America's CIA Reportedly Spied on Julian Assange In the Ecuador Embassy (yahoo.com) 119
A Spanish private security firm spied on Wikileaks founder Julian Assange on behalf of the CIA while he was inside Ecuador's embassy in London, according to the Spanish newspaper El Pais.
An anonymous reader quotes AFP:
Citing unspecified documents and statements, the paper said Undercover Global Ltd, which was responsible for security at the embassy while Assange was staying there, sent the US intelligence service audio and video files of meetings he had with his lawyers. The reports were allegedly handed over by David Morales, who owns the company and is currently being investigated by Spain's National Court, the paper said....
According to El Pais, Undercover Global installed microphones in the embassy's fire extinguishers as well as in the women's toilets where Assange's lawyers used to meet for fear of being spied on. It said the company also installed a streaming system so the recordings could be directly accessed by US officials, enabling them to spy on a meeting Assange had with Ecuador's secret service chief Rommy Vallejo in December 2017.
El Pais reports that the company's team was also ordered to install stickers that prevented the windows from vibrating in one of the rooms Assange used, "allegedly to make it easier for the CIA to record conversations with their laser microphones."
According to El Pais, Undercover Global installed microphones in the embassy's fire extinguishers as well as in the women's toilets where Assange's lawyers used to meet for fear of being spied on. It said the company also installed a streaming system so the recordings could be directly accessed by US officials, enabling them to spy on a meeting Assange had with Ecuador's secret service chief Rommy Vallejo in December 2017.
El Pais reports that the company's team was also ordered to install stickers that prevented the windows from vibrating in one of the rooms Assange used, "allegedly to make it easier for the CIA to record conversations with their laser microphones."
This is news? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is news? (Score:4, Insightful)
Of fucking course they did. What is news is they got found out.
Not even that is news. The CIA spying on Assange was about obvious and inevitable as the fact that water makes stuff wet. The only way this would be news is if they didn't spy on him.
Re:This is news? (Score:4, Interesting)
The main reason this is 'not news' is that the actual news was "Oh look , that nasty Assange is skateboarding in an embassy!" Instead of : look how inappropriate this 247 monitoring is and who is behind it'.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is state monitoring of a person wanted for extradition a bad thing?
Re: (Score:3)
Why is state monitoring of a person wanted for extradition a bad thing?
Because he was in a foreign embassy. Say we sheltered a Russian dissident in one of our embassies—would that excuse the Russians to infiltrate and spy on our embassy?
Re: (Score:3)
The Russians built listening devices into the steel I-beams in the American Embassy in Moscow.
Are you really sure that you're a nerd? Like, you know, a person who reads stuff and is intellectually curious?
Re: (Score:2)
Excuse it? No, but they would do it anyway if it was feasible.
Re: (Score:2)
What is news is they got found out.
Oh no, what's news is baseball. This is the time of year when it gets interesting.
And fireworks in the UK on Halloween Night...
Don't worry. The CIA will still be there after the Series.
You know, they probably arranged with Ecuador to put Assange up for the express purpose. I hope he didn't really believe he was getting a freebie.
Re: (Score:2)
Looks like fireworks on the 31st October and every single day that follows that the UK remains in the EU.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Of fucking course they did. What is news is they got found out.
News would be if Assange new that he was being spied upon and purposely fed the CIA false information through their microphones:
"Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are having an affair!"
"A group of aliens at Area 51 are planning to take control of the US!"
Even better would be if he used the CIA's equipment to spy on them!
Re:This is news? (Score:5, Insightful)
The news is that extraditing him just got a lot harder because they spied on his lawyers.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL!
Don't worry, I'm sure the Judge will ask your opinion and change the law for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Hardly. It just means that anything the CIA produced from those recordings is not admissible in court. Which is likely to be completely fuck all.
Re: (Score:2)
What is news is they got found out
Couldn't you say that about practically any investigative journalism piece?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And? (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course they spied on him, he was engaged in espionage and published information classified by the USA. They would be highly irresponsible if they *didn't* keep their eye on him, that's their job.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course they spied on him, he was engaged in espionage and published information classified by the USA. They would be highly irresponsible if they *didn't* keep their eye on him, that's their job.
you're mistaken about espionage. spying on someone in another country's embassy is anything but responsible.
Re: (Score:3)
ne of the easier methods of getting a spy into a foreign country is to accredit him as a consular official,
Take this 1983 arcticle from the times:
SOVIET ORDERS U.S. VICE CONSUL EXPELLED AS A SPY [nytimes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: And? (Score:5, Insightful)
Everyone seems to forget the real reason the US is going after him is because he exposed American war crimes in the middle East. If you were a person under the endless ire of the US, wouldn't you try to reach to a known US enemy for protection?
Re: And? (Score:4, Insightful)
Offering to help break the encryption of a document that "someone else" obtained from the U.S. government, however, is.
Re: And? (Score:1)
Offering to do so is just somebody talking. Proof that assistance was given is necessary. Also, you need to commit the crime under US jurisdiction.
Re: (Score:2)
Proof? [justice.gov]
Like that proof?
Oddly, U.S. government computers are within US jurisdiction.
Re: (Score:2)
Proof?
On or about March 10, 2010, Assange requested more information from Manning related to the password. Assange indicated that he bad been trying to crack the password by stating that he had "no luck so far."
How do you know that message was actually sent by Assange and not entirely fabricated or altered by US intelligence operatives or those in their employ? I have very little faith in the integrity or honesty of US intelligence agencies or the government of which they are part. On the contrary, there have been countless examples that would strongly suggest not to trust anything they say or do especially when it involves someone who exposes the corruption of the rich & powerful. Look what happened to Epstei
Re: (Score:2)
That is why you have a trial. You're also welcome to refer to actual evidence rather than offer unsubstantiated conspiracy theories.
Re: (Score:3)
That is why you have a trial.
A trial by a corrupt government means nothing and proves nothing. Any evidence truly exculpatory like in Snowden's case would never be allowed to be presented.
You're also welcome to refer to actual evidence rather than offer unsubstantiated conspiracy theories.
You're also welcome to do the same. Provide some proof that it's not more lies by professional liars with nearly unlimited resources and capabilities to fabricate evidence looking to silence and make an example out of Assange.
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
So you have nothing to rebut the true bill approved by the Grand Jury. I don't actually need to do anything further in that case.
Re: (Score:2)
Say whatever you want, Assange and Snowden are heroes who exposed lawbreaking and corruption in government in a system that does not protect whistleblowers, but instead either ignores or imprisons them if they dare speak out and expose the criminals.
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
Ummm, no. Whatever you believe of Manning and Snowden, Assange is a self-serving, vain asshole who's screwed over most of those who've ever dealt with him, and only dares to "speak out and expose the criminals" if it serves his personal interests.
Re: (Score:2)
Who are you referring to? It certainly can't be Assange, since he published Republican emails and documents. And that's before reaching the fact that Manning was the "leaker." You breezed by that point in your rush to falsely claim hypocrisy.
Re: And? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You haven't shown that retroactive classification was involved in any part of this.
Happy to see you acknowledge that your focus on the ends has made you to blind to the unlawful means.
Re: And? (Score:1)
Also I find it hilarious the CIA spied on him in an embassy. The international legality of that is also a thin line, which after a little research, has its own whacky set of rules.
Re: And? (Score:1)
Imagine if the entire US legal system operated the same way with every law. It would be ludicrous.
Re: (Score:2)
Again, you haven't shown that retroactive classification was involved in any part of this.
Re: And? (Score:1)
It's all in secret, you can't prove something in a system that is built to make sure everything stays secret. If you even try to expose that information, just as Assange did, you are already committing an "unlawful" act.
Do you not see the problem with the structure of how this system operates? Even i
Re: And? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Paragraphs 7-10 and 25 [justice.gov]. You should actually read the indictment sometime.
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't nothing to rebut "agreed to assist." If I agree to assist you in robbing a bank, I haven't had the idea to rob it, now have I?
Who forced him to do it? Manning? Over the internet?!
Oh well, if you've only attempted [findlaw.com] to commit a crime and conspired [findlaw.com] to commit a crime
Backwards? (Score:2)
I thought laser microphones were supposed to pick up the vibrations of the windows? Or perhaps they wanted to pick vibrations from another object inside the room and the vibrating windows would only add noise.
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe it's a misunderstanding, and the stickers were actually to reflect the laser so that the vibrations of the windows could be recorded with a better signal-to-noise ratio.
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe they were bouncing the laser off of something else inside the room, and the vibration of the window was just introducing noise. Otherwise it's BS, and the window stickers were more reflective.
Re: (Score:2)
The technology does not work at all through windows. It doesn't work with secondary reflections. The signal to noise ratio sucks in this application, there is only a narrow range of conditions where it works.
You not only can't do it through a window, you also can't do it at arbitrary angles. You need a fixed location, with everything carefully sited. Or, if you can't set up at a right angle to the window, you put this special sticker on it. Then you can do any angle.
You should be more curious about technolo
Re: (Score:2)
"The technology does not work at all through windows. It doesn't work with secondary reflections"
So i presume that you have done it yourself, or have a citation, right?
Re: (Score:2)
It reflects off a window and uses doppler analysis.
And yes, I believe you could do it yourself because the story is nobody believed it could be done so a guy proved it with about $2000 of stuff from Radio Shack.
Re: (Score:2)
It reflects off a window and uses doppler analysis.
I understand essentially how it works, not that I could implement it myself or anything, but that's not my point at all. Glass absorbs, reflects, and transmit light at various wavelengths. If you picked one that could pass through glass gracefully, why on earth couldn't you bounce it off of something in the room? The Wikipedia article outright states that "The object is typically inside a room where a conversation is taking place" which is exactly what I'm talking about, and the exact opposite of what Aighe
Re: (Score:2)
Whoever wrote that is just misunderstanding what they heard. Lasers can measure vibrations, but only if they are reflected back. Glass is clear, so the laser bounces off something inside the room. A sticker on the window would allow for a stronger return signal.
Of course, I'm just guessing too, but it makes more sense than where you quoted.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. Try again.
Hint: You have to actually look up the technology, this isn't one where everything is intuitive enough to pull it out of your ass and get it right.
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... [wikipedia.org]
What is really interesting (Score:4, Insightful)
What I find under-remarked on is that the CIA farmed this out to a Spanish firm.
The next oddity is why that firm would fess up to it. Don't they want more business? It seems like no kiss-and-tell has to be at the top of the contract. I agree with other posters here that it would have been news if the CIA wasn't spying on him. What else would anyone rational expect?
As for Assange himself I have been quite disappointed after initial high expectations. I find it telling that even Glenn Greenwald and associates seem to have given up on defending him.
For the under-appreciated department I think the Ecuadorian foreign service showed unexpected forbearance and principle during the whole affair. They certainly don't seem to have gotten anything out of it for their trouble other than burnishing their reputation for following their laws and international law. Which isn't nothing but I doubt many small countries would do it in the face of US/UK pressure.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
They didn't "fess up," the claims come from documents leaked by Spain's High Court, which is investigating the matter.
The comments miss the point ... (Score:2)
... and that is that now every motherfucker on the planet knows something about the goddam CIA.
It's shameful. Makes them appear to be not so stealthy or clever and stuff.
DIY laser Mic (Score:2)
Laser microphones have been around forever including directions on how to make one for fun. I saw such things in print before the internet.
This is huge if true (Score:2, Interesting)
Second most of Wikileaks leaks were not about the USA. Sorry to burst the USA's vanity. His biggest leaks were about money laundering, tax evasion and general criminal activity in the financial market. If you want to make powerful enemies that is the place to do it. Everyone knew the USA was committing war crimes in Iraq. The peo
Re: (Score:2)
a good way to make a country not trust you at all
Remember Jonathan Pollard?
Re: (Score:2)
Last time I checked, Ecuador was at least nominally supposed to be a friend of the USA. So spying on a friends embassy is a good way to make a country not trust you at all.
The US wouldn't be the first of the two countries to strain that relationship in this case.
I wonder how mucht the CIA paid Undercover Global (Score:2)
That company and its founder will be out of business soon (if not already), with no prospect of any new business from anyone except the CIA.
The USA has a lousy record of helping people that the government has used, so this may turn out to be a very poor deal for Mr. Morales.
I wonder if the CIA blackmailed him in order to get his cooperation?
CIA are spies (Score:2)
Well, the CIA are spies, collecting intelligence abroad — some times using locals — so how is this big news? Or even small news?
WHAT??? (Score:2)
"America's CIA Reportedly Spied on Julian Assange In the Ecuador Embassy"
Oh no, the CIA spied on someone? Say it isn't so!!!1!!
Wikileaks... I love Wikileaks! (Score:1)
LOL. What a moron that guy is. Now let's play golf and not release our tax returns!
This news just in... (Score:2)
Water is wet.
Re: (Score:3)
And? (Score:2)
Stop being stupid.
Re:Well I'd hope so... (Score:4, Insightful)
Any proof of your claims of taking money in exchange for focusing on US politics?
Don't spy on us, we'll spy on you... (Score:2, Insightful)
Proof? Of course not. We don't need no stinkin' PROOF.
Were there any Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq? Fuck no, that was just an excuse to justify going to war against Saddam Hussein.
Was Osama bin Laden living in Afghanistan? Fuck no, he was living Pakistan.
Ideology may be the motivation rather than money (Score:1)
Any proof of your claims of taking money in exchange for focusing on US politics?
A "hostile foreign agent" may have one or more of various motivations, money and ideology are two. The GP may be incorrect about money but correct about a "hostile foreign agent", ideology may be the motivation rather than money.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
OF course there are US shills on every forum selling propaganda to damage Assange. It's kind of their job.
Re: Well I'd hope so... (Score:4, Insightful)
That, or people with a fair mind about this and happen to read the news would already know that Assange was a willing participant of the DNC email hack, or that a majority of his leaks are about the US in particular while doing relatively little towards any other.
It's also interesting that his efforts are targeted primarily at interfering with the internal affairs of the United States, (like helping Trump get elected) with very little regard to aggressive actions against democracy on the part of some other states, like oh say, Russia and the Ukraine, Russia and Syria, China and Hong Kong, what's happening in the South China Sea, and many others.
Really if Assange put as much energy into either China or Russia as he does into the United States, he could issue a major setback to both Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin alike, both of whom are practically dictators, and are about as corrupt as they come. Of course, those countries would censor WikiLeaks, where the United States won't.
But somehow the US is the bad guy...
Re: (Score:3)
Do bad stuff, be called a bad guy. It's not rocket science.
The thing is, everyone "knows" that Russia, China and others are bad, so going after them has not the same news-worthy power.
USA is supposed to be the good guy but USA has done some shitty stuff even though it pretends to be the shining beacon of democracy and freedom. That makes it a convenient target because of the difference between what is said and what is done, plus it's politically polarized with entrenched partisan politics that makes it even
Re: Well I'd hope so... (Score:3)
USA is supposed to be the good guy but USA has done some shitty stuff even though it pretends to be the shining beacon of democracy and freedom.
I'm not saying the US is perfect. Nobody is. Every rose has its thorn. But, it pretty much is that beacon of freedom whether you like it or not. The US is all that stood between Europe and the iron curtain. After WWII, Europe was in ruins and had no means to resist, save for the Marshall Plan. Russia literally cut off West Berlin from the rest of Europe in a deliberate effort to force them into starvation so that they would have to go to Russia for help. Before Trump forced Europe to contribute more, NATO w
Re: (Score:2)
Are you high? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But he controlled what to release and when to release it. He obviously have an agenda and I believe that agenda is feeding his narcissist ego, if that means corrupting the world in the process then so be it.
Re: (Score:2)
Really?
If he were to put his efforts into China or Russia he'd have to learn a new language first... Are you sure he'd find that easy?
If America was Russia (Score:5, Insightful)
Snowden would be dead, not worried about an unfair trial.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Hahahahaaa yeah dude, you really need psychiatric help.
Re: Well I'd hope so... (Score:2, Troll)
If you don't think Assange had a role in Trump's election victory, (not to imply that it was a pivotal role) then you're just a willfully ignorant kool-aid drinker. Oh, did you also know Assange is a rapist? Probably not, you think the whole thing is just a ploy by the United States to get Assange, even though the UK would extradite him to the US long before Sweden would have (they are both part of the 5 eyes, after all, and Sweden is not.) But don't let the fact that the US was able to pluck him directly o
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: Well I'd hope so... (Score:2, Troll)
What he did would count as rape in practically every first world country.
Re: Well I'd hope so... (Score:2)
But Bill Clinton...ah...nevermind.
Re: (Score:3)
"The US is the bad guy. I don't see Russia mistreating Edward Snowden"
That's your moral test? How a given entity treats Edward Snowden? I mean, all the other journalists killed in Russia, many of them for their anti-government reporting, don't matter because they're not Edward Snowden?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Assange is a Russian-sponsored provocateur who created an organization that became a front for Russian foreign interference.
Calling people that want him arrested for his crimes against the US as "US shills" is like calling someone demanding a rapist be arrested a "rape victim shill".
His crimes are legitimate. Defending him as if he did nothing wrong is great disingenuous.
Re: Well I'd hope so... (Score:1)
His releases are legitimate. All of the jingoists who want to railroad him to prison will be frowned upon in history. So go ahead and jingo, patriot-boy. Your spot in history is anchored.
Re: Well I'd hope so... (Score:2)
I don't think you quite understand that it is the victor who writes history. Whether a historical event is heralded or frowned upon varies depending on the reader, who's opinions will change from one era to the next.
Though I really doubt you even know much about Assange to begin with. You probably don't even know why Ecuador grew tired of him, and by the time he left, why the embassy staff all reviled him. I'll give the guy credit that he's a smooth talker, but he's not very different from people like Kevin
Re:Well I'd hope so... (Score:4, Insightful)
While I agree that Assange has taken a problematic path, I think it's also important to think about the content of this article. Whether a foreign embassy provides protection to someone the U.S. wants to take into custody or not, it's still not a good thing for us to compromise the security of any embassy and conduct spying activities there.
I don't think that Assange created Wikileaks as a Russian foreign interference front. I do think that once he got into trouble with the U.S. government he became desperate enough (and was naive enough) to allow the Russians to lead him by the nose into unwittingly doing their biddings. As far as he's concerned, political dirt is political dirt, and it doesn't matter if it comes from the Russians or Chelsea Manning or anyone else. That's where he's naive, because the information he received from the Russians failed to provide any insights other than provide political ammunition for one campaign against another.
I agree with Assange that governments ought to be more transparent. However, he believes they ought to be fully transparent, which is neither feasible nor desirable. This ideological rigidity (as all ideological rigidity does) made him vulnerable to being played and he was.
Re: Well I'd hope so... (Score:2)
Whether a foreign embassy provides protection to someone the U.S. wants to take into custody or not, it's still not a good thing for us to compromise the security of any embassy and conduct spying activities there.
I don't think you quite understand why various countries like having embassies. You ought to read about the purple code; especially if you're into cryptography and/or the history of cryptography.
Re:Well I'd hope so... (Score:4, Insightful)
I did my homework. You didn't. How do you even think things work around here. If the government wants to get someone, they destroy his reputation first.
Nils Melzer on Assange
https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsE... [ohchr.org]
https://medium.com/@njmelzer/d... [medium.com]
Caithlin Johnstone compiled a dossier about Assange smears:
https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2... [caitlinjohnstone.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Neither whistleblower nor journalist (Score:2)
He was never a whistleblower. He IS actually a journalist (with the credentials in Australia to prove it).
He is neither a whistleblower nor a journalist. When you edit video to mislead and knowingly present a false narrative to back your ideological position you are a provocateur. A press credential does not prove otherwise. The only question is a provocateur of Russia or just coincidentally benefitting Russia, perhaps a result of a shared ideology.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I don't see anyone in the Wikileaks video that are actually armed.
That's the problem. The Wikileaks video is edited to remove such stuff. The full video released by the Pentagon shows the journalist walking down the street in a group armed with AK and RPG.
I don't see anyone firing back at the gunship at any point.
The gunships are out there supporting infantry in active combat with insurgents. The infantry was under fire. The journalist's armed group was moving towards the other insurgents already engaged. In others word reinforcing, joining, the current battle.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The full video released by the Pentagon shows the journalist walking down the street in a group armed with AK and RPG.
Got a link for that?
Saw it on the news back in the day. You can google it just as well as I can. The Pentagon video showed more than the Wikileaks video. Assange's video was debunked long ago.