![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
a_kleberВот это сенсация, блять. Особенно если окажется, что это правда. Poulsen это тот хакер-журналист из Wired.com, который и публиковал до сих пор всю конфиденциальную инфу про Маннинга и хакера Ламо, каковой (как до сих пор считалось) настучал на доверчивого сержанта в ФБР. Теперь же оказывается, что там еще фигурировал третий субъект - бывший сотрудник прокуратуры и официальный хакер-патриот, в свое время донесший на (и посадивший!) самого Poulsen'a. Не ну а? Сплошные ссученые хакеры и политические проститутки, какой-то прям садомазохизм. Славные ребята из респектабельного онлайнового издания Wired.com заманили сержанта в ловушку - и сдали властям? Афигеть.
-----
«Poulsen's concealment of the key evidence is rendered all the more bizarre by virtue of previously undisclosed facts about Wired's involvement in Manning's arrest. From the start, the strangest aspect of this whole story -- as I detailed back in June and won't repeat here -- has been the notion that one day, out of the blue, Manning suddenly contacted a total stranger over the Internet and, using unsecured chat lines, immediately confessed in detail to crimes that would likely send him to prison for decades.
More strangely still, it wasn't just any total stranger whom Manning contacted, but rather a convicted felon who is notorious in the hacking community for his dishonesty and compulsive self-promotion, and who had just been involuntarily committed to a psychiatric hospital three weeks earlier (notably, Poulsen's May article on Lamo's hospitalization began with this passage: "Last month Adrian Lamo, a man once hunted by the FBI, did something contrary to his nature. He picked up a payphone outside a Northern California supermarket and called the cops" -- of course, a mere three weeks later, Lamo would "call the cops" again, this time to turn informant against Bradley Manning). Add to all of that the central involvement of Lamo's long-time confidant, Poulsen, in exclusively reporting on this story and one has a series of events that are wildly improbable (which doesn't mean it didn't happen that way).
But now there are new facts making all of this stranger still, and it all centers around a man named Mark Rasch. Who is Rasch? He's several things. He's the former chief of the DOJ's Computer Crimes Unit in the 1990s. He's a "regular contributor" to Wired. He's also the General Counsel of "Project Vigilant," the creepy and secretive vigilante group that claims to gather Internet communications and hand them over to the U.S. government. Rasch is also the person who prosecuted Kevin Poulsen back in the mid-1990s and put him in prison for more than three years. As detailed below, Rasch also has a long and varied history with both Poulsen and, to a lesser extent, Lamo. And -- most significantly of all -- Rasch is the person who put Lamo in touch with federal law authorities in order to inform on Manning: (...)»
-----
Статья длинная, но там куча подробностей.
Poulsen and Lamo
http://db.nadim.cc/poulamo.jpg
«First and foremost, there needs to be more discussion about the potentially enormous ethics violations that seem to have been committed at Wired Magazine. Everyone knows Kevin Poulsen & Adrian Lamo are friends. It is obvious they worked their target, Bradley Manning, for days -- in co-operation with the FBI and US Army CID. This hearkens back to COINTELPRO tactics. How likely is it that Lamo worked entirely on his own with no involvement from Poulsen, who only found out about it all after-the-fact, in time to "break the story" for Wired? There is no disclosure provided in the original article and it is written as if Poulsen wasn't involved at all. Could it really be that, in pursuit of breaking a big story, Wired magazine staff helped set up a situation where the FBI/USACID got to use proxy interrogators, who misled a suspect into believing that he was only answering questions from someone he could trust, instead of federal/military law enforcement, without any Constitutional protections in place? This needs to be more critically examined.»
-------
UPDATE
Та-та! Пропорциональный ответ "обвиняемых" на блоге Wired.com:
December 28, 2010 | 9:18 pm
Putting the Record Straight on the Lamo-Manning Chat Logs
By Evan Hansen and Kevin Poulsen
Editor’s note: This is a two-part article, in which Wired.com editor-in-chief Evan Hansen and senior editor Kevin Poulsen respond separately to criticisms of the site’s Wikileaks coverage.
