U.S. Intelligence Analyst Arrested in Wikileaks Video Probe

[Thorn]

The question has been raised, why would Lamo even have to think twice or agonize over a decision to go to the authorities?

...

For those of you that see this decision to go to the authorities is an obvious one, have you considered the above 3 items?.

...

Nope, Cot, None of those things even enter into my thought process, nor would they.

I'm working on a much longer answer, and will post it later in the day.

EDIT: Here's the long answer:


No, Cot, it's just as clear, and no more difficult. Not only would I have no qualms about turning the son of a bitch in, if he's convicted, I wouldn't have any qualms about being his executioner. Although, as I consider it, he should really be turned over to a mob of widows of service members killed in action.

Let us be very clear: There is NO moral or ethical dilemma here. What Manning did was WRONG and abhorrent in the worst way possible. He betrayed is country -and worst still, his brothers in arms- for no reason other than he could. His highest attainment here is nothing more than bragging rights. At the very least people like Ames, Pollard, the Walkers, Whitworth, or the Rosenbergs did it for money or ideological reasons; which is to say "concrete motivations". While I can't condone betraying your country for cash, it is understandable. Betrayal for ideological reasons is understandable, and may even be excusable (although not necessarily legally tolerable) depending on where you stand on a given doctrine.

However, to do this for nothing more than pure kicks is the lowest kind of debasement.

To go over your questions one-by-one:

1) A promise, especially an implied one, pertaining to "keeping a secret" doesn't hold any water if someone makes another party an accessory after the fact to a crime. Even if a person is completely amoral and unethical, self-preservation would dictate that someone strongly consider turning the information over to the authorities when dealing with a crime this serious. That goes double for a convicted felon like Lamo, who would certainly know that if he were found to be connected to this in any way could be facing a very long jail term.

2) Personally, people around me should damn well know where I stand ahead of time. I am not a doctor, lawyer (gag), or priest (double gag). As such I have no moral, legal, or ethical bounds to maintain another person's illegal secret(s) or criminal information under professional privilege. It's simple. If you don't want word of your criminal behavior to get out, don't tell people, especially me.

3) No loss there. A true friend doesn't make others responsible for their own failings. If someone was a very close friend, and did decide to burden me with such a confession, my only response would be along the lines of "So who's going to the authorities, you or me?" Note that I said 'a very close friend'. Acquaintances and the like don't get the option of doing it before me.

For those of you who think that it was bad or even repugnant for Lamo to tell the authorities, consider the question this way: substitute "murder" (or whatever crime you hold to be worst) for "treason", and place yourself in Lamo's position. At what point do you stop ignoring the crime -and your own complicity as an accessory after the fact in the eyes of the authorities- and when exactly do your morals, ethics, and/or self interests tell you have to talk?

[TheCotMan]

Re: U.S. Intelligence Analyst Arrested in Wikileaks Video Probe

Nope, Cot, None of those things even enter into my thought process, nor would they.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply.

At what point do you stop ignoring the crime -and your own complicity as an accessory after the fact in the eyes of the authorities- and when exactly do your morals, ethics, and/or self interests tell you have to talk?

I guess the best answer would be to never allow such a conflict in ethics and honoring of agreements to exist in the first place. I guess the best solution is prevention in the form of never agreeing to keep a secret if the secret puts yourself in jeopardy, and to never agree to something unless you know and understand the terms and conditions before you agree to it.

Even with what you have stated and the strong argument, especially with self preservation, I still have doubts on what I would do in the same position. If no preconditions existed with the keeping of a secret, then there is no choice but to break one of the agreements that was made. This would probably mean that an evaluation of "the best possible outcome" would be made to decide which path would be better for me and/or others that I care about.

In other news, it seems that everyone agrees with the first question that they would NOT do what the suspect claims to have done. However, we see a nearly 50/50 split between the options of turning this guy in or not. It really leaves an impression that interpersonal conflict of opinion on this may echo in individual conflict for many people.

[theprez98]

Re: U.S. Intelligence Analyst Arrested in Wikileaks Video Probe

Wired has now posted excerpts from the chat logs between Manning and Lamo.

[g3k_]

Re: U.S. Intelligence Analyst Arrested in Wikileaks Video Probe

I'm not going to go into rights or wrongs here.

From the chatlog, Adrian doesn't look good. He seems to show more of a morbid curiosity than an interest in catching a guy who leaked really sensitive data.

Had this guy not blabbed, which he was going to (you could tell by the way he was talking, he seemed very eager to please AL) Lamo was just the sudden popular catalyst, I think he would of never been noticed and never would of got caught. From his perspective, it sounds like things 'on the ground' are not so secure. Which makes me weep a little bit for our military.

He said he uploaded the video in February and they didn't catch him till now when he opened his mouth. I'm sorry, but the US government doesn't seem to be as on top of things as I had hoped. Perhaps this needed to happen in order to set an example.

I don't hate Manning, I kind of pity him. He screwed up on levels of traitor proportions, but he felt like he was doing the country a service. He went about this the wrong way. He could of gone to NK or China with the data he had, probably made some cash. He did it in a way that he thought was benevolent. I'm not saying he's right and that it isn't treason, cause it clearly is.

Think about this: how many leaks are there that we do not hear about, the government does not catch the source, and the information is sent to a hostile enemy state or terrorist organization for cash?

[Thorn]

Re: U.S. Intelligence Analyst Arrested in Wikileaks Video Probe

Another story about this, and Lamo talks about coming to DefCon this year.

http://www.sacbee.com/2010/06/13/281...s-himself.html

[Deviant Ollam]

Re: U.S. Intelligence Analyst Arrested in Wikileaks Video Probe

now that this has all happened... what do you think would be the most ethical thing for WikiLeaks to do with the cables? i surely have my own opinions, and am happy to share them in a bit. i'd also like to hear what others have to say, too.

[theprez98]

Re: U.S. Intelligence Analyst Arrested in Wikileaks Video Probe

now that this has all happened... what do you think would be the most ethical thing for WikiLeaks to do with the cables? i surely have my own opinions, and am happy to share them in a bit. i'd also like to hear what others have to say, too.

I think it's difficult to reconcile an ethical action from the actor's POV. From my perspective, the ethical thing to do is to delete them. Assuming they have them, they are in receipt of stolen, classified materials. Although one could guess that from their point of view, they're not subject to US laws and can do whatever they want to. In fact, this is expressly what they wanted to do.

Again assuming that there are in fact 260,000 of these cables, whistle-blowing just doesn't cut it here. I cannot be convinced that Manning much less read, or understand the context of all of these cables, to the extend that he was retrieving them as a whistle-blower.

[m9um9u]

Re: U.S. Intelligence Analyst Arrested in Wikileaks Video Probe

now that this has all happened... what do you think would be the most ethical thing for WikiLeaks to do with the cables? i surely have my own opinions, and am happy to share them in a bit. i'd also like to hear what others have to say, too.

In my opinion, ethics don't come into it; they should post the cables.

As for Lamo and Manning, I can't say I side with either of them. Manning was stupid. Lamo has clearly underlined the ex- in ex-hacker. I can understand Lamo in wanting to go to the authorities, as not many people get the opportunity to turn in something so major, and I can also understand Manning in wanting to share the fact that he'd leaked it. On the other hand, I can clearly see that Manning should have had the sense not to tell anyone who may have turned him in, and Lamo should have had a little loyalty to the culture he was once part of.

[Thorn]

Re: U.S. Intelligence Analyst Arrested in Wikileaks Video Probe

I think it's difficult to reconcile an ethical action from the actor's POV. From my perspective, the ethical thing to do is to delete them. Assuming they have them, they are in receipt of stolen, classified materials. Although one could guess that from their point of view, they're not subject to US laws and can do whatever they want to. In fact, this is expressly what they wanted to do.

The Obama Administration should demand that Swedish authorities at least conduct an investigation to see if any Swedish laws have been broken in the process.

and Lamo should have had a little loyalty to the culture he was once part of.

Which culture is that exactly, criminals?

To imply that the "hacker culture" is composed of people who routinely commit computer crimes -or even support such activity- just furthers the stereotype of the 15 year-old pimply faced loner sitting in his mom's basement trying to crack the accounts at the local bank. Frankly, I resent the implication. I've been hacking computers for almost 40 years, and have never committed any crime, computer-related or not. That also goes for the majority of people I would consider hackers. Criminal activity doesn't enter into what they do at all.

[Deviant Ollam]

Re: U.S. Intelligence Analyst Arrested in Wikileaks Video Probe

I appreciate the responses seen... and they really do seem to run the gamut from "they should just delete them" to "they should post them, hands-down"

my opinion on the matter is a bit in-between... i would feel that WikiLeaks would be most true to themselves and act as a journalistic enterprise (not exactly their stated mission, but it falls close enough to make the ethical questions relevant) if they were to do what Manning failed to do.

they could go through the cables manually, with a fine eye for things that are (a) truly a matter of national security, life and death, etc (b) just normal state department drivel or actually (c) real, grave examples of misconduct on a national level.

news organizations routinely withhold facts in category "A" from publication in the interest of saving lives and protecting citizens. similarly, the public is also not served by mass release of category "B" material because it just adds to data clutter and wastes time and resources.

but if there really is some info in category "C" ... Pentagon Papers type stuff... i could see WikiLeaks posting that in the interest of the greater need to disinfect with sunlight.

having the wherewithal to be cautious and fastidious in ways that Manning never was would be admirable... if undertaken with a keen eye for information security during the process of discovery and examination (after all, at least that's something we know WikiLeaks has the talent for, i'd hope)

just my $0.02... a half-formed notion, and i could be persuaded in other ways. but i would see that as something that the Times or CNN might do if they were given classified materials. (well, something they would do in the 70's... nowadays i predict most US based news organizations would piss their pants, lawyer-up, and immediately give in to all government demands)

[theprez98]

Re: U.S. Intelligence Analyst Arrested in Wikileaks Video Probe

they could go through the cables manually, with a fine eye for things that are (a) truly a matter of national security, life and death, etc (b) just normal state department drivel or actually (c) real, grave examples of misconduct on a national level.

Here's my problem with this approach: I'm pretty sure that the Wikileaks staff are not trained diplomats. They do not understand the context in which these cables are written, and thus truly do not have a real capacity to objectively evaluate these sorts of things.

[shrdlu]

Re: U.S. Intelligence Analyst Arrested in Wikileaks Video Probe

Edit: This reads more strident than I'd like. In addition, I want to say that I like and respect Deviant, but can't help myself here.

they could go through the cables manually, with a fine eye for things that are (a) truly a matter of national security, life and death, etc (b) just normal state department drivel or actually (c) real, grave examples of misconduct on a national level.

Speaking from my former life, I have to say that it is not POSSIBLE for anyone who does not have a particular security clearance to recognize each and every detail that is, or should be, classified. The idea that an untrained (and uncleared) eye will be able to put things in such nice neat stacks is hopeful, but naive. Some items are going to be obvious, of course. Others will not.

Items may be classified not for their obvious value, but for their help in a "connect the dots" scenario. That is to say, a shopping list of words may all be on a list that causes a document to become classified, even though the rest of the information in that document is innocuous, because those words will assist an analyst employed by people who are not our friends into making educated assumptions about the data that isn't present.

It's really hard for me to not comment on most of what I've seen here, other than that I'd be happy to volunteer to be on the firing squad.

To me, the ONLY right thing to do is to give it back to the authorities, without looking at it, so that our analysts can know what was taken, and then try to determine what the exposure is.

[theprez98]

Re: U.S. Intelligence Analyst Arrested in Wikileaks Video Probe

Speaking from my former life, I have to say that it is not POSSIBLE for anyone who does not have a particular security clearance to recognize each and every detail that is, or should be, classified. The idea that an untrained (and uncleared) eye will be able to put things in such nice neat stacks is hopeful, but naive. Some items are going to be obvious, of course. Others will not.

Items may be classified not for their obvious value, but for their help in a "connect the dots" scenario. That is to say, a shopping list of words may all be on a list that causes a document to become classified, even though the rest of the information in that document is innocuous, because those words will assist an analyst employed by people who are not our friends into making educated assumptions about the data that isn't present.

It's really hard for me to not comment on most of what I've seen here, other than that I'd be happy to volunteer to be on the firing squad.

To me, the ONLY right thing to do is to give it back to the authorities, without looking at it, so that our analysts can know what was taken, and then try to determine what the exposure is.

Yes. Agreed 100%. Exactly what I was trying to say.

[Deviant Ollam]

Re: U.S. Intelligence Analyst Arrested in Wikileaks Video Probe

This reads more strident than I'd like. In addition, I want to say that I like and respect Deviant, but can't help myself here.

awe, i like and respect you, too, dearest... and i took no offense from your words.

i really do recognize that some of the folk here, you among them, have a much more detailed and in-depth perspective on this matter due to careers directly involved with such material. i saw (and even mentioned at the end of my post) that my opinion was still half-formed and still a bit malleable.

i still do not fully believe that it would be inappropriate for WikiLeaks (or any other journalistic enterprise) to privately review the material (with a keen eye for security as they did so) and attempt to see if there is a hidden item that is particularly egregious or heinous.

i do appreciate the comments from folk like shrdlu and prez, especially since their perspective seems a bit under-represented in the hacker world which is often replete with no-holds-barred "information wants to be free!!" zealotry.

(insert my customary self-congratulatory praise for this community as a whole for yet again being able to touch on somewhat political matters while still keeping cool heads, addressing one another fairly, and generally not coming anywhere close to flame-ness. i love the respect we demonstrate at times like this.)

[TheCotMan]

Re: U.S. Intelligence Analyst Arrested in Wikileaks Video Probe

Have you ever dropped specific information with focus on different details to different people to see if any information gets back to you through other channels? It is certainly a risky thing, as anyone that has ever played the childhood game, "telephone," can attest to, but over a long period of time, the passing of seemingly non-private but different data that nobody would consider a risk to privacy to different sources might allow you to find a mole, or someone that is working against you. I've played this game at work providing information about something that other people might not want made public, but I don't really care about. When that information is provided to only one co-worker, and they are asked to keep it private, but later, other co-workers know about it, then I know the first person cannot be trusted.

The same thing is done by many sophisticated shoppers that must talk to a salesman before buying something. These people will often research their big ticket purchase such as a car, and find out details about it. Then, when they go in to talk to a salesman, they will ask the salesman questions where the answer is known. The reliability and trustworthiness of the salesman to be honest about their product and their depth of knowledge is revealed in their answers. This is helpful when asking questions for answers the shopper has no knowledge.

Both of the above items illustrate subtle techniques at passing seemingly non-secret, and non-private information that can permit conclusions of great consequence. I would expect governments and powerful organizations to have similar techniques in place, with the consequences being life or death, if a source is exposed. It could also cause a plan (thought to have been secret) to now be understood as exposed by, "the enemy", causing "the enemy" to plan something new, which may not be known to "the allies" and cost lives of "allies."

On the topic of everything that has been published so far? Leave it published. Consider what happened with "CiscoGate" when Pandora opened the box. Once on the Internet, it is saved somewhere. Only feasible option is damage control.

The only question on content remains of what to do with the information that has not been posted on the Internet. If this was a true case of inter-governmental espionage, then what would be the result of this information falling into "the enemy's" hands? There is no undo. The information has been seen by "the enemy" and no amount of claims can ever allow "the allies" the believe the information contained in the leaked data was never examined by "the enemy." Because of this, and because the information has allegedly been out of the control of people with the appropriate clearance, the next step should be one of damage control. Step 1 should be to understand what data was leaked, and then step 2 should be to understand risks associated with the information being lost to "the enemy, and step 3 should be to cast-out, insulate or protect exposed assets. I would think those would have been started as soon as "the allies" knew they lost control of data that was classified as restricted/secret/.*

It would be kind for "the enemy" to give us the documents back, and purge all backups, but there is no way to prove that no other copies were made, and "prove a negative" such as, "nobody else reviewed these documents" If they were passed as email, are they in a "sent-mail" folder? Was the document encrypted before being transmitted? Was anyone sniffing mail on any link between the source and destination? Once it left the US, were any other foreign countries sniffing email traffic? Does the source use an outbound spam filter? Do they cache all sent mail? What about an inbound filter at any hop? Do they cache filtered mail? Last hop? Do the servers that store these messages have a RAID array? Tape backup? How often are tapes made? Are tapes sent off-site for disaster recovery? Did these documents exist as one or more files on any servers between the source and the destination? If the files were deleted were they "secure" erased form disk, or could they be undeleted easily, or with more effort?

Once the data is "out there" there is no way to provide 100% certainty that no living "enemy" has seen it and no other copies exist that could fall into "the enemy's" hands. All that getting the originals back now would do would be to provide political "warm fuzzies" to politicians, but should provide no real satisfaction and happy-fun-time to the assets and resources that might now be exposed.

Though it would be kind for "the enemy" to not publish the documents that have not yet been published, the documents are no longer in the control of just "the allies." Until they are shown otherwise, the documents they have are under the control of "the enemy" to do with as they wish.

It is possible the documents will be treated as stolen , or maybe copyrighted material. That would be amusing... if no laws exist to cover receipt of documents "owned" by another country, but laws do exist to address copyright claims.