Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

FBI Paid Informant Inside WikiLeaks

timothy posted about a year ago | from the anything-to-keep-the-nsa-off-your-mind dept.

The Media 458

An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from Wired: "On an August workday in 2011, a cherubic 18-year-old Icelandic man named Sigurdur 'Siggi' Thordarson walked through the stately doors of the U.S. embassy in Reykjavik, his jacket pocket concealing his calling card: a crumpled photocopy of an Australian passport. The passport photo showed a man with a unruly shock of platinum blonde hair and the name Julian Paul Assange. Thordarson was long time volunteer for WikiLeaks with direct access to Assange and a key position as an organizer in the group. With his cold war-style embassy walk-in, he became something else: the first known FBI informant inside WikiLeaks. For the next three months, Thordarson served two masters, working for the secret-spilling website and simultaneously spilling its secrets to the U.S. government in exchange, he says, for a total of about $5,000. The FBI flew him internationally four times for debriefings, including one trip to Washington D.C., and on the last meeting obtained from Thordarson eight hard drives packed with chat logs, video and other data from WikiLeaks."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Cheap (5, Insightful)

NemosomeN (670035) | about a year ago | (#44138767)

$5,000? Seems like quite a bit of work and risk for just $5,000.

Re:Cheap (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44138831)

Cheap doesn't do it justice. Laughable is more like it. I was expecting at least 2 orders of magnitude above that.

Re:Cheap (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44138855)

For but a bag of silver he betrayed us.

Re:Cheap (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44138977)

Ironic, isn't it?

Re: Cheap (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44139111)

no, actually, it really isn't

Re:Cheap (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44139257)

Yeah...far better to be like Julian Assange and betray entire nations just for the ego trip it brings. Oh, and the girls.

Re:Cheap (3, Interesting)

DaveV1.0 (203135) | about a year ago | (#44138859)

What work and risk? What is the risk he is taking?

Re:Cheap (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44138973)

Well for one, in the short time this news has been circulating I've heard half a dozen death threats from my immediate circle of acquaintances alone - I dare say someone like this has a bounty on his head from someone somewhere, if not just to simply make an example of what happens to people like that.

Re:Cheap (5, Insightful)

Motard (1553251) | about a year ago | (#44139015)

And we're supposed to be afraid of the NSA.

Re:Cheap (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44139233)

This should be modded as high as it can possibly go for Insightful.

Re:Cheap (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44139097)

Well for one, in the short time this news has been circulating I've heard half a dozen death threats from my immediate circle of acquaintances alone ...

Ah, the true nature of the open minded tolerant far left is revealed. Just the mirror image of the zealots on the far right.

Re:Cheap (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44139267)

Huh? Why do you assume he is a kool-aid drinking subscriber to the "far left"?

You don't have to pigeon hole yourself as a "true-believer" in sock puppets to be a populist who takes issue with snitches working against organizations dedicated to transparency in government.

Re:Cheap (1, Insightful)

NemosomeN (670035) | about a year ago | (#44138997)

Loss of reputation. Also, he probably violated laws in the process. Lastly, there's a risk he screws up enough that the US Gov't not only disavows any association with him, but also prosecutes him to prove even more that he's not a co-conspirator.

Re:Cheap (1)

Motard (1553251) | about a year ago | (#44139073)

Yes, because the U.S. Government needs to prove that they don't have co-conspirators.

Re:Cheap (1)

DaveV1.0 (203135) | about a year ago | (#44139137)

Loss of rep? Really? Ooooh, that is sooo bad. Maybe they will tease him at school too.
He may have violated laws, but probably not. But, as has so often been shown here, the SlashMob doesn't care about that.
Give us a reasonably likely scenario of the last. I am sure it should be amusing.

To me, it sounds like this guy thought he would be some valuable double agent and the reality was he was used by the professionals, which is what happens to wanna-bes, so he is spouting off about his misadventure.

Re:Cheap (1)

bonehead (6382) | about a year ago | (#44139289)

Loss of reputation.

How is that even possible for somebody that nobody has ever even heard of in the first place? You can't lose a reputation until you have one.

Re:Cheap (1)

easyTree (1042254) | about a year ago | (#44139333)

Bone-headed remark :P

Reputation in this context means "one's good name."

Re:Cheap (5, Insightful)

TechyImmigrant (175943) | about a year ago | (#44138881)

$5000 might be reasonable for a bit of work copying some data to some disks, but it is not nearly enough to cover being known as an evil traitor everyone in the world. His reputation is now destroyed and is essentially unemployable in any company or organization that cares about its own image.
 

Re:Cheap (5, Funny)

sentientbeing (688713) | about a year ago | (#44138903)

Off to the NSA with him then

Re:Cheap (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44139157)

this fat kid or the chess master they are actually after

Re:Cheap (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44139237)

this fat kid or the chess master they are actually after

What chess master? The chess players were fired or left wikileaks in disgust. What remained was a silly little egomaniac that like to see himself in the press.

Re:Cheap (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44139045)

His reputation is now destroyed and is essentially unemployable in any company or organization that cares about its own image.

So that rules out maybe two, even three potential employers.

Re:Cheap (4, Informative)

cold fjord (826450) | about a year ago | (#44139091)

$5000 ... is not nearly enough to cover being known as an evil traitor everyone in the world. His reputation is now destroyed and is essentially unemployable in any company or organization that cares about its own image.

I think you significantly overstate the support for Assange and his activities. Living in a bubble with do that to you [commentarymagazine.com] .

Poll: Americans say WikiLeaks harmed public interest; most want Assange arrested [washingtonpost.com] - December 14, 2010

The American public is highly critical of the recent release of confidential U.S. diplomatic cables on the WikiLeaks Web site and would support the arrest of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange by U.S. authorities, a new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds.

Most of those polled - 68 percent - say the WikiLeaks' exposure of government documents about the State Department and U.S. diplomacy harms the public interest. Nearly as many - 59 percent - say the U.S. government should arrest Assange and charge him with a crime for releasing the diplomatic cables.

World opinion is more favorable, but also split.

Re:Cheap (1)

rthille (8526) | about a year ago | (#44139123)

I haven't the time to investigate the methodology of the poll, but WaPo is a rag, so I'd take it with a grain of salt...

Re:Cheap (3, Insightful)

Motard (1553251) | about a year ago | (#44139255)

An excellent use of confirmation bias. My hat is off to you sir.

Re:Cheap (1, Insightful)

AlphaWolf_HK (692722) | about a year ago | (#44139329)

Reputation for what? Isn't wikileaks supposed to be about opening all secrets? What secrets is wikileaks hiding that he traitorously revealed?

Just FWIW: I'm against this whole NSA thing and support Snowden, so I'm neither pro-spying nor pro big-brother. But, wikileaks has built its reputation upon lying about stuff. It's first claim to fame was the collateral murder video where it tried to paint some US soldiers as murderers when indeed the people they killed were in fact armed combatants. I have zero tolerance for lies on these matters no matter who does it, and therefore think wikileaks deserves whatever the hell they get. I also think it is far more of a stretch to believe that Sweden wants Assange so that they can turn him over to the US - the UK is far more likely to turn them over than he is, because they're far more in bed with the US government. Assange is nothing but an attention whore, and I'm sick of hearing his sob story. From what I gather, a lot of people in wikileaks left for the exact reasons I just described.

If you need an underdog to support, support Snowden. He's a patriot, and so is the guy who "betrayed" wikileaks.

Re:Cheap (1)

cold fjord (826450) | about a year ago | (#44138917)

$5,000? Seems like quite a bit of work and risk for just $5,000.

I hadn't heard that Wikileaks operated in the style of the KGB.

Just Like Old Times: KGB Murders Continue [humanevents.com]

Re:Cheap (1)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | about a year ago | (#44138947)

They gave him a lifetime supply of Twinkies as well.

Re:Cheap (1)

QuantumLeaper (607189) | about a year ago | (#44139283)

The next payment of twinkies is next month?

Re:Cheap (2)

Nov8tr (2007392) | about a year ago | (#44139343)

Just curious. Will they also supply all the Twinkies from the months missed? I mean after all, when Twinkies went bye bye till some other company starting making them, he wasn't getting any. So therefore they owe him backlogged Twinkies don't they?

Re:Cheap (4, Informative)

TubeSteak (669689) | about a year ago | (#44138951)

RTFA. He didn't get paid for his work and risk, just for the time he missed from his regular job.

"We'd still like to talk with you in person," one of his handlers replied. "I can think of a couple of easy ways for you to help."

"Can you guys help me with cash?" Thordarson shot back.

For the next few months, Thordarson begged the FBI for money, while the FBI alternately ignored him and courted him for more assistance. In the end, Thordarson says, the FBI agreed to compensate him for the work he missed while meeting with agents (he says he worked at a bodyguard-training school), totaling about $5,000.

As to why

He offered a second reason that he admits is more truthful: "The second reason was the adventure."

Re:Cheap (2, Insightful)

ark1 (873448) | about a year ago | (#44138957)

Before he got recruited, he was a long time volunteer of Wikileaks which means he was probably in trouble with the law. I think he was fortunate to get any money at all from this deal as he had not much leverage. Risk going to jail with nothing or cut a deal for some pocket change and a jail free card - he made the smart move.

Re:Cheap (3, Insightful)

bonehead (6382) | about a year ago | (#44139307)

Depending on your lifestyle, a "get out of jail free card" can be worth more than any amount of cash.

Re:Cheap (3, Informative)

asmkm22 (1902712) | about a year ago | (#44138975)

Read the article. It wasn't exactly an agreed-upon amount for his services or anything. As far as I can tell, he didn't even bother asking for anything until he got canned from wikileaks over setting up a website to sell wikileaks shirts for his own profit, and even then he just asked the FBI if they could help him out with some cash. Hardly a great position to be asking for compensation for services already rendered...

Re:Cheap (1)

Razed By TV (730353) | about a year ago | (#44139017)

All I can think of is Judas for some reason

Re:Cheap (1)

cold fjord (826450) | about a year ago | (#44139121)

That is probably a good thing. I am quite certain that Assange isn't Christ.

Re:Cheap (2)

Motard (1553251) | about a year ago | (#44139161)

Judas did what he did with the full knowledge of Jesus, then committed suicide. Siggi...well, it's not really the same.

Re:Cheap (3, Insightful)

evilviper (135110) | about a year ago | (#44139075)

$5,000? Seems like quite a bit of work and risk for just $5,000.

What risk? Are you confusing Julian Assange for Vladamir Putin, now?

Re:Cheap (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44139095)

They pay their hookers more than that.

In a little room watching his old videos ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44139271)

They pay their hookers more than that.

And if Assange had done so he would not be self imprisoned in a little room, unable to leave his compound. He's probably sitting in that little room watching his old videos over and over like Osama.

Re:In a little room watching his old videos ... (2)

easyTree (1042254) | about a year ago | (#44139357)

Such is the fate of those that expose world-wide corruption of powermongers, murderers and liars.

Re:Cheap (3, Interesting)

niftydude (1745144) | about a year ago | (#44139145)

Cheap? Think of all the other news organisations the FBI need to keep informants in, so that no investigative journalism embarrassing to politicians can get done. Even at $5000 a pop, it gets expensive fast.

On another topic, can anyone who understands the US TLA agencies explain why the FBI was doing this, rather than the CIA? I would have though that using someone from Iceland to investigate an Australian working in Europe would have been considered an international, rather than domestic matter. I'm interested how spending money on an international situation like this falls under the FBI's charter?

Re:Cheap (2, Interesting)

bonehead (6382) | about a year ago | (#44139347)

Legally speaking, that's a very, VERY good question. And one that I'm sure will never get answered.

Dealing with a foreign national, on foreign soil, is quite clearly a CIA matter and not what the FBI is supposed to be doing.

The are probably a couple dozen US citizens (myself being one) who understand this, and would REALLY like to know what happened to these promises of "oversight" that we've been given, the sad truth is that most are more worried about upgrading their 55" TV to a 65" model, and just plain don't give a shit.

Hell, I'm pretty much there myself. This is NOT the country that my grandfather went to war for in WWII. But at 42 years old, I've seen enough to realize that I'm powerless to change anything. My best bet is to just try to make the next 50 years as pleasant as possible for myself and my family.

But change anything? Nah, that's not realistic. The only power I have in that regard is one vote in opposition of the millions of morons here who vote the wrong way.

Re:Cheap (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44139159)

$5,000? Seems like quite a bit of work and risk for just $5,000.

Risk?

BWAAAA HAAA HAAA!!!!

From a bunch of candy-assed metrosexual pussies who only publish the secrets of countries that won't kill them?

If Assange et al had and REAL balls they'd publish secrets from Russia or China.

Of course, then they'd be fucking dead.

Re:Cheap (4, Insightful)

fredprado (2569351) | about a year ago | (#44139299)

If they'd be fucking dead that would make it VERY stupid to do it, not courageous.

But in the end these are only your fantasies about Russia and China. Both countries are completely content in just claim whatever they want no matter what evidence exists against it. US is the only country in the world that goes postal when its "good" image is threatened, because, unlike in these two other countries, US government control over its citizens is based on propaganda alone.

Re: Cheap (2)

uniquename72 (1169497) | about a year ago | (#44139361)

Russia and China have few secrets they'd be embarrassed about. They're happily, openly authoritarian. The US, on the other hand, pretends to be run according to the rule of the people, making it much easier to embarrass.

Re:Cheap (1)

bonehead (6382) | about a year ago | (#44139373)

You don't think Assange and Snowden have "unfortunate accidents" in their future?

We'll never hear about them, of course, but both of them are in a very, very bad spot right now.

Re:Cheap (1)

jcr (53032) | about a year ago | (#44139171)

What risk? WIkileaks wasn't going to have him killed.

-jcr

Re:Cheap (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44139223)

Cheap (for a spy) yet still wasteful. If you heard We had paid $5000 for Airforce One's toilet seat, you might be mad. Did we get anything of real value for that $5000? What if it had been Bill O'Reilly's hard drives instead of Assange's?

Re:Cheap (2)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about a year ago | (#44139245)

$5,000? Seems like quite a bit of work and risk for just $5,000.

Some men just want to watch the world burn.

Re:Cheap (1)

metlin (258108) | about a year ago | (#44139305)

30 pieces of silver.

Re:Cheap (1)

jonfr (888673) | about a year ago | (#44139311)

It is about exchange rate and Icelanders scrambled sense of money.

Current exchange rate (1 USD = 123.29 ISK) (it is about the same now as it was back then when this took place) makes $5000 at 621900 ISK. In Iceland that is a decent amount of money, since most people only have 180.000 - 350000 ISK a month. For this guy this was maybe worth 1 to 3 month worth of his regular income in Iceland, if he was on unemployment benefits at the time, we are speaking about up to 4 months worth of his regular income.

I highly doubt he did ask for more money, since he was just looking at the payment in ISK rather than just USD. That is at least my best guess.

ISK exchange rate, http://www.sedlabanki.is/gengi/gengisskraning/ [sedlabanki.is]

This is high income in Iceland even if it for a short period, but low in the U.S at the same time. Just shows how fucked up things really are in Iceland when it comes to economics and money.

This guy is also an retard for doing this. Since the current shift in monitoring policies world wide are undermining democracy worldwide and that is not a good thing.

Re:Cheap (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44139319)

"We weren't totally pwnd by this situation; we had it under control all along; honest"

This kid's a hero of the Free World. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44138785)

The Home of the Brave should give him a medal.

Re: This kid's a hero of the Free World. (3)

Rougement (975188) | about a year ago | (#44138907)

Please tell me you're fucking joking.

Re:This kid's a hero of the Free World. (2)

Livius (318358) | about a year ago | (#44139065)

Where are the brave calling home these days?

Re:This kid's a hero of the Free World. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44139169)

Valhalla?

Re:This kid's a hero of the Free World. (1)

Motard (1553251) | about a year ago | (#44139189)

Atlanta.

Re:This kid's a hero of the Free World. (1)

Rougement (975188) | about a year ago | (#44139341)

Beat me to it. Well played.

Re:This kid's a hero of the Free World. (2)

QuantumLeaper (607189) | about a year ago | (#44139353)

That BraveS not Brave, you know a S make all the difference.

Not always what it seems (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44138797)

But maybe, just maybe, it isn't quite like it seems. Maybe Thordarson was snooping on the US government.

mysterious accident.. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44138801)

I hope he gets killed. He is a traitor to the public of the planet, and a cheap whore of a traitor at that.

What's the problem? (5, Insightful)

DaveV1.0 (203135) | about a year ago | (#44138813)

Why shouldn't someone part of WikiLeaks, a secret leaking site, leak WikiLeaks' secrets? Surely you can't be surprised by this.

Re:What's the problem? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44138895)

Why shouldn't someone part of WikiLeaks, a secret leaking site, leak WikiLeaks' secrets? Surely you can't be surprised by this.

You can't tell the difference between leaking information in the public interest, such as the killing of civilians, compared with leaking personal information, such as passport photos?

Can't wikileaks lies be exposed too? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44139077)

Why shouldn't someone part of WikiLeaks, a secret leaking site, leak WikiLeaks' secrets? Surely you can't be surprised by this.

You can't tell the difference between leaking information in the public interest, such as the killing of civilians, compared with leaking personal information, such as passport photos?

Why is leaking information on wikileaks internal operations not in the public interest? Say when wikileaks edits and misrepresents events that occur on a battlefield to enflame public opinion with a false narrative? If lies are bad then exposing wilileaks lies is as good an act as exposing pentagon lies.

Re:What's the problem? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44139301)

Why shouldn't someone part of WikiLeaks, a secret leaking site, leak WikiLeaks' secrets? Surely you can't be surprised by this.

You can't tell the difference between leaking information in the public interest, such as the killing of civilians, compared with leaking personal information, such as passport photos?

Irony isn't that big metal thing that mushed your skull and damaged your brain when you were a toddler....

Re:What's the problem? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44138987)

WikiLeaksLeaks

3 months for $5000? (1)

guruevi (827432) | about a year ago | (#44138817)

I mean, it ain't minimum wage but effectively committing treason on your people for the benefit of the corporations isn't really worth that little money.

Re:3 months for $5000? (-1)

DaveV1.0 (203135) | about a year ago | (#44138871)

committing treason on your people

You mean like Manning actually did for free?

Re:3 months for $5000? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44138913)

Learn what treason means. It clearly defined in your constitution.

Re:3 months for $5000? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44139315)

Learn what treason means. It clearly defined in your constitution.

Did you read the definition: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

Clearly Manning aided the Taliban and Al Queda, enemies being engaged on the battlefield at the time. Manning knowingly knowingly leaked battlefield intelligence, names of informers, etc. Manning leaked the raw unredacted info. Using Wikileaks as a middleman hardly changes that. Neither does hoping that someone will redact sensitive info before publication.

Re: 3 months for $5000? (1)

Rougement (975188) | about a year ago | (#44138919)

No, like you're doing right now.

Re: 3 months for $5000? (1)

DaveV1.0 (203135) | about a year ago | (#44138993)

I haven't committed treason against anyone. Manning did and is paying the price for it. Assange, WikiLeaks and the enemies of the U.S. are the ones who gained anything and they don't give a damn what happens to Manning. And, Snowden is as bad as Manning, maybe worse.

Re: 3 months for $5000? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44139047)

I don't think you know what the word "treason" means. Exactly how did Manning, WikiLeaks, or Snowden declare war on the US or specifically aid the enemies of the US with the intent of war? Answer: They didn't. Exposing criminals in our government is NOT treason. I think it's time for you to stop watching Fox "News."

Re: 3 months for $5000? (2)

cold fjord (826450) | about a year ago | (#44139011)

I think its fairly likely that DaveV1.0 owes fealty to neither Wikileaks nor you, hence no treason.

Re:3 months for $5000? (1)

Motard (1553251) | about a year ago | (#44139009)

Depends on who "your people" are, doesn't it? This simple fact explains much of this situation.

Obligatory Now Obsolete. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44138867)

Needs updating [xkcd.com] .

Is there anyone (1)

Presto Vivace (882157) | about a year ago | (#44138893)

who did not see this coming?

Re:Is there anyone (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44138983)

Two stories of people exposing horrible USA wrong doings and now a story about how there is/was an informant inside wikileaks getting paid like crap. I smell the biggest pile of BS.

Re:Is there anyone (4, Interesting)

Kreplock (1088483) | about a year ago | (#44139055)

Assange's narcissism facilitated this - the kid got put to work after the Wikileaks schism, and there surely was not enough manpower to properly vet the new guys. Longest lasting fallout is probably talent that would otherwise have gotten involved now have to wonder whether they are talking to just Wikileaks, or Wikileaks and the FBI/NSA/CIA.

Re:Is there anyone (2)

Presto Vivace (882157) | about a year ago | (#44139229)

Why would you imagine that infiltrators are limited to the US security apparatus?

He should have kept the money and fed the FBI lies (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44138899)

... see title. Kid was dumb.

what he did say for 5k? (5, Funny)

nimbius (983462) | about a year ago | (#44138979)

FBI: what did you learn from infiltrating wikileaks?
Sigurdur: Its headed by Julian Assange
FBI: okay...and....
Sigurdur: and he is on a mission to expose a ton of sensitive information about governments...especially american governments.
FBI:OKAY. AND...
Sigurdur: he intends to release any leaks he receives to the public.
FBI: How much have we paid this asshole already?

Another way to look at this (4, Funny)

skegg (666571) | about a year ago | (#44138989)

The FBI had an internal data corruption, and paid this guy $5,000 to help them restore from "off-site back-up"

Re:Another way to look at this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44139037)

Or he's a double agent, still holding allegiance to wikileaks.

Re:Another way to look at this (1)

Nidi62 (1525137) | about a year ago | (#44139117)

And what, exactly, would he be able to offer wikileaks? It's not like this guy had access to FBI databases or files, he was an informant. That relationship is strictly one dimensional.

Re:Another way to look at this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44139295)

Double agents are frequently conduits which you use to funnel bad intel and misinformation to the enemy.

Douche. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44138991)

Looks like a fucking fatass fag. The dipshit is not even worth 5,000... no wonder that's all the scumbag got.
Congratulations! Now go wait in line at your nearest grocery store for the re-arrival of the Twinkie and buy a few hundred packs to stuff your face with.

Profit? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44139019)

1. Spell Reykjavik with Unicode U+00ED (LATIN SMALL LETTER I WITH ACUTE)
2. Send to Slashdot as UTF-8: C3 AD
3. ?
4. Slashdot receives ISO-8859-1: C3 AD
5. Slashdot prints U+00C3 (LATIN CAPITAL LETTER A WITH TILDE) and discards AD

Re:Profit? (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year ago | (#44139285)

Shouldn't be too difficult:

Reykjavík

And this is surprising to who? (1)

sirwired (27582) | about a year ago | (#44139085)

Gee, the FBI thinks it's valuable to have an informant inside an organization that actively solicits classified intelligence and data of all kinds and seeks to distribute it? I'd be shocked (and disappointed) if the FBI (or other agency) didn't have an informant, or try to obtain one.

This is kind of what we pay an intelligence apparatus to do.

I put this in the same category as the shocking revelations that we try and hack Chinese computer systems.

NSA paid Microsoft to purchase Skype (0)

dicobalt (1536225) | about a year ago | (#44139099)

Of course I'm being flippant, but somehow it wouldn't amaze me.

Re:NSA paid Microsoft to purchase Skype (1)

Motard (1553251) | about a year ago | (#44139337)

Think about Microsoft much? What a strange contribution to the discussion.

Re:NSA paid Microsoft to purchase Skype (1)

dicobalt (1536225) | about a year ago | (#44139379)

Because the title of the article is FBI Paid Informant Inside WikiLeaks. It just popped in my head what can I say.

Sounds fair (4, Interesting)

evilviper (135110) | about a year ago | (#44139107)

Wikileaks was only too happy to reveal internal documents of private organizations the world over, of no prohibitive value to the public, just damaging the companies involved. So they should be HAPPY about the same being done to them, and for the same reasons they did it. After all, if they weren't doing anything illegal, then there's no harm in the FBI having copies of their internal documents, right? Right?

I admit, going through the FBI is a rather roundabout way to get that info to the public, but it should work out in the long-term.

Sympathy? (1)

onyxruby (118189) | about a year ago | (#44139125)

An organization that specializes in betrayal of trust by insiders is complaining of the same. Not sure if serious.....

Getting real, I would imagine every intelligence service worth their weight has multiple moles planted in wikileaks. You would be incompetent as hell to run an intelligence service and not plant moles in wikileaks.

Hell, for that matter I'm sure more than a few corporations have their own agents planted. With the sheer commercial value of the material they get I would imagine organized crime has quite the presence as well. Wikileaks insiders could do well with insider trading. The better question is who doesn't have agents in wikileaks?

The internet, where 14 year-old girls are FBI agents and FBI agents are 14 year-old boys.

jurisiction issues? (4, Interesting)

hurwak-feg (2955853) | about a year ago | (#44139143)

If the FBI was flying him internationally, aren't they going a bit out of there reach? I thought the FBI was (should anyway) only concerned with things happening on US soil. Am I wrong?

FBI spying? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44139217)

I thought that was only tin-foil hat news. I believe I read in the local rag, about Clintons last term, about paying news sources, then the stuff about 9-11 came out several years into bush2's term, then one of the interesting things off the bush term was wikileaks under navy payrole. So that would be old news?

$5,000 is a low price for your character. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44139251)

And once it's gone, it's gone forever.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?