Scandinavian spy drama: An intelligence chief who came under state surveillance
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
The whistleblower's revelations, obviously very serious and substantiated, have effectively been buried. No one in Denmark knows what this case is about, except that these top officials are being prosecuted for vague reasons, and with an undertone that it is all very unfair and probably a bad thing for Denmark.
Frankly, this BBC article probably contains more information than you would have from following the case in Danish media over a couple of years. (edit: Guardian, thanks for the correction)
Par for the course.
Unless I'm reading this very wrong, the "whistleblower" didn't blow the whistle in public, but rather privately reported that is superiors were talking too much to the press?
The people accused are at least big fans of secret deals with foreign intelligence agencies (I never understand how people can claim such a thing is compatible with democracy).
you are mixing the two exactly how the comment you replied to said danish media does.
Am I wrong that the spy chiefs are super-friendly to the NSA?
It's a bit odd if your pretext for persecuting someone is the exact opposite of the thing you actually want to punish them for.
Seriously, it's no wonder the media is confused.
At this point main stream media are just talking pieces for the government and corporations, not really news.
Please substantiate the first clause without
1. Using the Press as a source
2. Using some aspirational/normative source that tells us nothing about how things work out in practice
You have to try to be more holistic in your pedantry instead of trying to snipe phrase snippets.
Everybody in Denmark knows what this is about, it’s a badly held secret. In fact the supreme court denied running the case behind closed doors because the secret is considered “publicly known” at this point[1]
[1] https://www.dr.dk/nyheder/indland/hoejesteret-sager-mod-hjor...
There are a lot of civilizational lies. This one is is among the easiest to figure out.
As this story broke, agents from the intelligence services would show up at all major Danish news outlets to explain that they risked the same treatment as Findsen unless they were very careful in their coverage of the story.
Findsen was essentially "disappeared" for the first two months. Arrested and detained but not allowed to tell anyone about his arrest or whereabouts.
Findsen should not have been speaking to the press a secret source that much is obvious. Imagine the head of the CIA speaking anonymously to CNN about secrets on his own? Unheard of.
This public case has damaged national security much more than just having him fired, and there are some threads to politics (he's rumoured to be hated by the head of the department of the prime ministry, Barbera Bertelsen). However the fact that he is "outraged" or anything of this sort is insane. He dodged a prison sentence and should be happy about that.
The case against Claus Hjort Frederiksen (confusingly called Frederiksen in the article, which is also the last name of the prime minister, Mette Frederiksen) is absurd. He confirmed the cable agreement with the NSA which was public knowledge since Snowden.
Both cases saw vast overreach by the domestic spy agency (PET) in that they used a statute of the law reserved for traitors which is not remotely close to fair in either case.
It's worth noting that the Guardian article is over a month old. Since then all charges have been dropped because the procecution claim they cannot procecute unless everything is in secret, which the supreme court has denied.
1) Denmark partners with NSA for wiretap (presumably while Findsen/Frederiksen are head(s) of the respective agency)
2) Whistleblower thinks agency is overstepping its legal bounds in wiretap collection, files complaint and begins internal investigation
3) Agency dismisses results of internal investigation, tells whistleblower to drop it. Whistleblower subsequently goes to independent/external oversight body for investigation.
4) External oversight body publishes conclusion that agency illegally surveilled the entire country.
5) Findsen/Frederiksen arrested for allegedly disclosing details of the wiretap deal to various people (journalists/family/friends).
I don't get it. What's the connection between the whistleblower and the "leaks"? Does the government need a sacrificial lamb for the illegal surveillance but they can't prosecute Findsen for that, so they're coming up with some alternate charges to placate the public?
As an aside, I have no sympathy for a spy boss whinging that he was under surveillance when (assuming what the whistleblower is saying is true), he was fine with putting everybody in the whole country through practically the same thing.
The NSA wiretap has been in effect since about the late 1990s, long before Findsen and Frederiksen held any position on the matter. The Snowden leaks in 2014 revealed this. So in a sense, it was already public knowledge.
But then it was sort of re-leaked around 2020. The accusation is that Findsen and Frederiksen leaked this information to journalists and the public. The watchdog situation is technically a different matter, but the theory is that Findsen is being hit with these accusations of the leaks as revenge for the other thing. Though, I am not sure how true that theory is, but this is how these two things come up as seemingly related.
[1] https://www.information.dk/indland/2014/06/snowden-dokumente...
this is motivated reasoning, or just out of touch
I find it beyond belief that you're allowed, even as a government, to drag someone to court and accuse them of actions that could harm the country, while refusing to let them or their defense know exactly what they did wrong.
Given the Supreme Court's verdict, it sounds like you are not allowed to do that.
I would make sense for an internal party (the anonymous whistleblower) read Snowden’s revelations, understood thank to internal knowledge that there didn’t make sense or revealed something else, and decided to investigate. I’ve seen that myself a couple of times: shocking revelations about a company I work at that don’t add up, unless there’s more to it.
If Findsen or Frederiksen had mentioned any of that, or even alluded to, typically “Oh, the reality is so much worse than that, if only they knew” or (more likely) “They are making a big fuss about normal proceedings; if they knew what’s really happening, they would be so much more upset.” then the accusations (and disagreement) would make sense: they think neither of those statement reveal much and claim their innocence, but someone inclined to attack the program would (paradoxically) want to use that revelation to hurt them.
I’m hoping this won’t discourage him from giving what is fantastic context.
And what is worse, now that the program is confirmed in the open, is that there is zero debate on whatever it is a good thing for Denmark to participate in.
I also think that there have not been any better options. Any other options have been traditional enemies.
The whole "we can't do that because secret stuff would be revealed and people put in danger" excuse seems to be used all too often of late, especially when that secret stuff appears to be illegal.
These cases are withdrawn and the public enquiry that follows will not show anything new.
The fact that it's revealed now doesn't mean that it started now.
Part of me thinks this is how the world really works, and I'm not sure if it's good or bad.
Throughout Europe and the US we have rogue agencies, supreme courts telling governments to desist from actions and that they are illegal, governments ignoring those courts, unelected commissions drafting laws that go entirely against policies and other laws made by their parliaments, private surveillance firms being given a free hand to spy on governments, while the instigating governments officially sanction those actors.... John Le Carre would have considered it all too far fetched for his novels.
Just one thought; this is exactly the sort of disharmony that I would be rubbing my hands in glee over if I were a "non-Western" superpower running psyops and disruption programmes.
- The press is free to dig and find out stuff - that's what they did here.
- Intelligence officials disagree about the NSA deal. Leadership wants to continue, line officer disagrees and goes to the independent control service for the security agencies.
- Several investigations are conducted showing differing results (independent control agency thinks laws are being broken, subsequent investigation found no wrong doing).
- Secret information is leaked, investigated by the security agencies and a case is brought.
- Courts decide on how the case can be brought and ultimately the case is dropped due to the Supreme Court wanting only partially closed doors (so the public will see some of it).
- ANOTHER investigation will now be conducted into how the Justice Department and/or the Prime Ministry has acted.
While many mistakes have been made by different parties here, the checks and balances work well. Nobody has any supreme power or anything here.
One cannot have a free and democratic society with organizations such as the NSA.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/04/ex-danish-defe...
Didn't the US employ ex-Nazis in intelligence jobs at some point? It's just insane to think about. These people can't be trusted to not kill innocent people and yet they're trusted with all the tech and the security of an entire nation. It's like employing a serial killer to be your body guard. Makes no sense.
It seems clear to me that protections designed to prevent corruption have been circumvented and need to be re-established. Likely by force, unfortunately.
The force piece is more of a Canadian perspective. Freedom of expression, association, and movement are not so much under attack as they are available only to those "who hold acceptable views."
The volume of support needed to see change is high and clearing the volume goal involves going unnoticed by the people with more monitoring power than ever before. It also involves risking your ability to feed and house yourself. Those risks are shared with your entire group, who also have to accept those risks.
Then you must factor in who is capable of such risks. Those people are generally well off enough that the basic human necessities threat is removed. They are also overwhelming likely to be benefiting from the current state of affairs (which you see a a LOT of on HN.)
Force creates a new risk for any forceful partipants, but we are closing in closer and closer on the risks of force being less than the risk involved in doing nothing. That is when force can, and will, be used imho. I also don't think it's something you can predict unless you can actively relate to the poor.
There probably needs to be a mix of different people but I suspect there should be a lot more of the kinds of people I described.
While the whole thing might be crazy to be prosecuted in the first place - is 12 years in prison for treason really that draconian?
Because, as the head of the intelligence agency he though the laws do not apply to him?
Now, other journalists are trying to write an extremely convoluted article about the subject.