8 ms·
Scandinavian spy drama: An intelligence chief who came under state surveillance
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- macmac 3y agoThis article is severely dated. On 27th October the Supreme Court decided that the cases would only be partially closed to the public and that the accused would have full access to the charges and supporting material. The Prosecution Service asserted that this would expose highly sensitive material to unacceptable risk of unauthorized disclosure and dropped the cases.
- mrweasel 3y agoAs many others, I find the whole thing to be a complete mess and we have no idea of what is actually happening. The Supreme Court must have had access to the charge and the relevant material, and the court apparently disagrees that charge and evidence is sensitive enough that at warrants closed doors. I find it beyond belief that you're allowed, even as a government, to drag someone to court and accuse them of actions that could harm the country, while refusing to let them or their defense know exactly what they did wrong.
- Svip 3y ago> I find it beyond belief that you're allowed, even as a government, to drag someone to court and accuse them of actions that could harm the country, while refusing to let them or their defense know exactly what they did wrong. Given the Supreme Court's verdict, it sounds like you are not allowed to do that.
- born2discover 3y agoThe Guardian seems to have covered that as well here: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/04/ex-danish-defence-minister-and-spy-chief-relieved-after-charges-dropped https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/04/ex-danish-defe...
- IG_Semmelweiss 3y agothis comment is highly informative and deserves upvotes
- sva_ 3y agoSounds like they got a stern warning and the public is being mislead.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- nmfisher 3y agoI'm finding this difficult to follow. As far as I can tell: 1) Denmark partners with NSA for wiretap (presumably while Findsen/Frederiksen are head(s) of the respective agency) 2) Whistleblower thinks agency is overstepping its legal bounds in wiretap collection, files complaint and begins internal investigation 3) Agency dismisses results of internal investigation, tells whistleblower to drop it. Whistleblower subsequently goes to independent/external oversight body for investigation. 4) External oversight body publishes conclusion that agency illegally surveilled the entire country. 5) Findsen/Frederiksen arrested for allegedly disclosing details of the wiretap deal to various people (journalists/family/friends). I don't get it. What's the connection between the whistleblower and the "leaks"? Does the government need a sacrificial lamb for the illegal surveillance but they can't prosecute Findsen for that, so they're coming up with some alternate charges to placate the public? As an aside, I have no sympathy for a spy boss whinging that he was under surveillance when (assuming what the whistleblower is saying is true), he was fine with putting everybody in the whole country through practically the same thing.
- Svip 3y agoYou got it... somewhat wrong. The NSA wiretap has been in effect since about the late 1990s, long before Findsen and Frederiksen held any position on the matter. The Snowden leaks in 2014 revealed this. So in a sense, it was already public knowledge. But then it was sort of re-leaked around 2020. The accusation is that Findsen and Frederiksen leaked this information to journalists and the public. The watchdog situation is technically a different matter, but the theory is that Findsen is being hit with these accusations of the leaks as revenge for the other thing. Though, I am not sure how true that theory is, but this is how these two things come up as seemingly related.
- frontalier 3y agoEdward Snowden leaks happened in 2013.
- Svip 3y agoThe details of the leaks were published slowly over several months. The one revealing the Danish-NSA partnership came out in 2014.[1] [1] https://www.information.dk/indland/2014/06/snowden-dokumenter-afsloerer-dansk-partnerskab-nsa https://www.information.dk/indland/2014/06/snowden-dokumente...
- johnyzee 3y agoThe most remarkable thing in this case, to me, is the extent to which the press colluded with the intelligence officials. The press is supposed to check and balance, but in this case they walked hand-in-hand with the agencies. The article seems to conclude that the officials are being punished for talking to the press - well yes, they worked with the press to suppress the story, and successfully. The whistleblower's revelations, obviously very serious and substantiated, have effectively been buried. No one in Denmark knows what this case is about, except that these top officials are being prosecuted for vague reasons, and with an undertone that it is all very unfair and probably a bad thing for Denmark. Frankly, this BBC article probably contains more information than you would have from following the case in Danish media over a couple of years. (edit: Guardian, thanks for the correction)
- the-dude 3y agoI find it remarkable you find this remarkable. Par for the course.
- johnyzee 3y agoIt's remarkable in Denmark. Arguably shouldn't be, but none the less.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- the-dude 3y agoDanish exceptionalism. You've read it here first.
- emptysongglass 3y agoOur country is massively corrupt. This isn't at all surprising.
- capableweb 3y agoIt's relative, innit? Compared to Peru where they've gone through something like 10 different presidents in the last decade because of corruption dramas, Denmark doesn't sound too bad.
- JacobiX 3y agoPerhaps I'm mistaken, but it seems we are experiencing a regression in the democratic rule of law these days, even in countries like Denmark.
- boffinAudio 3y agoThe NSA is absolutely un-democratic, and when its tentacles spread: this kills the democracy. One cannot have a free and democratic society with organizations such as the NSA.
- kzrdude 3y agoThe other way around I'm encouraged by how politicians and others in Denmark are held accountable at the highest level, it's a very good sign.
- agentgumshoe 3y agoExcept the comment higher up says the prosecution dropped the case due to disagreeing with the court's decision that information wasn't deemed secret enough. The whole "we can't do that because secret stuff would be revealed and people put in danger" excuse seems to be used all too often of late, especially when that secret stuff appears to be illegal.
- throwaway4good 3y agoThey are not. These cases are withdrawn and the public enquiry that follows will not show anything new.
- bigbacaloa 3y ago[dead]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- BurningFrog 3y agoMy assumption is that this has been going on forever. The fact that it's revealed now doesn't mean that it started now. Part of me thinks this is how the world really works, and I'm not sure if it's good or bad.
- bertil 3y agoThe only way this would make sense is if there’s more to it than what Snowden has revealed. A minister involuntarily confirming something that already leaked is grounds for a stern telling off in private by the Prime minister, but not this. I would make sense for an internal party (the anonymous whistleblower) read Snowden’s revelations, understood thank to internal knowledge that there didn’t make sense or revealed something else, and decided to investigate. I’ve seen that myself a couple of times: shocking revelations about a company I work at that don’t add up, unless there’s more to it. If Findsen or Frederiksen had mentioned any of that, or even alluded to, typically “Oh, the reality is so much worse than that, if only they knew” or (more likely) “They are making a big fuss about normal proceedings; if they knew what’s really happening, they would be so much more upset.” then the accusations (and disagreement) would make sense: they think neither of those statement reveal much and claim their innocence, but someone inclined to attack the program would (paradoxically) want to use that revelation to hurt them.
- bertil 3y agoOne small way this might affect some of us: there is a Danish Navy officer called Anders Puck Nielsen, who is an expert on Russia. He works for Military Intelligence and teaches at the Military College. He also has a very good YouTube channel explaining what’s happening in Ukraine. I’m hoping this won’t discourage him from giving what is fantastic context.
- throwaway4good 3y agoIt is worth noting that it is now confirmed by both Finnsen and Hjort that the case is about the US run, Danish facilitated, signals espionage operation directed primarily towards Sweden and Germany (kabelsamarbejdet).
- toxik 3y agoSuch an utter disgrace for Denmark and the Danish people. To sacrifice all your credibility in the Nordic and European community, to be the lapdog of a US intelligence agency. Absolutely pathetic.
- throwaway4good 3y agoAgreed. And what is worse, now that the program is confirmed in the open, is that there is zero debate on whatever it is a good thing for Denmark to participate in.
- thaumasiotes 3y agohttps://satwcomic.com/judgement-day https://satwcomic.com/judgement-day
- msh 3y agoI don't think it's a surprise to anyone involved. The US have guaranteed danish security since ww2. I also think that there have not been any better options. Any other options have been traditional enemies.
- kombookcha 3y agoFor anybody looking to read up on this, the official name for the internal investigation of 'kabelsamarbejdet' is Operation Dunhammer (translated to Operation Typha). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Dunhammer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Dunhammer
- samirillian 3y agoOkay, now can I read the intercept version of this story.
- samirillian 3y agoThis is an old article, according to Wikipedia the charges have been dropped
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- jongjong 3y agoIntelligence agencies have become a problem. It seems like they take the most aggressive, most skilled in the art of deception, most power-hungry people that society has to offer, then they give them weapons and full access to all of the country's top tech and information... What could possibly go wrong? Who came up with the idea that these were the right kinds of people we need for such jobs? Didn't the US employ ex-Nazis in intelligence jobs at some point? It's just insane to think about. These people can't be trusted to not kill innocent people and yet they're trusted with all the tech and the security of an entire nation. It's like employing a serial killer to be your body guard. Makes no sense.
- RandomLensman 3y agoLeaving aside your guesses at the demographics and sociographics inside intelligence services: who do you think should do the job?
- iinnPP 3y agoNot the person you're replying to but: It seems clear to me that protections designed to prevent corruption have been circumvented and need to be re-established. Likely by force, unfortunately.
- RandomLensman 3y agoDo you think intelligence services worked differently in the past? Why would it need force instead of legislation, change in personnel, different oversight, etc.?
- iinnPP 3y agoI know they worked differently in the past. The abilities are different, just as Facebook is different from the telephone. The force piece is more of a Canadian perspective. Freedom of expression, association, and movement are not so much under attack as they are available only to those "who hold acceptable views." The volume of support needed to see change is high and clearing the volume goal involves going unnoticed by the people with more monitoring power than ever before. It also involves risking your ability to feed and house yourself. Those risks are shared with your entire group, who also have to accept those risks. Then you must factor in who is capable of such risks. Those people are generally well off enough that the basic human necessities threat is removed. They are also overwhelming likely to be benefiting from the current state of affairs (which you see a a LOT of on HN.) Force creates a new risk for any forceful partipants, but we are closing in closer and closer on the risks of force being less than the risk involved in doing nothing. That is when force can, and will, be used imho. I also don't think it's something you can predict unless you can actively relate to the poor.
- Roark66 3y agoSo wait, let me get this straight: - a guy with access to highest level state secrets discloses them to his family members and possibly journalists. - he is shocked they investigated, surveiled and prosecuted him for this because of why? Because, as the head of the intelligence agency he though the laws do not apply to him? Now, other journalists are trying to write an extremely convoluted article about the subject.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- adamlett 3y agoNo. Two people with access to the highest level of state secrets have in public acknowledged something which although officially a state secret, has in fact been public knowledge since the Snowden revelations.
- helsinkiandrew 3y agoA more uptodate article stating that the charges have been dropped: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/04/ex-danish-defence-minister-and-spy-chief-relieved-after-charges-dropped https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/04/ex-danish-defe...
- aremat 3y agoIt's not the only (alleged) intelligence operation that targeted Sweden: https://wikispooks.com/wiki/The_secret_war_against_Sweden https://wikispooks.com/wiki/The_secret_war_against_Sweden
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- Citizen_Lame 3y agoSomething is rotten in the state of Denmark.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- victorbjorklund 3y ago> Under the draconian law, those found guilty can be imprisoned for up to 12 years. While the whole thing might be crazy to be prosecuted in the first place - is 12 years in prison for treason really that draconian?