4 ms·

The Stundin article they are quoting has the source, it's Ögmundur Jónasson, who was Iceland's minister of interior at the time. Also ... maybe there is a prob

The Stundin article they are quoting has the source, it's Ögmundur Jónasson, who was Iceland's minister of interior at the time. Also ... maybe there is a problem with censored news in the US. Because outside the US mainstream media reporting on the latest "US intelligence caught spying on everyone again" is as common as the latest "Russia caught mistreating dissident artist" story.

Clewza313 5y ago
Spying is one thing, DDOSing government websites of a notionally allied country is another.
- Dah00n 5y ago
  Yes. Spying is way worse but they still do so.
- freshhawk 5y ago
  Nah, that's well within the normal range. This is the Federal Bureau of oops-that-terrorist-actually-was-an-informant-of-ours after all. It really does seem like you all aren't aware of the (deserved) reputation of the FBI outside the US.
  - sixothree 5y ago
    I think we're all pretty aware of their poor reputation inside the states. But externally, not as much. What news sources do you follow?
  - jaywalk 5y ago
    Nobody who pays attention in the US holds the FBI in high regard, trust me.
- darig 5y ago
  Living in a country that expects us to use guns to overthrow corrupt leaders is one thing, being cowards is another.
- zionic 5y ago
  They’ll do this to companies on our own soil, why wouldn’t they do it to “allies”?
- cannabis_sam 5y ago
  Not really, if you can cloak it in plausible deniability.
- tootie 5y ago
  It's hard to believe. DDoS is script kiddie vandalism. It wouldn't yield any intel.
newacct583 5y ago
I can't find that. Here's what I think you're citing as the relevant passage from Stundin: > Thus, when Thordarson continued his previous pattern of requesting attacks on Icelandic interests, the FBI knew and saw an opportunity to implicate Julian Assange. > Later that month a DDoS attack was performed against the websites of several government institutions. > That deed was done under the watchful eyes of the FBI who must have authorized the attack or even initiated it, as Sabu was at that point their man. What followed was an episode where it seems obvious that Icelandic authorities were fooled into cooperation under false pretenses. That's not saying the FBI attacked Iceland at all, it's saying THORDARSON was "asking" for attacks (From... other wikileaks-affiliated folks? That isn't clear to me). And it's just inferring without other evidence that the FBI must have known because they were working both Thordarson and Sabu as sources. I mean, maybe the FBI did know. But it's not substantiated that they did, at all. And it's certainly not substantiated that they were "complicit" in those attacks as Media Lens reports. Gotta say, that one word makes me question a ton more about this article. That's just not a minor mistake, someone is spinning hard here. What else is spun?
- boomboomsubban 5y ago
  Sabu should have been detained and on trial at that point, the FBI is thus complicit in any illegal acts he does as they are the reason he had the opportunity. Even if the FBI was not aware of the action, their agent was responsible for it happening.

Clewza313 5y ago

Spying is one thing, DDOSing government websites of a notionally allied country is another.

Dah00n 5y ago
Yes. Spying is way worse but they still do so.
freshhawk 5y ago
Nah, that's well within the normal range. This is the Federal Bureau of oops-that-terrorist-actually-was-an-informant-of-ours after all. It really does seem like you all aren't aware of the (deserved) reputation of the FBI outside the US.
- sixothree 5y ago
  I think we're all pretty aware of their poor reputation inside the states. But externally, not as much. What news sources do you follow?
- jaywalk 5y ago
  Nobody who pays attention in the US holds the FBI in high regard, trust me.
darig 5y ago
Living in a country that expects us to use guns to overthrow corrupt leaders is one thing, being cowards is another.
zionic 5y ago
They’ll do this to companies on our own soil, why wouldn’t they do it to “allies”?
cannabis_sam 5y ago
Not really, if you can cloak it in plausible deniability.
tootie 5y ago
It's hard to believe. DDoS is script kiddie vandalism. It wouldn't yield any intel.

newacct583 5y ago

I can't find that. Here's what I think you're citing as the relevant passage from Stundin: > Thus, when Thordarson continued his previous pattern of requesting attacks on Icelandic interests, the FBI knew and saw an opportunity to implicate Julian Assange. > Later that month a DDoS attack was performed against the websites of several government institutions. > That deed was done under the watchful eyes of the FBI who must have authorized the attack or even initiated it, as Sabu was at that point their man. What followed was an episode where it seems obvious that Icelandic authorities were fooled into cooperation under false pretenses. That's not saying the FBI attacked Iceland at all, it's saying THORDARSON was "asking" for attacks (From... other wikileaks-affiliated folks? That isn't clear to me). And it's just inferring without other evidence that the FBI must have known because they were working both Thordarson and Sabu as sources. I mean, maybe the FBI did know. But it's not substantiated that they did, at all. And it's certainly not substantiated that they were "complicit" in those attacks as Media Lens reports. Gotta say, that one word makes me question a ton more about this article. That's just not a minor mistake, someone is spinning hard here. What else is spun?

boomboomsubban 5y ago
Sabu should have been detained and on trial at that point, the FBI is thus complicit in any illegal acts he does as they are the reason he had the opportunity. Even if the FBI was not aware of the action, their agent was responsible for it happening.