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]
I don't think there is any for what he might have. Specifically, I was struck reading the article and your list how perfectly this dude matches Cleckley's _Mask of Sanity_ profiles of psychopaths - no long-term plan, continuous lying and deception of others without any remorse, confabulated explanations, impulse-driven actions, big risks taken for trivial gains, grandiosity, self-inflicted financial problems... The problem being that for personality disorders, there are no cures or treatments (and for psychopathy there's some troubling results that attempts to treat it just made them more dangerous).
> The fact that Assange let this guy into his inner circle doesn't give one a lot of confidence in WikiLeaks.
If it's psychopathy, well, I would note that they are famous for fooling even people who have read detailed accounts of their personal history. Cleckley is not the only person writing on the topic who notes personal astonishment at how they were manipulated by a patient even after having read the patient's file. If forewarned is not forearmed, I cannot blame Assange or the other Wikileakers too much.
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.
Thordarson reached out to the FBI for "the adventure" and then continued pinging them for cash. I'm not sure if this is a case of "how far the government is willing to go" as much as 'how widely feelings on loyalty can vary'.
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.
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.
>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.
This self-aggrandizement thing, that's ego, right?
If we invalidated organisations and achievement because people have big egos, then well, what exactly is left?
I mean, Apple invalidated because of Job's ego? All of the Americas Olympic achievements because of the egos of its athletes? Or even the whole of rap music. What about Tesla cars? Invalid too.
You are quite correct, the self-aggrandizement accusation is a smear, and amazingly selective in its use. I mean, isn't the whole of the US government a result of the sitting president's ego? Isn't a presidential run an act of self-aggrandizement?
I would agree that Assange has quite the ego. WikiLeaks does valuable work and their leader is an ass---both can be true. It doesn't have to be one or the other.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Why is it that people always feel the need to ask, "Why is anyone surprised,", when in fact it's not clear that anyone's surprised? Is it just to assert that you're smarter than some group of imaginary surprised people?
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?
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.
[+] [-] ruddi|12 years ago|reply
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...
[1] http://visir.is/-og-bdquo;siggi-hakkari-og-ldquo;-i-gaesluva...
[2] http://www.dv.is/frettir/2013/6/5/sagdur-hafa-haft-fe-af-isl...
[3] http://visir.is/kom-med-lifverdi-a-nefndarsvid-althingis/art...
[+] [-] gwern|12 years ago|reply
I don't think there is any for what he might have. Specifically, I was struck reading the article and your list how perfectly this dude matches Cleckley's _Mask of Sanity_ profiles of psychopaths - no long-term plan, continuous lying and deception of others without any remorse, confabulated explanations, impulse-driven actions, big risks taken for trivial gains, grandiosity, self-inflicted financial problems... The problem being that for personality disorders, there are no cures or treatments (and for psychopathy there's some troubling results that attempts to treat it just made them more dangerous).
> The fact that Assange let this guy into his inner circle doesn't give one a lot of confidence in WikiLeaks.
If it's psychopathy, well, I would note that they are famous for fooling even people who have read detailed accounts of their personal history. Cleckley is not the only person writing on the topic who notes personal astonishment at how they were manipulated by a patient even after having read the patient's file. If forewarned is not forearmed, I cannot blame Assange or the other Wikileakers too much.
[+] [-] GabrielF00|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] valdiorn|12 years ago|reply
Siðblindur aumingi.
[+] [-] jakejake|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] guelo|12 years ago|reply
"A wired article today misdescribes a volunteer's role. Earlier statement: http://wikileaks.org/Eight-FBI-agents-conduct.html … description of role: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/06/herbert-snorraso... …"
"At no time did Sigurdur Thordarson 'work' for WikiLeaks. At no time did he have access to sourcing or publishing systems."
[+] [-] sneak|12 years ago|reply
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|12 years ago|reply
It's almost like they have something to hide...
[+] [-] JumpCrisscross|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] njharman|12 years ago|reply
Is literal and a truism.
[+] [-] sliverstorm|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Amadou|12 years ago|reply
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|12 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] alan_cx|12 years ago|reply
If we invalidated organisations and achievement because people have big egos, then well, what exactly is left?
I mean, Apple invalidated because of Job's ego? All of the Americas Olympic achievements because of the egos of its athletes? Or even the whole of rap music. What about Tesla cars? Invalid too.
You are quite correct, the self-aggrandizement accusation is a smear, and amazingly selective in its use. I mean, isn't the whole of the US government a result of the sitting president's ego? Isn't a presidential run an act of self-aggrandizement?
[+] [-] fatjokes|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lmgftp|12 years ago|reply
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|12 years ago|reply
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|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] smky80|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chrisvineup|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] abraininavat|12 years ago|reply
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|12 years ago|reply
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|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] pekk|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lotharbot|12 years ago|reply
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
[+] [-] alan_cx|12 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] abraininavat|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Inception|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rdl|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vichu|12 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] chiph|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rdl|12 years ago|reply
I wonder how the FBI agents involved feel about him going to the press, now :)
[+] [-] stevedub|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] known|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zipfle|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] amalag|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rusky85|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] _quasimodo|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]