
WikiLeaks Volunteer Was a Paid Informant for the FBI - Libertatea
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/06/wikileaks-mole/
======
ruddi
For 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-
vi...](http://www.visir.is/grunadur-um-ad-hafa-stolid-gognum-fra-
vinnuveitanda/article/2010536641574)

[1] [http://visir.is/-og-bdquo;siggi-hakkari-og-
ldquo;-i-gaesluva...](http://visir.is/-og-bdquo;siggi-hakkari-og-
ldquo;-i-gaesluvardhaldi/article/2013130609737)

[2] [http://www.dv.is/frettir/2013/6/5/sagdur-hafa-haft-fe-af-
isl...](http://www.dv.is/frettir/2013/6/5/sagdur-hafa-haft-fe-af-islendingum-
sem-aetludu-dyravorslunamskeid/)

[3] [http://visir.is/kom-med-lifverdi-a-nefndarsvid-
althingis/art...](http://visir.is/kom-med-lifverdi-a-nefndarsvid-
althingis/article/2013130229823)

~~~
GabrielF00
The fact that Assange let this guy into his inner circle doesn't give one a
lot of confidence in WikiLeaks.

~~~
ruddi
Exactly. 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.

~~~
at-fates-hands
>>>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
hogging 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

------
guelo
Wikileaks 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-
snorraso...](http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/06/herbert-snorrason-
wikileaks-google-assange) …"

"At no time did Sigurdur Thordarson 'work' for WikiLeaks. At no time did he
have access to sourcing or publishing systems."

~~~
sneak
Unfortunately, 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.

------
tenpoundhammer
It'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...

~~~
sliverstorm
How 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
Yes, 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
Any 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
_Obviously 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.

------
Amadou
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. 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
> _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.

------
lmgftp
What 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
Did 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.

------
kintamanimatt
He made a whole $5k? That's chump change.

~~~
smky80
Couldn't he just have gotten a paper route or something?

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
They covered his expenses.

------
chrisvineup
I would have been more surprised if there were NO informants at Wikileaks, no
organisation that relies on people is impervious to this.

~~~
abraininavat
What 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.

------
quackerhacker
This 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
You can't say "most." You can at best say "some."

~~~
Uchikoma
Or "Perhaps at least one." :-)

~~~
abraininavat
Or just be completely honest and say "".

------
lotharbot
I'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)

~~~
alan_cx
Really 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.

~~~
leot
It is wrong to treat WL as an intelligence agency, because WL lacks the power
of a sovereign state.

------
Inception
Just $5,000?! That seems a little low....it appears Siggi is not the brightest
bulb on the tree.

------
rdl
Reading 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
It 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.

------
rdl
This 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 :)

------
stevedub
I wonder if he signed one of those 19 million dollar NDAs...

------
known
"Never do anything against conscience even if the state demands it." \--
Albert Einstein

------
zipfle
Holy copyediting fail, Wired.

~~~
amalag
I also found this article practically unreadable.

------
rusky85
I was surprised to see that Wikileaks General Counsel wants to stay out of it.

------
_quasimodo
Somewhat reminds me of Kim "Dotcom" Schmitz.

