WikiLeaks part II: Adrian Lamo responds

The hacker at the heart of yesterday's post about WikiLeaks and military espionage responds with corrections and new info

Yesterday's post about the ongoing WikiLeaks saga prompted a couple of fascinating responses, including one from the person at the heart of that post, hacker-turned-journalist Adrian Lamo. In it he corrects a number of errors I made, as well as providing more context about his side of the story -- his relationship with Wired News reporter Kevin Poulsen (KLP) and accused spy Bradley Manning, as well as whether he was actively working with law enforcement to bring Manning in. I have his permission to run his response in full.

[ Also on InfoWorld: Read the Cringely post that kicked off this exchange in "Spies, WikiLeaks, and hackers, oh my!" | Stay up to date on all Robert X. Cringely's observations with InfoWorld's Notes from the Underground newsletter. ]

I also received a letter from the father of a 16-year-old with Asperger's Syndrome who corroborates some of my notions about it -- which is not a "disability" so much as a "different ability." I'll start with Adrian's unedited response:

To continue reading, register here to become an Insider. You'll get free access to premium content from CIO, Computerworld, CSO, InfoWorld, and Network World. See more Insider content or sign in.

Yesterday's post about the ongoing WikiLeaks saga prompted a couple of fascinating responses, including one from the person at the heart of that post, hacker-turned-journalist Adrian Lamo. In it he corrects a number of errors I made, as well as providing more context about his side of the story -- his relationship with Wired News reporter Kevin Poulsen (KLP) and accused spy Bradley Manning, as well as whether he was actively working with law enforcement to bring Manning in. I have his permission to run his response in full.

[ Also on InfoWorld: Read the Cringely post that kicked off this exchange in "Spies, WikiLeaks, and hackers, oh my!" | Stay up to date on all Robert X. Cringely's observations with InfoWorld's Notes from the Underground newsletter. ]

I also received a letter from the father of a 16-year-old with Asperger's Syndrome who corroborates some of my notions about it -- which is not a "disability" so much as a "different ability." I'll start with Adrian's unedited response:

You have a number of questions that could be answered by contacting me. I politely request that you consider doing so via my publicly-available contact details in the future - and if you did & I was somehow unreachable, I retract this & apologize.

I would suggest that Manning is neither a whistleblower nor a spy (although he may be guilty of espionage, which is a different animal in some circles.) I was aware that KLP had little interest in keeping my identity secret.

Whether I was right is not for me to globally judge (though I believe I did the right thing, which is also a different animal. Yes, I'm splitting that hair mighty thin.)

Poulsen knows I've been around the block a couple dozen times, and I've been a bona-fide confidential source, albeit never for Poulsen. I don't feel taken advantage of. If I was pressured, it was up to me to exercise my right & ability to resist.

I object to your characterization of Asperger's as a "disability" - it's more-often described as a "syndrome" or "condition" in psychiatric circles, and in a less pejorative fashion to boot.

I know Poulsen isn't my friend. We don't socialize. We don't go clubbing. He's the most highly ethical journalist I know. If I were unaware that he considers me a source, not a friend, I'd be taken advantage of. I am however quite aware of this.

The government - and this is important - never asked me to be a source for them in the Manning case, in terms of eliciting information in furtherance of prosecution. This request would be improper, and I would decline in the interests of justice.

I have no reason to lead me to believe that Assange is on the run from anything larger than his own PR machine. It's perverse that this story has increasingly drifted from focusing on Manning to focusing on Assange.

I hope this clarifies things for you from my end. I've been entirely candid with you, and hope you'll update with a clarification from my end.

Consider it done. Also, to clarify: It would be great to be able to reach everyone I blog about here before I write about them. I agree that's a better way to go. And if I did that, I might manage to post one a week, maybe. Because this blog is mostly opinion mixed with snark, not straight reporting, I usually don't attempt to contact sources first; in this case, I did not attempt to reach Lamo, with whom I have corresponded in the past. In hindsight that probably would have been a better idea.