4 ms·
Quoting Matt Tait (former GCHQ) here: "Also worth remembering that "agent" here means "recruited source" and not "employee"" (https://twitter.com/pwnallthething
by lorenzhs 9y ago
Quoting Matt Tait (former GCHQ) here: "Also worth remembering that "agent" here means "recruited source" and not "employee"" (https://twitter.com/pwnallthethings/status/969970407758618625 https://twitter.com/pwnallthethings/status/96997040775861862...), and further "This is kind of necessary, since being a member of a proscribed international terror organization is a crime, and were it not so, Mi5 would be unable to recruit sources inside them" and "And also worth noting it is guidelines on the use of sources who participate in criminality. It is not about the government directing sources to participate in criminality." The second-to-last paragraph of the article only makes sense using this reading: "The MI5 website says agents are “one of the most significant information gathering assets we have”, adding “intelligence from our agents is critical to keeping the UK safe”."
It seems the entire discussion here is based on a misunderstanding, the vast difference between what MI5 calls an "agent" and what the public understands when we hear "an MI5 agent", and thus misses the point by about a mile?
There's an interesting debate to be had about the questions posed by the article, it's just not what's being discussed here right now. For example, in Germany, an attempt to have the far-right ultra-nationalist NPD banned for being anti-constitutional in 2003 was rejected by the Federal Constitutional Court because a large number of agents (called V-Männer in German) were active in the party leadership. This raised the question of whether some of the evidence against the party might actually be influenced by agents of German secret services. Since the secret services did not want to fully disclose their agents' identities and activities, the court found the case to be impossible to decide.
- daddosi 9y agoThere is also the school of thougt where these agencies were created specifically to rule countries with the national government no more than a cover story. The influence of one over the other and vis versa seems convincing. I could tell you more but then I would have to kill you.
- dragonwriter 9y agoThis seems very similar to the fact (and reasoning) that FBI informants can commit crimes.
- ShorsHammer 9y agoI've seen this line of reasoning quite frequently in the last few hours and am a tad suspicious. Let's frame it this way: Can the police pay criminals to commit crime in order to arrest other people? Here is a lovely example of my own wealthy first world country scamming one of the poorest nations on earth out of their oil reserves for a handsome profit. The man (Nick Warner) behind it all lives in luxury guarded by guns and the bureaucratic evil protecting him and his ilk. The minister at the time (Alexander Downer) afterwards went on to work for Woodside Petroleum, one of the biggest oil companies in the world who coincidentally was the main beneficiary of the shady deal. May history judge them all appropriately. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia–East_Timor_spying_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia–East_Timor_spying_sc...
- primitur 9y agoDuplicity is a norm within the structures of the power elite. We, the people, don't like to ever admit it - it interrupts our comfortable lives - but both sides are regularly played by those who have the advantage of technological, legislative and bureaucratic power. Australia's imperial adventures pale in comparison with those of its allies in the 5-eyes nations, but its still just playing by the same rulebook of its cousins. "Play both sides, for power." Now, the UK is freely admitting it does this.