
Julian Assange and visitors were spied on by security firm for US intelligence - abeld
https://www.repubblica.it/esteri/2019/11/18/news/a_massive_scandal_how_assange_his_doctors_lawyers_and_visitors_were_all_spied_on_for_the_u_s_-241314527
======
Fnoord
To the people who say "of course":

> The Spanish lawyer Aitor Martinez, one of the lawyers in Julian Assange's
> legal team filmed by UC Global, tells Repubblica: "Over the years Mr.
> Assange and his defense team held legal meetings inside the embassy. Those
> meetings were protected by the lawyer-client relationship and the
> fundamental right to defense.

What about this fundamental right?

> However we can see those meetings were spied on, according to the videos
> published by different media. Under these conditions, it is clear that
> extradition must be denied. We hope that British justice understands the
> scope of what has happened and denies extradition as soon as possible".

Interesting take, if this would become the end result for this very reason
someone shot themselves in the foot.

~~~
ttul
The right to attorney-client confidentiality does not apply in the context of
national security intelligence gathering. The United States was within its
rights to gather intelligence about a foreign person in a foreign country.

Such intelligence would be absolutely inadmissible in court. But intelligence
agencies aren't interested in prosecuting people. They are tasked with
national security, not prosecution.

~~~
farisjarrah
This doesn't make sense to me, please educate me as to what I am missing. Why
is the United States within its rights to gather intelligence within the
Ecuadorian Embassy within England? It seems like embassies of foreign
countries, not located within the US's borders means that the US government
has no legal rights to any of that. To me it looks like the US violated the
rights of not just Ecuador's sovereignty, but also Great Brittan's.

~~~
roywiggins
Yes, it's a violation of sovereignty. It's probably illegal under those
countries' laws. But it's legal for the US government to do abroad, and
breaking other countries' laws and sovereignty to obtain intelligence is more
or less the entire job of our intelligence agencies. This is the job of every
foreign intelligence agency. Otherwise they'd just be investigative
journalists.

Friendly countries spying on each other is super common. The US bugged Angela
Merkle's cell phone! We do this. Everyone knows we do. They live with it,
because they spy on us, too.

For good and ill, this sort of thing has been considered playing by the rules
for decades. You can compare the response to the Russia assassination
campaigns on British soil, which (when too public to ignore) created a big
public response because that sort of thing was considered out of bounds
previously. And the response to American kidnap-and-torture plots in Europe.

That's not to say we don't catch, try, imprison, and deport spies in the US
and other countries do the same against us. But this is all part of a decades-
long iterated prisoner's dilemma about what the "rules" are in international
espionage.

~~~
tomjakubowski
The overwhelming German public response to Merkel's bugging was one of
outrage. Accepting your argument, doesn't that suggest it was actually out of
bounds and not normal?

~~~
tptacek
That outrage is pretty rich, since Germany spies flagrantly on other nations,
including their embassies, as well.

~~~
Tomte
Most Germans wouldn't really believe that they do, not because our services
wouldn't do it on principle, but because unlike in America, we usually think
of our intelligence services as bumbling idiots that fail at spying.

In reality they seem to be somewhat competent at some things, and reports that
they do indeed successfully surveil foreign embassies seem to be true.

------
stickfigure
I too am curious about the legal issues involved here. While I agree "this is
what intelligence services are for", this was not inside the United States and
the CIA doesn't automatically get free pass to break the laws of other
countries.

Surely some laws in the _UK_ were broken? Or was all this sanctioned by the UK
government? Or does the fact that it's an embassy mean that Ecuadorian law is
applicable? How does this all work?

~~~
PeterisP
Much of what intelligence services do is a violation of local laws. Those
other countries are free (and often do) prosecute any responsible agents of
other countries for breaking their laws on their soil if they want to.

They can convict them for these crimes, but if they didn't manage to catch
them before they return home, then they are unlikely to ever be extradited.
This can also have diplomatic consequences, affecting the attitude for future
treaty negotiations.

But in general, practical international law doesn't prohibit anything that the
major countries want to do - the sovereign countries have voluntarily ceded
some rights in treaties e.g. for borders and trade disputes, but they
definitely retain their sovereign right to (for example) consider the
government of another country as illegitimate and irrelevant, revoke their
peace/border treaties (if any) and send in a million armed men to do things
that violate local law.

UK law is binding to USA agencies only to the extent to which (a) USA agencies
choose to follow it (by order of their own government and their own laws)
and/or (b) UK is practically able and willing to enforce it.

~~~
soraminazuki
IANAL, but aside from local laws, aren't there international laws or treaties
that's supposed to stop countries from spying on each other's embassies?

~~~
PeterisP
Treaties on embassies are generally concerned with the relationship between
the host nation and the embassies that they invite - and any consequences
(other than reputation) are generally bilateral; if you violate embassies,
then the other party withdraws their embassy, if your embassy acts badly, then
the embassy gets expelled.

And even in that case it's kind of common, well accepted practice to use
embassies for spying on the host country. There are boundaries on what's
acceptable (violations of which will have a diplomatic response or expelling
all the involved and perhaps some random personnel), but nobody's really
shocked if they happen to find that half of embassy stuff are there mostly for
espionage tasks.

"International law" is not really equivalent in practice to ordinary law
(which generally has the state monopoly on violence backing and enforcing it),
it's more like countries have voluntarily agreed that it seems best that they
_should_ follow a particular set of practices. But they aren't _required_ to -
the main driver is that if you violate some norms, then others are likely to
violate these norms against you. A treaty doesn't _stop_ a country from doing
something, a treaty is an indication that the involved countries believe that
it's in their best interest if they all avoid doing that... but they'll be
able to withdraw from that treaty (either legally, or in practice by simply
doing the 'prohibited' thing) whenever they think it's best.

~~~
saalweachter
> ... to use embassies for spying on the host country.

And vice versa! There are a lot of great Cold War stories about the bugging of
embassies.

------
black_puppydog
I think it's worth remembering that this nation (the US) is currently trying
to get Assange extradited. Part of the decision to be made in the UK should be
wether or not the US will grant him a fair trial.

There are many reasons to throw that US demand out of the court, but this adds
one more: they clearly have zero regard for any of his most inalienable
rights. They have repeatedly violated them already, all the while trying
(sadly successfully) a complete character assassination.

IMHO, if anything, the people responsible for this should be extradited to an
international court.

~~~
mike_d
If the CIA collected information in Mexico on the head of a drug cartel, does
that automatically mean that he would not receive a fair trial? Of course not.

Assange worked with Russian intelligence, either knowingly or as a useful
idiot. The US Intelligence agencies had an obligation to determine what
sensitive information he held and what he might be trying to do with it.

~~~
Xelbair
>If the CIA collected information in Mexico on the head of a drug cartel, does
that automatically mean that he would not receive a fair trial?

It means exactly that.

------
AndyMcConachie
Still no retraction from The Guardian who baselessly claimed he met with Paul
Manafort multiple times in the Ecuardian embassy. They straight up lied about
it and there are no consequences.

------
peristeronic
Was the >$16,000/day spent by the London Metro Police not enough?

[https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/07/londons-
police-i...](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/07/londons-police-is-
spending-11-per-minute-to-stake-out-julian-assange/)

[https://archive.md/w0RgD](https://archive.md/w0RgD)

------
nimbius
heres the thing I seriously want to know more about. The white noise generator
was circumvented with "a technical solution provided by the Americans
themselves."

What technical solution could circumvent white noise??

~~~
dvdkhlng
If it's a single channel white noise generator, then a coherent two-channel
microphone setup (using hidden bugs or laser microphones) would already be
sufficient to perform source-separation [1] between a single speaker and the
white noise. I guess this is why you usually use multi-channel white noise
generators, e.g. [2].

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_separation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_separation)

[2] [https://www.spygadgets.com/white-noise-generator-
with-6-tran...](https://www.spygadgets.com/white-noise-generator-
with-6-transducers-and-2-omni-directional-speakers/)

------
darawk
Of course they were. Julian Assange's explicit mission was to expose US (and
other) intelligence secrets. If they weren't spying on him and his visitors
they'd be derelict in their most basic of duties.

I don't even know why this is a story. I don't mind Assange, and I think the
counterpoint he created to state power was good, but the idea that the state
shouldn't spy on him in turn is ludicrous.

~~~
tspiteri
Using that reasoning, there was no story when Klaus Fuchs was caught spying on
the Manhattan Project for the Soviet Union: Of course the Soviet Union
intelligence were spying on the Manhattan Project, if they weren't spying on
it they'de be derelict in their most basic of duties.

~~~
aisengard
I mean, the story was that the Soviet Union was spying on its allies. Klaus
Fuchs went to jail. All of this is pretty much accepted statecraft. Are we
supposed to think that something _went wrong_ when Klaus Fuchs was caught
spying and went to jail? That's what happens to spies who are caught. Hence
Assange.

~~~
DiogenesKynikos
With the important difference being that Assange is not a spy.

Edit: Downvoted for pointing out that Assange is not a spy. I'm honestly
surprised by HN.

~~~
Analemma_
That's actually very questionable. It's pretty clear by now that at the very
least he's a Russian intelligence asset.

~~~
sgjohnson
[citation needed]

------
m0zg
Does anyone actually think that the "rape allegations" against him weren't
made by a CIA asset? I mean, for 40 years the man had no issues with women.
Within months of starting to publish info that makes the US government feel a
little uncomfortable, boom, he's now a "rapist", convicted in the court of
public opinion with no evidence whatsoever. There was, in fact, so little
evidence that the prosecutor in Sweden initially refused to pursue rape
charges. I suspect screws were then put to the Swedish judicial system, and
they decided it'd be more politically expedient to comply. And I think it was
quite clear to Assange where this wind was blowing from, so he chose not to
face charges, which if the system wasn't rigged against him would likely not
result in a conviction owing to the lack of evidence. But once you consider
who's really pulling the strings, facing the charges becomes a very dangerous
thing: spending 7 years locked in the embassy is vastly perferable to e.g.
Guantanamo.

~~~
PeterStuer
Mission accomplished Sweden. You can drop the charges now.

[1] [https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/nov/19/sweden-
drops-j...](https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/nov/19/sweden-drops-julian-
assange-investigation)

------
bsamuels
I don't get what's shocking about this.

If you have a consistent history of publishing a foreign government's state
secrets that damage its national security, they're gonna spy on you.

And before the nitpickers jump in on me, I believe whether or not Assange
actually damaged US national security by publishing leaks is a decision best
left to people who actually work in national security rather than armchair
bystanders like myself.

~~~
Fnoord
> is a decision best left to people who actually work in national security

That's like the butcher who's approving their own meat though. Yet, if they
share such assessment with general public, the enemy hears it as well. A good
middle ground is a commission who are bound to STFU about details but may
assess the situation.

------
AnnoyingSwede
I find it interesting that this news was largely over-shadowed by the news
that he was acquitted on the two rape-charges in Sweden (again). The so-called
rapes could/should have been dropped a lot earlier as they did not amount to
what generally would be considered rape (i.e broken condom in consensual sex),
but they choose to do it the same day this story broke.

~~~
lucozade
He wasn't acquitted. The prosecution have chosen not to pursue the
investigation because of the elapsed time.

And it was one rape allegation that they've stopped pursuing, not two. I don't
believe there was a second one. The other allegation was for sexual
molestation which passed the statute of limitations a while ago.

~~~
toyg
The real news is that it has emerged Swedish authorities wanted to drop this
_years_ ago and were "dissuaded" by UK authorities. Now that US extradition is
likely, and a competing claim by Sweden would put that at risk, they
conveniently withdraw - what are the chance they were "persuaded" by someone
else, again?

Sweden really did a number on Assange.

~~~
lucozade
> and were "dissuaded" by UK authorities

Do you have a source for that?

> a competing claim by Sweden would put that at risk

The prosecutor tried but a court in Uppsala refused the detention request so
the Yanks got in first.

~~~
toyg
Source: [https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/feb/11/sweden-
tried-t...](https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/feb/11/sweden-tried-to-
drop-assange-extradition-in-2013-cps-emails-show)

------
mywacaday
Spanish company, how far would they get with a GDPR request? Are security
companies exempt?

~~~
ThePowerOfFuet
The GDPR contains explicit exceptions for police and national security; see
Recital 16, Article 23(1), etc.

~~~
toyg
They were not police, and unless they were directly hired by GCHQ or similar,
they were not working for UK natsec either.

------
wmil
Does anyone actually find this "shocking"? It's pretty much what I expected.

~~~
Fnoord
Why does it have to be shocking? Is that the gold standard of news nowadays?
That it has to be shocking, or else it isn't newsworthy?

~~~
wmil
From the article: "This espionage operation is particularly shocking if we
consider that Assange was protected by asylum"

I'm just pointing out the over the top outrage.

It would be a better article if it just described what happened and why it's
bad.

------
sschueller
This is just sick. Why do we even have international laws if they are so
blatantly violated? And of course no one will be held accountable.

~~~
newguy1234
It is because congress and law makers don't make the US federal agencies
accountable for their actions. A law does not exist if there is no punishment
for violation of said law.

~~~
roywiggins
It's not actually illegal for the CIA to spy on foreign embassies.

The US was caught _bugging the UN_ , and we tapped _Angela Merkel 's phone_.
The intelligence agencies are, more or less, doing exactly what they were set
up to do.

And the other guys are bugging us in return (see: mysterious cell-site
simulators popping up in DC, etc).

The CIA runs a drone warfare program, bugging one embassy is not going to turn
their stomachs.

------
chiefalchemist
Note that the actions weren't by the US Intelligence Community but by a
private proxy. Frankly, I was expecting an Israeli firm, not a Spanish one.

Now replace "security firm" with Facebook, or similar.

------
mindslight
Good, right? I mean, if he really is some _Russian asset_ rather than a
straightforward political opposition journalist, they would have obtained
loads of evidence to substantiate this. So, where is it?

~~~
jhayward
It's where they keep all the other evidence of foreign intelligence operations
- a secure classified intelligence facility. Where should they be keeping it?

~~~
mindslight
Presumably they would pass some of it to the NYT and other government
mouthpieces, rather than leaving them to innuendo.

~~~
topspin
I'd just elide that 'presumably' part.

