping on that evil Lamo, that sneak, that rat, who tattled on Bradley Manning.
I don't get the Gawker comments policy, as they aren't transparent about it. It used to be they said forthrightly that they only selected certain people they liked (imported from the old Valleywag policy) and only let them post. It was utterly arbitrary and there was no way to appeal. At some point, I'm not sure how, I was selected, or maybe they changed their policy. I posted for awhile, and then suddenly after their big hacker attack I couldn't seem to get back on -- they had changed everybody's passwords, or cancelled them to force you to make new ones. Then I had a hell of time ever getting back on. Even though the Gawker.com mailer I've subscribed to never has any problem making its way every morning to my mailbox, a password retrieval request never even gets in the spam file. I finally got logged on again today as "Prokofy," my account from years ago that was previously cleared for comments, but I don't show up. Oh well, be that way.
Hence, my repost here in response to Adrian:
So, interesting, you're authenticating these Wired chat logs, Adrian? Scumbag though he may be (and he's followed the absolutely reliable rule of thumb that the b-tard types always out their own and are rats by nature), there are some important elements to this chatlog that could well serve as Manning's indictment:
o the chat logs tie him definitely to Assange, and directly. Assange's counsel claims he had no association with Manning, but these chat logs shows he talked to him directly
o furthermore, that relationship was so close and dependent, that Lamo himself called out Assange on it, asking him, essentially, why he was doing what Assange told him to. Ahah! And that would seemingly tie Assange to deliberately inciting Manning to hacking in order to harm the US.
So, seriously, if you could suspend your sneaking admiration of hackers for a minute, and your sense of solidarity with the anti-American anarchist people's forces, take a fresh look at the whole stack of chat logs again. They may not be admissible in court. But they don't only show Lamo is a scum, they show that Assange and Manning are guilty of deliberate theft of classified government documents.
And then, while we're studying the miscreants, here's another post from Adrian, on those evil people attempting to fight LulzSec on their own! Vigilantes! Horrible!
Well, Adrian. First of all, are you going to comment on all those media reports about how LulzSec "disbanded" when...that was all fake?
Secondly, if these folks are all, so, um, anonymous, how do you know who is doing what to whom?
Thirdly, what could be possibly wrong with attempting to expose hackers who cost Sony $171 million in damages, and have caused untold damages in their vandalism and harassment on other sites, many government sites?
Yes, the script kiddies love to victory-dance, and that's their downfall as you can trap them in the IRC channel bragging about their exploits. So when one set of bad guys outs another set, is this Nature's Way in the hacking world that we can only be grateful for?
It's terrible that this man's life is upended by the b-tards setting him up with the usual pizza delivery/SWAT team call meme to harass him -- in RL. But ultimately, what are you saying here? That good citizens can't hunt for these malicious hackers and out them? That law-enforcement authorities shouldn't use their propensity to out each other in their investigations? Of course they should. Overeager, amateur or not, it's ok to try to expose these criminals, you know? And no harm, no foul if in fact they aren't guilty, it will be easy to be exonerated as Sabu has apparently been by showing that he sold a domain name.
I'm just not getting your ignation and cautionary tale against vigilantes when they go after creeps like LulzSec, which is strangely absent about LulzSec's own vigilantism in the first case