-
Phill commented on the blog post Lamo’s Two (?!) Laptops
My standard travel kit is A MacBook Air, an iPad and an iPhone. On longer trips I take a Kindle as well. I almost always take at least one external drive. For several years I would travel with both a company laptop and a personal one.
There are really many reasons to be suspicious of Lamo’s story. But it is not at all surprising for a hacker to have two laptops or replace a stolen one immediately. Netbooks are dirt cheap these days.
What I do find rather odd here is the allegation that the FBI would take away property from someone who has volunteered as an informer. Seems to be a bit of a disincentive no? Why would the FBI require a forensic examination?
Another peculiarity is the idea that a ‘journalist’ takes making statements on the record to be permission to engage in an FBI sting on the source?
Lamo’s claims regarding the agreement to not talk off the record are not backed up anywhere in the released chats. And Wired’s claims to be protecting their source seem rather hollow here when they seem to have been involved in putting Manning in jail. Lamo seems to be claiming to be a journalist. So how can he be claiming protection as a source?
Lets just consider for a moment what Wired would have had for a scoop if Manning had not been arrested: Some chat room conversations with a guy who claims to be the source.
Manning’s arrest greatly increased the value of the Wired story, it took it from a non-story to a scoop. And Wired is making assertions that can only be substantiated by evidence that they refuse to release.
Wired’s claim to be protecting Manning’s privacy rings rather hollow when their collaborator put him in prison. They don’t seem to have troubled much about his privacy in the earlier releases.
It is about time to start asking these questions of the Conde Nast management.
