Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Adrian Lamo has died

zdnet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–248 of 248 posts

Re: Adrian Lamo has died

#241

Post by fjsolwmv »

praneshp wrote: post #38
cypherg wrote: post #11

This guy was seriously mentally troubled, and that's too bad. Chelsea Manning (Bradley/Bradass at the time) confieded in Adrian, Adrian snitched, and the rest is history. He did what he thought was right, but the consequences were absolutely disastrous. Kids, don't be a snitch.

> Kids, don't be a snitch. 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.

I've also heard it from victims of tyrannical and genocidal governments.

Re: Adrian Lamo has died

#242

Post by checkyoursudo »

dragonwriter wrote: post #209
checkyoursudo wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know specifically in Manning's case, but yes, in general in the US, knowledge that a crime is about to be, is being, or has been committed can make you an accomplice and expose you to criminal liability. 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…

> I don't know specifically in Manning's case, but yes, in general in the US, knowledge that a crime is about to be, is being, or has been committed can make you an accomplice and expose you to criminal liability. 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 (…

What's incorrect? Having knowledge of an actual crime can make you an accomplice.

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.

Re: Adrian Lamo has died

#243

Post by PhasmaFelis »

praneshp wrote: post #38
cypherg wrote: post #11

This guy was seriously mentally troubled, and that's too bad. Chelsea Manning (Bradley/Bradass at the time) confieded in Adrian, Adrian snitched, and the rest is history. He did what he thought was right, but the consequences were absolutely disastrous. Kids, don't be a snitch.

> Kids, don't be a snitch. 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.

Anyone who's ever smoked weed.

Re: Adrian Lamo has died

#244

Post by PhasmaFelis »

daxorid wrote: post #115
phusion wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seriously, I'm really surprised at some of the comments here. Some hackers have always been suits though, so I shouldn't be surprised.

Definitely shouldn't be surprised, and it's not just the suits. 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 a…

Selling vulnerabilities is a shitty thing to do. Selling to American spies instead of Russian mobsters doesn't make it any worse.

Re: Adrian Lamo has died

#246

Post by vagif »

praneshp wrote: post #151
notthemessiah wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you say that Daniel Ellsberg shouldn't have "snitched" to the public on the assessment that the Vietnam War was unwinnable? You seem to conflate "good" with "authority" here.

I think you read my point in reverse? I agree with you, that the snitching is good. There's probably something to debate on what's snitching and what's being a traitor, but that's not the same debate IMO.

Snitching is a derogatory term used in closed communities to prevent harmful (to the closed community) disclosure of information.

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.

Re: Adrian Lamo has died

#247

Post by vagif »

amyjess wrote: post #58
cypherg wrote: post #11

This guy was seriously mentally troubled, and that's too bad. Chelsea Manning (Bradley/Bradass at the time) confieded in Adrian, Adrian snitched, and the rest is history. He did what he thought was right, but the consequences were absolutely disastrous. Kids, don't be a snitch.

> Kids, don't be a snitch. 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.

Snitching is a derogatory term used in closed communities to prevent harmful (to the closed community) disclosure of information. 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.

Re: Adrian Lamo has died

#248

Post by ScottBurson »

benchaney wrote: post #220
ScottBurson wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, the data not being available doesn't necessarily mean that people weren't killed, either. 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 els…

> Well, the data not being available doesn't necessarily mean that people weren't killed, either. 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. Acceptin…

I don't disagree with you very much. I think Manning's heart was in the right place, and some of the material she leaked was very important. I just wish she had released the material through journalists, as Snowden did later, rather than dumping it on WikiLeaks.
Post reply on HN