Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Government United States

America's CIA Reportedly Spied on Julian Assange In the Ecuador Embassy (yahoo.com) 119

Posted by EditorDavid from the speaking-of-leaks dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

America's CIA Reportedly Spied on Julian Assange In the Ecuador Embassy More

America's CIA Reportedly Spied on Julian Assange In the Ecuador Embassy

Comments Filter:

  • This is news? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Snotnose ( 212196 ) on Saturday September 28, 2019 @04:37PM (#59247570)
    Of fucking course they did. What is news is they got found out.

    • Re:This is news? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Freischutz ( 4776131 ) on Saturday September 28, 2019 @04:50PM (#59247602)

      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)

        by tinkerton ( 199273 ) on Saturday September 28, 2019 @05:19PM (#59247670)

        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'.

        • Why is state monitoring of a person wanted for extradition a bad thing?

          • 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?

            • 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?

            • Excuse it? No, but they would do it anyway if it was feasible.

    • 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)

        by Cederic ( 9623 )

        Looks like fireworks on the 31st October and every single day that follows that the UK remains in the EU.

    • 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)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Saturday September 28, 2019 @06:37PM (#59247844) Homepage Journal

      The news is that extraditing him just got a lot harder because they spied on his lawyers.

      • LOL!

        Don't worry, I'm sure the Judge will ask your opinion and change the law for you.

      • 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.

    • What is news is they got found out

      Couldn't you say that about practically any investigative journalism piece?

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • And? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Brett Buck ( 811747 ) on Saturday September 28, 2019 @04:40PM (#59247578)

    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.

    • 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.

      • 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]

        The recent Soviet actions against Americans come at a time when Western counterintelligence services have stepped up their actions against Soviet agents. Nearly 100 Russians have been expelled for intelligence activities around the world this year, more than twice the total for all of last year. This year's number i

      • Every remotely competent country does this. The US just happens to have more resources than most.

    • Re: And? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Schmo Schollie ( 6164562 ) on Saturday September 28, 2019 @06:02PM (#59247788)
      Releasing documents someone else leaked is not espionage. The US just has a knack for deciding whatever they deem "classified" as punishable and feel they can apply that law to anyone and anything on the planet. They can even punish people by retroactively classifying documents then charge you later.

      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)

        by DRJlaw ( 946416 ) on Saturday September 28, 2019 @06:20PM (#59247828)

        Releasing documents someone else leaked is not espionage.

        Offering to help break the encryption of a document that "someone else" obtained from the U.S. government, however, is.

        • 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)

            by DRJlaw ( 946416 )

            Offering to do so is just somebody talking. Proof that assistance was given is necessary.

            Proof? [justice.gov]

            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."

            Like that proof?

            Also, you need to commit the crime under US jurisdiction.

            Oddly, U.S. government computers are within US jurisdiction.

            • 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)

                by DRJlaw ( 946416 )

                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?

                That is why you have a trial. You're also welcome to refer to actual evidence rather than offer unsubstantiated conspiracy theories.

                • 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)

                    by DRJlaw ( 946416 )

                    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.

                    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.

                    • 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)

                      by DRJlaw ( 946416 )

                      Say whatever you want, Assange and Snowden are heroes...

                      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)

                      by DRJlaw ( 946416 )

                      Leakers who hurt Democrats [by] publishing their emails are "vain assholes who are self-serving".

                      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.

        • It's all a moot point with retroactive classification. I'm trying to point out it was both espionage and journalism, because the espionage part can apply at any time post access, allowed or denied. Even if one is 'allowed' permission, it can be weaponized against anyone later. Exposing American war crimes in the middle east, financial opportunism in 9/11; initiating a false pretext for war, true depth of the dirt in election politics are all things that would surely put a mark on someone's head. Those must

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by DRJlaw ( 946416 )

            It's all a moot point with retroactive classification.

            You haven't shown that retroactive classification was involved in any part of this.

            I guess people only [want] to see one sliver of any given situation.

            Happy to see you acknowledge that your focus on the ends has made you to blind to the unlawful means.

            • The entire point I was making is it's impossible to prove it or not with how the system is setup. It's all closed doors, all secret and completely slanted towards however the government feels it will deal with any case at its own discretion regarding classified materials, past, present, and into fucking eternity.

              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.
              • The word "Unlawful" is wholly subjective and bullshit with retroactive classification. You can be being lawful one second then years later be deemed unlawful and tried.

                Imagine if the entire US legal system operated the same way with every law. It would be ludicrous.

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by DRJlaw ( 946416 )

                  The word "Unlawful" is wholly subjective and bullshit with retroactive classification. You can be being lawful one second then years later be deemed unlawful and tried.

                  Again, you haven't shown that retroactive classification was involved in any part of this.

                  • Once again, they can choose to make anything unlawful and there would be no possible way to prove it or expose it either way due to the nature of how classified documents work. True, false or in the grey.

                    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
                    • At least I don't make up ideas about Assange and breaking encryption.

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by DRJlaw ( 946416 )

                      At least I don't make up ideas about Assange and breaking encryption.

                      Paragraphs 7-10 and 25 [justice.gov]. You should actually read the indictment sometime.

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by DRJlaw ( 946416 )

                      "Agreed to assist" The idea was not Assange's in the first place, that should be taken into account.

                      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?

                      Assange didn't just go on his own free will to do what he did.

                      Who forced him to do it? Manning? Over the internet?!

                      And at the end of the day, he did NOT break encryption, he attempted to.

                      Oh well, if you've only attempted [findlaw.com] to commit a crime and conspired [findlaw.com] to commit a crime

  • 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."

    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)

      by pjt33 ( 739471 )

      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.

    • 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.

      • 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

        • "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?

          • 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.

            • 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

    • 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.

  • What is really interesting (Score:4, Insightful)

    by AlanObject ( 3603453 ) on Saturday September 28, 2019 @06:01PM (#59247780)

    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.

    • Well the Spanish firm had the access so that is why they where used, more under-remarked is that the firm hired by Ecuador to provide security was the ones selling out their client to CIA, I guess that they now will have quite a hard time finding customers...
    • Greenwald is a Fed stoolie now. He ended the research team that was investigating the Snowden leaks and took the whole archive "dark" so that nobody else can see the stuff Snowden continues to risk his life to share. Barrett Brown even burned the National Magazine Award he won for The Intercept in protest of this clearly-fed-influenced act. Fuck Greenwald six ways to Sunday.

    • They didn't "fess up," the claims come from documents leaked by Spain's High Court, which is investigating the matter.

  • ... 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.

  • 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.

    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)

      by PPH ( 736903 )

      a good way to make a country not trust you at all

      Remember Jonathan Pollard?

    • 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.

  • 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?

  • America's CIA Reportedly Spied on Julian Assange In the Ecuador Embassy

    Well, the CIA are spies, collecting intelligence abroad — some times using locals — so how is this big news? Or even small news?

  • "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)

    by Anonymous Coward

    LOL. What a moron that guy is. Now let's play golf and not release our tax returns!

  • Water is wet.

  • Why are you shocked the American external spy agency spied on a foreigner enemy of the country in a foreign country's embassy in a third country which is an ally of America?

    Stop being stupid.

Slashdot Top Deals

Lots of folks confuse bad management with destiny. -- Frank Hubbard

Close