8 ms·
WikiLeaks Volunteer Was a Paid Informant for the FBI
- zipfle 13y agoHoly copyediting fail, Wired.
- amalag 13y agoI also found this article practically unreadable.
- rdl 13y agoReading the back and forth emails was pretty entertaining. I wonder what caused FBI to go so cold on him for a while -- was it a negotiating tactic, or was there a block due to Sabu or other leads, or was it mostly unrelated bureaucratic stupidity?
- vichu 13y agoIt seemed to me like it was mainly just "forth". Thordarson seemed like he really wanted to be in contact with the FBI, but the FBI agent he emailed didn't seem too interested in what he had to offer. Particularly since it seemed like the FBI could get the data that they wanted without having to deal with people like Thordarson (this citing the seizure of the contents of Snorrason's Gmail account). But I have to say, Thordarson sending those short emails consisting of semi-trite messages to an FBI agent wererather amusing. "ok doki" "Merry Christmas :-)" "Happy New Year:-)" Seems rather unserious and informal on Thordarson's part. Not the sort of behavior you'd except from a spy, eh.
- chiph 13y agoIMO, they played him like a piano.
- ruddi 13y agoFor those not familiar to Icelandic news this guy has been in it from time to time over the last year or so. He's under investigation for fraud (more than one) in Iceland and to be honest he needs some medical help. He's burned every bridge he's ever crossed, it seems, and although he tries hard to become some kind of a celeb as much as he can (e.g. showing up with two bodyguards when he went to speak before the parliament)[3] it's not working. His accomplishments: Stealing confidential data from Milestone (Icelandic company)[0] Bugging the Icelandic parliament Playing nice with the FBI "Stealing" electronics worth millions of ISK from small shops in Iceland[1] Taking money for seminars/courses he didn't, and never meant to, hold.[2] [0] http://www.visir.is/grunadur-um-ad-hafa-stolid-gognum-fra-vinnuveitanda/article/2010536641574 http://www.visir.is/grunadur-um-ad-hafa-stolid-gognum-fra-vi... [1] http://visir.is/-og-bdquo;siggi-hakkari-og-ldquo;-i-gaesluvardhaldi/article/2013130609737 http://visir.is/-og-bdquo;siggi-hakkari-og-ldquo;-i-gaesluva... [2] http://www.dv.is/frettir/2013/6/5/sagdur-hafa-haft-fe-af-islendingum-sem-aetludu-dyravorslunamskeid/ http://www.dv.is/frettir/2013/6/5/sagdur-hafa-haft-fe-af-isl... [3] http://visir.is/kom-med-lifverdi-a-nefndarsvid-althingis/article/2013130229823 http://visir.is/kom-med-lifverdi-a-nefndarsvid-althingis/art...
- GabrielF00 13y agoThe fact that Assange let this guy into his inner circle doesn't give one a lot of confidence in WikiLeaks.
- ruddi 13y agoExactly. Although there are some great people who work with/at/for the organization, Assange's character, from my point of view, is damaging their reputation a little. He should step back (not quit but get out of the limelight) and let someone else be the "front" for the organization. Kristinn Hrafnsson would be a good choice IMO. But they have handled the Snowden case well it seems and that gives me some confidence.
- aet 13y agoI think that's a hard thing for someone to do.. ego or no.
- at-fates-hands 13y ago>>>But they have handled the Snowden case well it seems and that gives me some confidence. I have to give them credit for that. Assange didn't jump in and hog the limelight and for the most part, WikiLeaks has stayed quiet and reserved during this whole ordeal. They acted incredibly professional throughout.
- lifeisstillgood 13y agohogging limelight gets difficult from "exile" in one room in the Ecuadorian embassy. However I do think an earlier poster was right - a change of personnel at the top of wikileaks might be their best chance of staying the course
- CatMtKing 13y agoWhich begs the question: how familiar are you with Assange? Aside from reading articles that try to characterize him, have you read any of his writings or listened to his talks? Have you met him? What basis are you using to judge his character? I personally am under the impression that he has given much more thought to his policies for releasing information and organizing Wikileaks than you give him credit for.
- Amadou 13y agoI'm not surprised at this turn of events. It is a common accusation that Assange himself created wikileaks as a tool for self-aggrandizement. I think that's mostly just a smear calculated to discredit wikileaks - it is the other way around: without sufficient ego, Assange would not have preserved long enough to create wikileaks. But I don't think there is any question that an organization like wikileaks will attract people who are motivated purely by self-interest rather than idealogical goals - practically any organization attracts such people, even the non-controversial ones. I was a little miffed to read that federal prosecutors fly on private jets, although if enough FBI agents were flying with them I suppose that could have been cheaper than a bunch of tickets on a regular airline.
- coldtea 13y ago>I'm not surprised at this turn of events. It is a common accusation that Assange himself created wikileaks as a tool for self-aggrandizement. An accusation made by either government lackeys or idiots. The character of the man has NO BEARING whatsoever to the work done by the organisation. In the same way that "good Obama" was proven equal or worse to "bad Bush" -- it's the actual real world action that matters. People have started rock bands because they love music and others because they would like to get laid much. In the end, it's the songs that decide their worth. And the "get laid" bunch has as much (if not more) good songs than the muso bunch.
- fatjokes 13y agoI would agree that Assange has quite the ego. WikiLeaks does valuable work and their leader is an ass---both can be true. It doesn't have to be one or the other.
- alan_cx 13y agoThis self-aggrandizement thing, that's ego, right? If we invalidated organisations and achievement because people have big egos, then well, what exactly is left? I mean, Apple invalidated because of Job's ego? All of the Americas Olympic achievements because of the egos of its athletes? Or even the whole of rap music. What about Tesla cars? Invalid too. You are quite correct, the self-aggrandizement accusation is a smear, and amazingly selective in its use. I mean, isn't the whole of the US government a result of the sitting president's ego? Isn't a presidential run an act of self-aggrandizement?
- chrisvineup 13y agoI would have been more surprised if there were NO informants at Wikileaks, no organisation that relies on people is impervious to this.
- abraininavat 13y agoWhat about an organization that has no secrets? EDIT: Downvotes? Clearly I need to explain myself better. My point is that an organization built around full transparency is indeed impervious to informants. Take the government, for example. If they had made public that they'd be monitoring our Gmail conversations for our own safety, we may have agreed or disagreed with the policy but there would be nothing to leak.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- pekk 13y agoThis is an implicit threat.
- nhaehnle 13y agoIt might just have been intended as a neutral statement about the situation. There's no need to jump to conclusions.
- wavefunction 13y agoOr speculative even. This would only constitute an implicit threat if there was some realistic expectation that the message would be somehow communicated to the target, imo.
- abraininavat 13y agoA neutral statement? Not with the Poor little Siggi part.
- TallGuyShort 13y agoI've seen 6 comments in this thread that stuck out to me as being particularly good. It just occurred to me they were all yours.
- nhaehnle 13y agoYes, even with that part. It makes the statement derisive and in bad taste (so perhaps my choice of "neutral" was not the best possible). It does not make the statement a threat.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- kintamanimatt 13y agoHe made a whole $5k? That's chump change.
- smky80 13y agoCouldn't he just have gotten a paper route or something?
- fnordfnordfnord 13y agoThey covered his expenses.
- tenpoundhammer 13y agoIt's incredible how far the government is willing to go to stop the free flow and dissemination of information. It's almost like they have something to hide...
- njharman 13y ago"Information is Power" Is literal and a truism.
- sliverstorm 13y agoHow do you get that from this? The FBI is basically an intelligence agency. I would be disappointed if they didn't have tendrils everywhere. That's their job.
- rbanffy 13y agoYes, but they investigate only specific things. Having tendrils literally everywhere (including places outside its jurisdiction) is clearly a very intrusive interpretation of their mandate.
- sliverstorm 13y agoAny good intelligence agency is going to have an information network that spans far beyond the scope of the specific things they are currently investigating, because that network takes time to build. I actually am not sure whether that violates their mandate. Is it a problem if an agency gathers information outside their jurisdiction? Obviously they cannot make arrests, for example, but can they gather information?
- bediger4000 13y agoObviously they cannot make arrests, for example, but can they gather information? In the USA, it would seem that the public laws say that the FBI can't just gather information. They are supposed to have reasonable cause, as determined by some Court. The laws and traditions demand a little oversight of information gathering, and that the information so gathered is related to a crime. This is related to the public laws and traditions about suppression of speech, particularly political speech. Speaking freely isn't supposed to be "reasonable cause", and speaking freely isn't supposed to make you an object of surveillance. Doing otherwise "chills" free speech. I can only conclude that the FBI has become a "rogue" agency, like the CIA has, and is full of people who have no respect for US law and tradition.
- quackerhacker 13y agoThis is why I'm so critical against informants/whistleblowers (I'm referencing an old Google tax whistleblower...not Snowden or Manning), because most have their own intentions and greed/fame motives. He deceived wikileak supporters to sell shirts. Chronicled his "adventure," obviously to source the article. Attempted to associate with LulzSec and Anon, and did associate with the FBI...for setting up Wikileaks, or ego? The only thing in this story I like is that the FBI used him and cut him off when he had no more value. I may be bias here since kpoulsen has done an article on me, but this guy doesn't deserve the attention he'll get...probably use it to sell more shirts
- wavefunction 13y agoYou can't say "most." You can at best say "some."
- Uchikoma 13y agoOr "Perhaps at least one." :-)
- abraininavat 13y agoOr just be completely honest and say "".
- rusky85 13y agoI was surprised to see that Wikileaks General Counsel wants to stay out of it.
- Inception 13y agoJust $5,000?! That seems a little low....it appears Siggi is not the brightest bulb on the tree.
- stevedub 13y agoI wonder if he signed one of those 19 million dollar NDAs...
- lmgftp 13y agoWhat I find in this article of most interest is the fact that it reveals the FBI's intentions when they went to Iceland. I've missed the source (sorry), but there was a previous article on here that made it sound like the FBI was harassing Wikileaks and showed up in Iceland under false pretenses. In addition, it had quotes with numerous public figures going all "we expelled the FBI since they lied". This article clearly demonstrates that their intentions were true based on the information available from that video, and really paints a more competent picture of the FBI's counter-computer-crimes division. I, for one, am pleased to see that the surveillance bashing in the un-sourced (since I forgot it) article is done with and we now have real information into the FBI's Icelandic foray.
- antoko 13y agoDid we read the same article? It turns out the FBI had mislead the local authorities about their purpose on the country. According to a timeline (.pdf) later released by the National Commissioner of the Icelandic Police, the FBI contacted Icelandic law enforcement to report Thorsadson’s embassy walk-in, and ask for permission to fly into the country to follow up. But the bureau had presented the request as an extension of its earlier investigation into Lulzsec, and failed to mention that its real target was WikiLeaks. If I understood what you were saying this article actually confirms the other article you're referencing.
- rdl 13y agoThis is apparently his twitter: https://twitter.com/singi201 https://twitter.com/singi201 I wonder how the FBI agents involved feel about him going to the press, now :)
- lotharbot 13y agoI've heard Assange call Wikileaks an "intelligence agency", and others call it "the intelligence organization of the people". Why is anyone surprised when the US government treats it like an intelligence agency, cultivating informants within its ranks and attempting to intimidate its agents [0]? I suspect Wikileaks has, on occasion, been fed false information by the US and other governments. I suspect the US is not the only nation that has informants inside of the Wikileaks inner circle. Calling themselves an "intelligence agency" and doing the sort of work that intelligence agencies do means we should expect other intelligence agencies to be working against them to some degree. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1220562 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1220562
- abraininavat 13y agoWhy is it that people always feel the need to ask, "Why is anyone surprised,", when in fact it's not clear that anyone's surprised? Is it just to assert that you're smarter than some group of imaginary surprised people?
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- alan_cx 13y agoReally interesting thinking. Yes, if one views Wikileaks like an intelligence gathering agency, a lot more makes sense. It doesnt change my support for it, because in that light it becomes an independent intelligence agency acting for every human, world wide. In that context, should it not be protected and even financed by something like the UN? Equally, it then makes sense that government, especially the paranoid well resourced US government, will treat it as hostile. Worrying and nasty, but very understandable. Now the problem for me is why did the wikileaks people not defend wikileaks like an intelligence agency? I suppose hindsight... I would now suggest a new wikileaks be born, campaign for it to become protected under the UN. It should take all the precautions of a nation's intelligence agencies, and act like one. An intelligence agency to inform the people, as opposed to intelligence agencies to secretly inform people with money and power. I think we need something like that, and we need it now.
- known 13y ago"Never do anything against conscience even if the state demands it." -- Albert Einstein
- guelo 13y agoWikileaks is refuting some elements of this story on Twitter, https://twitter.com/wikileaks https://twitter.com/wikileaks: "A wired article today misdescribes a volunteer's role. Earlier statement: http://wikileaks.org/Eight-FBI-agents-conduct.html http://wikileaks.org/Eight-FBI-agents-conduct.html … description of role: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/06/herbert-snorrason-wikileaks-google-assange http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/06/herbert-snorraso... …" "At no time did Sigurdur Thordarson 'work' for WikiLeaks. At no time did he have access to sourcing or publishing systems."
- sneak 13y agoUnfortunately, the damage is already done. MSM has a much wider reach than WL's twitter, and the net effect of this "FBI press release" picked up and run as journalism will be that fewer people will trust WL to not have internal government moles and be able to protect source identities. Now that they're helping Snowden, they are whatever the military intelligence equivalent of Scientology's famous "Fair Game" policy is. They can do whatever they want to smear and discredit them, insofar as they don't get caught with their hands dirty. Unfortunately, for these people, the delusional ends justify the underhanded means.
- _quasimodo 13y agoSomewhat reminds me of Kim "Dotcom" Schmitz.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- valugi 13y agowikileaks had leaks? I would guess is normal :)