The most remarkable thing in this case, to me, is the extent to which the press colluded with the intelligence officials. The press is supposed to check and balance, but in this case they walked hand-in-hand with the agencies. The article seems to conclude that the officials are being punished for talking to the press - well yes, they worked with the press to suppress the story, and successfully.
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)
It is a good idea to read other country's news about another country. It is even better if the countries has some beefs. I'm not saying the info will be totally accurate, but you will get some info that the gov doesn't want the public to know such as this. Sometime they may mention some scandal, but it will be in a limited hang out ways.
At this point main stream media are just talking pieces for the government and corporations, not really news.
> 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.
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]
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.
The press did not collude with intelligence officials. The press did exactly what they were supposed to do, they looked for sources where they could find them and reported on the findings.
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.
> The whistleblower's revelations, obviously very serious and substantiated, have effectively been buried.
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).
Whose complaint? The whistleblower's? Then why are they prosecuting the spy chiefs instead of the whistleblower, and for being too friendly to the media rather than for being too friendly to the NSA?
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.
It's relative, innit? Compared to Peru where they've gone through something like 10 different presidents in the last decade because of corruption dramas, Denmark doesn't sound too bad.
Scandinavian countries have a lot of trust in their institutions so I would expect that to happen there rather than in countries that have little trust in their institutions.
People are supposed to be (1) kind, (2) selfless, (3) generous, (4) gracious (5) ... but no one acts surprised in the least (“the most remarkable ... in this case”) when they aren’t.
You have to try to be more holistic in your pedantry instead of trying to snipe phrase snippets.
It appears to improve mortality, though not necessarily symptom duration.
HCQ-AZ treatment was associated with a significantly lower mortality rate than no HCQ-AZ after adjustment for sex, age, period and patient care setting (adjusted OR (aOR) 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55, 0.45-0.68). The effect was greater among outpatients (71% death protection rate) than among inpatients (45%).
Still, I'm not sure there's any reason to trust this latest Didier Raoult paper any more than the meta analysis carried out of numerous papers and studies into AZ/HCQ carried out by institutions that hadn't staked their reputation on it being a cure in March 2020
The person he was responding to wasn't simply making a [possibly] incorrect statement about medical treatments, he was insisting that the media generally favouring the emerging consensus of medical professions on treatments was "state lies after state lies" and "all propaganda"
I'm not sure it's fair (or even remotely in good faith) to argue that it's people responding to arguments expressed in that manner that are lowering the standard of internet discourse...
It's certainly fair and probably said in good faith. This is why people say "two wrongs don't make a right". Just because one person is lowering a bar doesn't mean a second can't lower it further.
I'd love to hear how a bar for discourse set at "[everything you read on unrelated wedge issue I've inserted into the conversation] is lies and propaganda" is lowered by "this is disinformation. Here's a study"...
People say "two wrongs don't make a right" when they're not singling out the words of only the second party as the reason why people can't talk to each other on the internet.
> People say "two wrongs don't make a right" when they're not singling out the words of only the second party as the reason why people can't talk to each other on the internet.
People say "two wrongs don't make a right" when they're saying that one bad behavior in response to another bad behavior is still a bad behavior.
> "this is disinformation. Here's a study"...
This is both more reasonable than and different from what was written.
> Where do you get that disinfo??
Couldn't that part simply have been left out? More to the point, is a person definitely wrong for thinking that it ought to have been left out?
> I'd love to hear how a bar [that is ostensibly resting on the ground] is lowered
> More to the point, is a person definitely wrong for thinking that it ought to have been left out?
That is both more reasonable and different from what was written :-p
Yes, I think it is absolutely unfair for someone to observe an exchange between somebody ranting about how mainstream scientific consensus is all lies and propaganda and somebody in turn dismissing their argument for why everything was all lies and propaganda as disinfo, and place the blame for the internet discourse in general being suboptimal squarely on the terms used by the second person.
I'm finding this difficult to follow. As far as I can tell:
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.
This article is severely dated. On 27th October the Supreme Court decided that the cases would only be partially closed to the public and that the accused would have full access to the charges and supporting material. The Prosecution Service asserted that this would expose highly sensitive material to unacceptable risk of unauthorized disclosure and dropped the cases.
As many others, I find the whole thing to be a complete mess and we have no idea of what is actually happening. The Supreme Court must have had access to the charge and the relevant material, and the court apparently disagrees that charge and evidence is sensitive enough that at warrants closed doors.
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.
> 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.
The only way this would make sense is if there’s more to it than what Snowden has revealed. A minister involuntarily confirming something that already leaked is grounds for a stern telling off in private by the Prime minister, but not this.
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.
One small way this might affect some of us: there is a Danish Navy officer called Anders Puck Nielsen, who is an expert on Russia. He works for Military Intelligence and teaches at the Military College. He also has a very good YouTube channel explaining what’s happening in Ukraine.
I’m hoping this won’t discourage him from giving what is fantastic context.
It is worth noting that it is now confirmed by both Finnsen and Hjort that the case is about the US run, Danish facilitated, signals espionage operation directed primarily towards Sweden and Germany (kabelsamarbejdet).
Such an utter disgrace for Denmark and the Danish people. To sacrifice all your credibility in the Nordic and European community, to be the lapdog of a US intelligence agency. Absolutely pathetic.
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.
For anybody looking to read up on this, the official name for the internal investigation of 'kabelsamarbejdet' is Operation Dunhammer (translated to Operation Typha).
Except the comment higher up says the prosecution dropped the case due to disagreeing with the court's decision that information wasn't deemed secret enough.
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.
I'd ague this is exactly how it's supposed to work in a democratic rule of law:
- 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.
With more public information about these things I think we're seeing
the fault lines and friction between orgs that were previously less
pronounced or hidden.
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.
One downvoter has yet to read Yuri Bezmenov's on "active measures",
and never saw how in the 1960s Oxford University, MI5 and GHCQ became
a giant KGB party.
Intelligence agencies have become a problem. It seems like they take the most aggressive, most skilled in the art of deception, most power-hungry people that society has to offer, then they give them weapons and full access to all of the country's top tech and information... What could possibly go wrong? Who came up with the idea that these were the right kinds of people we need for such jobs?
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.
Do you think intelligence services worked differently in the past? Why would it need force instead of legislation, change in personnel, different oversight, etc.?
I know they worked differently in the past. The abilities are different, just as Facebook is different from the telephone.
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.
People who are intelligent but can entertain contradictory ideas, respect differences of opinions and aren't very power hungry or status-oriented. Also they need to be highly self-aware and altruistic.
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.
So wait, let me get this straight:
- a guy with access to highest level state secrets discloses them to his family members and possibly journalists.
- he is shocked they investigated, surveiled and prosecuted him for this because of why?
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.
No. Two people with access to the highest level of state secrets have in public acknowledged something which although officially a state secret, has in fact been public knowledge since the Snowden revelations.
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)